I think you're getting indignant with yourself there - both the news articles you linked referred to 'a' threesome, the quote about "his threesome" is from your own text.
And all that language about "winning"?
I don't think anyone reading either of those sites will think the guy is going to 'win' anything except a silly no-stakes bet, the kind that kids make all the time. No girl on the planet is going to have a threesome because she lost a bet, unless she was willing to do it anyway. If the original site was genuine but she didn't want to do it, she'd just say "Of course I wasn't serious, piss off", and the guy would be smug and satisfied with having proved her wrong about the hit-count thing, which was the main point anyway - the 'stakes' were just window-dressing.
What's unacceptable is the male urge to possess female queerness.
But is it unacceptable to want to share in the sexual energy generated thereby? Okay, a man may or may not be welcome to join in, depending on participants and objectives, but I don't think it's "unacceptable" for him to be interested in the idea. For instance, I don't see anything that makes me think 'Jim' wanted to own anything - he just wanted to play with it once.
Generally speaking, I think there's a lot of interpretation in this post, and I'm not convinced all of it is particularly accurate.
no subject
I think you're getting indignant with yourself there - both the news articles you linked referred to 'a' threesome, the quote about "his threesome" is from your own text.
And all that language about "winning"?
I don't think anyone reading either of those sites will think the guy is going to 'win' anything except a silly no-stakes bet, the kind that kids make all the time. No girl on the planet is going to have a threesome because she lost a bet, unless she was willing to do it anyway. If the original site was genuine but she didn't want to do it, she'd just say "Of course I wasn't serious, piss off", and the guy would be smug and satisfied with having proved her wrong about the hit-count thing, which was the main point anyway - the 'stakes' were just window-dressing.
What's unacceptable is the male urge to possess female queerness.
But is it unacceptable to want to share in the sexual energy generated thereby? Okay, a man may or may not be welcome to join in, depending on participants and objectives, but I don't think it's "unacceptable" for him to be interested in the idea. For instance, I don't see anything that makes me think 'Jim' wanted to own anything - he just wanted to play with it once.
Generally speaking, I think there's a lot of interpretation in this post, and I'm not convinced all of it is particularly accurate.