How to "win" group sex

[helenic]

A couple of weeks ago, dennyd linked me to http://www.helpwinmybet.com. This site is now down, but consisted of a guy (Jim) who'd made a bet with his girlfriend (Allison):

"I said to my girlfriend that any stupid website could get tons of hits, simply because people are bored all the time. She said that I was an idiot and couldn’t make a website that could get tons of hits if I wanted to. After a long argument (mostly centered around the fact that she called me an idiot) we made a bet: If I could not make a website to get 2,000,000 hits, I would agree that I was an idiot; however, if I could make a website to get 2,000,000 hits, she would have a menage a trois (that's a threesome to you non french-speakers) with me and another girl."

So! Spread the link, up the hit count, help Jim get his threesome. There was a picture of blonde Allison at the top of the page. The hit counter was very nearly at 2 million, and looked set to reach it that evening. As the hitcount got higher Jim updated more frequently, boggling at having created a net phenomenon, and started joining dating sites to try and find their third partner. "Wanna be our third? Click on the link!" It was tacky, but he also posted about having had to update his bandwidth and needing to cover his costs, and was upfront that if you joined this dating site he'd get a bit of cash, and the teasing tone meant that it didn't actually grate.

"Reckon it's genuine?" I asked. "Probably", Denny said, "it doesn't look like it's making a profit." It was written with a kind of appealing ironic humour, and raised a smirk and a giggle when I first looked at it. Denny commented that the girlfriend probably had someone in mind and this was just an excuse, and I thought that you know, more people being open-minded about group sex is a good thing, even if they do go about it in stupid ways, so yeah, trendies making free with the bisexuality and sexual experimentation, that's kinda cool.

I forgot about it, and then yesterday my friendslist was spammed with links to http://www.helpwinthisbet.com. The hit count had been reset to zero, the more recent updates had been deleted; it was started again from scratch. The url was slightly different and the picture of the girl (and names of the characters) were changed, but the text was exactly the same. The other difference was that the contract link is broken - both sites linked to a scanned, handwritten contract, but "This Bet" didn't have the image, which suggested it was a copycat site rather than the newest incarnation of an ongoing hoax. I posted a few comments on the relevant entries pointing out it was a fake, and zotz directed me to an article about the original "My Bet" site on The Register, which not only provides evidence for the previous version's existence, but revealed that the site was for profit after all:

"If you look at the link properties for his links to metrodate.com and gamefly.com (well, the gamefly link is gone, but it did the same thing yesterday), the actual href link takes you through a redirection website! I looked up the owner of the sites that the links redirect through and came across a company named: ValueClick.com, an online advertising firm.

Now, this was before the statements listed for April 5 were posted. He has since stated that he is getting a financial bonus for signing people up for metrodate.com. However, with a click-through redirection system, he's actually making money from people simply clicking on the link to metrodate (not from having them sign up!)."

Why copycat it, then? Is the new "This Bet" site planning to use the same redirection scam? I did some research.

WHOIS doesn't have a listing for helpwinmybet.com: presumably the domain has expired or been deleted. The entry for helpwinthisbet.com is as follows:

Registrant:
Meter Systems
8469 E McDonald Dr
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
US
480 607-8572

Administrative and Techical Contact:
Hanson, Kevin metersystems@gmail.com
8469 E McDonald Dr
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
US
480 607-8572

Domain servers in listed order:
NS0.LETSMEETUP.INFO 69.9.169.144
NS1.LETSMEETUP.INFO 69.9.169.145

Letsmeetup.info? Sounds like a dating site, I thought: and sure enough, if you go to it, it is indeed: the sexiest adult dating community on the web. Apparently. And a whois search on it brings up the following registry entry:

Domain ID: D11936192-LRMS
Domain Name: LETSMEETUP.INFO
Created On: 25-Jan-2006 07:31:43 UTC
Last Updated On: 26-Mar-2006 20:49:45 UTC
Expiration Date: 25-Jan-2007 07:31:43 UTC

Registrant Name: Kevin Hanson
Meter Systems
8469 E McDonald Dr
Scottsdale AZ
85250
US
+1.4806078572

metersystems@gmail.com

Admin, billing and technical details all point to the same guy, running off the same two nameservers. The bet site isn't just a funny hoax, it's owned and run by a for-profit dating community.

Which is, you know, sort of how the internet works and I'm not really surprised. Except that suddenly, the nature of the site becomes a lot more questionable. When I first saw it, I found it funny, and I thought that promoting sexual relaxation and freedom was probably a good thing. When I find out it's run by a male-dominated mid-Western personals and sex site, suddenly this whole assumption is called into question. The majority of people looking at that site won't read it as the girl's bisexuality or the couple's excuse for sexual liberation; they'll read it as clever guy fooling his girlfriend into being a hot lezbo sex object with another hot chick of his choice, all through his clever use of internet technologies (which of course she knows nothing about, being a girl).

The Register:
"By our reckoning, that's a quick ménage-à-trois with enough page impressions left over for Jim to demand the whole thing is videotaped for posterity. Well done that man."

Valhalla forums:
"this guy is a smart fellow, todays hooraa goes to him! although it really shouldnt considering any normal male will help any random complete other stranger to do what ever it takes to have a 3sum."

Demand? And all that language about "winning"? However carefully it's phrased as "all in good fun" and with the full consent of the girl, the implication is clear: what every guy wants is hot, anonymous lezbo action in his bed (does he care who the third girl is? No) and a girlfriend who will accede to his demands for same if he can prove his strength and cunning through use of modern technology. Help Jim get "his" threesome? HIS threesome? The character of Jim/Dan/whatever is gambling with his girlfriend for her own sexual autonomy, and he's capitalising on the fantasies of other males in order to do so. Why else would it get so many hits? Even if it wasn't planned and funded by a profiteering male-owned personals/sex site, it's still objectifying: not necessarily in itself (if the girl had been fully complicit, fine - although do we hear her voice? Only through the male writer) but in the assumptions and desires to which it's designed to appeal.

This isn't about the female body: Hell, I look at porn, I'm (occasionally) a nude model. I'm all for looking at and thinking about the naked women. What's unacceptable is the male urge to possess female queerness. Despite the FHM "threesome phwoar" attitude, the truth is that the fact that I sleep with women and have mixed-sex threesomes is not ethical or acceptable to the majority of society. In the pub the other day the barman overheard elise and I talking and reacted with a mixture of amusement, lechery and fear that is completely normal. Our sexual choices and autonomy, when viewed by the majority of society, only become okay if they are controlled and presented and normalised by men. Jim "winning" "his" threesome? Go Jim! Women wanting to snog each other in public without offending anyone and marry and raise kids? Well, if Jim isn't there to run the show, I just don't think we can accept that.

Interestingly, in the time it's taken me to write this, helpwinthisbet.com appears to have gone down. I'm not going to start forming conspiracy theories, I'll just be glad the internet is rid of it and hope it stays that way. There's a cached version here in case you haven't seen the site and the above entry makes no sense.

Comments

[vardebedian.livejournal.com]

So here's a genuine question.

Men clearly want to objectify women as sex objects.

Women clearly don't want to be objectified as sex objects by men.

Why should the women get what they want out of this deal and the men be denied it? There's a slight utilitarian bias towards women because there's marginally more of them, but otherwise...it looks like women have managed to pitch the thing they want as good and normal and the thing men want as bad and wrong. How? Why? It's just things people want. Why is one valid and the other not?

[thene]

Because denying men from getting what they want isn't going to do them any harm, whereas denying women what they want could well be very hurtful to them. Come on, would you rather get the blue balls, or get raped?

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Because we're not sex objects, we're people. We had thousands of years as being sex objects, having sexual assault entirely permitted as long as the person who wanted to do it married us first and generally if you were poor nobody cared anyway, our murder being excused as a "crime of passion", not being able to own property, having no choice in what we wanted to do in our lives and whether we wanted to reproduce or not. Women's lives were utter shit. Now women in the UK at least aren't legally seen as sex objects but as human beings, and neither men's nor women's lives are as shit as that*. Clearly women not being seen as sex objects is a good thing.

*except if they're in abusive relationships, but the acts of assault committed by the abusive partner are illegal, it's just society isn't quite there with people feeling able to get out and prosecute yet.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Why is one valid and the other not?
Because women aren't just sex objects, so it's factually incorrect.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

It's just things people want. Why is one valid and the other not?

May I recommend that you read some Kant, particularly the version of his categorical imperative that says one should not use another person purely as a means to an end?

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

I think your first premise is false.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

It is not possible to treat someone as an equal if you have objectified them. Not being objectified by men is fundamental to women's equality.

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

Quite simply because, all other things being equal, you ought not todo anything to me without my consent. The fact that this might frustrate your desires is tough. In actual fact, I think I want to say that this will only frustrate your most superficial desires because, in actual fact, you would be happier if you engaged in consensual, non-objectifying relationships with acknowledged equals. Thus, as the t-shirt has it, patriarchy is bad for men.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the internet and all-pervasive advertising.

[polyester.livejournal.com]

Congratulations! You would make a great journalist. :)
That's really good research, and analysis. Send it to the register and see if they'll publish it.

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

Yes, seconded!

[purple-pen.livejournal.com]

And thirded. A really thought-provoking piece.

[theobscureone.livejournal.com]

Fourthed?

Also: ugh. Just, in general.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Thankyou, I'm glad my wrath is at least entertaining ;)

Unfortunately, the Register have a 500 word limit on their articles...

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

Ewww. I know it's just the internet, and there are better places to direct one's rage, but eww... the language and attitudes to female queerness you describe are vile, as are the male gloatings. Ugh. Ugh. "His" threesome, begob.

Also, call me oldfashioned, but I always thought that a "ménage a trois" must surely mean an ongoing polyamorous relationship, owing to the "ménage" aspect of it? Hearing it used as a cutesey euphemism for a threesome annoys me. But I may be wrong.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. This comment is appreciated, but I am not going to rant about why because I have work to do and people chiming in to tell me I'm wrong will be upsetting and disruptive. Anyway.

I always understood "ménage a trois" just to refer to the sex act - it's not so much a cutesy euphemism as common usage, as far as I can tell. What does "ménage" mean?

I'm not even going to get started on the invisibility of long-term non-monogamy rant.

[lemonmerchant.livejournal.com]

That's awfully interesting for a whole HOST of reasons.

I'm curious how long that site has been up. There is another website like this one that I learned about in February, except it seems more likely to be genuine. The bet is between a couple of blokes over a thousand pounds, and the requirement is 1 billion unique page hits. Can see the site here if you're curious:

http://www.onebillionpageviews.com/

There's advertising, but it's all very upfront, and it includes a link to "MakePovertyHistory.Org".

[senji.livejournal.com]

They might have difficultly since just under 3/8 of all possible IPv4 addresses are IANA Reserved, Multicast, or Private Use which will require the other 5/8 to be better than 2/5 populated and have everyone visit the website….

[romauld.livejournal.com]

I read about the original on the Register some time ago. My interpretation of their response was that what made the man's actions an object of humour rather than disgust was the the woman had chosen to make a very stupid bet indeed. It was certainly what amused me. The Register was treating the original site as real: knowing them, they will have perpetrated at least some research into checking that. The second site you refer to sounds like a marketing department who figured out very quickly that they could make some money off the idea.

Your broader points about the perverse view of non-conforming sexual practices are well taken.

[ixwin.livejournal.com]

Mmm. I'm not sure that's much better, though. In mainstream porn there seems to be quite frequently an element of gloating over the fact that women are "stupid" enough to consent to various things being done to them.

[thene]

Reading this makes me more interested in hearing your ramblings about your own glamour-posing; while it doesn't take away your autonomy, does it not objectify your body?

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I don't think it does, but I haven't quite formulated my argument yet. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, I've been thinking a lot about writing about it. I don't want to start explaining my ideas in detail on a public post, but if I forget to write about it feel free to remind me :)

[forthwritten.livejournal.com]

I don't think I ever read it as the girl being willing to do this. To me, it sounded like she was being set up as a bit of a prude and "Jim" was not only "beating" her, but had the whole internet on his side.
If it had been both halves of that couple writing it and the girl's voice clearly present then maybe I'd would have felt better about it, I don't know.

It's interesting that in my mind, there isn't really an equivalent for this with the female as the most powerful participant. If it's an FFM threesome then whatever the girls do together it's for "Jim's" benefit, not their own. If it had been an MMF threesome, chances are it would be double penetration or taking turns to have heterosexual sex rather than the boys getting it together.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that sums up a lot of my initial unease with it. If I hadn't discovered that it was a hoax, though, I wouldn't have written the entry - there isn't a strong point to be made about the assumptions and responses to the story if it were true, because any conjecture that it was consensual undermines it. We can't know, which is, yeah, exactly one of the things that bothers me. I suppose the scanned contract on the original site made an effort at it, so I couldn't sustain a discussion of the male gaze dominant in mainstream perceptions/treatments of MFF group sex. I hate that people are using that possible consent in a story that's been proved false to undermine my other points, though. Argh. Anyway. If I rant about it someone's going to start accusing me of feminism or some similarly outrageous crime, so I'm gonna go write my essay.

Thankyou for getting it.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

In the spirit of free publishing on the internet, and hopefully you won't see this as unwanted spam or advertising, but I was hoping I could pimp a post I made (http://azekeil.livejournal.com/271546.html), which this one sparked off. It's around the development of society.

Thanks very much :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

No problem :)

[hythloday.livejournal.com]

trendies making free with the bisexuality and sexual experimentation, that's kinda cool

I'm not going to address your main point (because I'm infuriating like that), but I think there's an interesting subtext right there.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

You do? What?

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Help Jim get "his" threesome? HIS threesome?

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.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I think you're getting indignant with yourself there

"I’m pleading to all my fellow guys (and any supportive ladies) to please forward this to as many people as possible so I can make my girlfriend eat her words... and more importantly get my threesome!"

The rest of your points are hypothetical: you're assuming the story is a real one. As I've said above, it's perfectly plausible that had "Jim" and "Allison" been real, there might have been no exploitation/objectification at all in what they were doing. Who could tell? It's between them, and had I not found out it was a profiteering hoax, I'd never have written the entry. If you remember, I laughed at it too. I say as much.

The point is that "phwoar hot blonde chick having to eat her words and have a threesome because her bloke won a bet because she's stupid" is sufficiently tantalising that Kevin Hanson decided to use it in order to make money. The question is then this: why is girl-on-girl action drooled over by FHM readers who don't support gay rights? My theory is: because girl-on-girl action is okay if it's for the sake of the FHM readers, and the idea of Allison+1 is okay rather than queer or weird or gay if it's for the sake of Jim and all the blokes cheering him on.

[whatifoundthere.livejournal.com]

Brilliant. I think this really ought to be published somewhere unfriendslocked so that it can reach a wider audience.

I have lots of inchoate thoughts about the issues you raise here but I have a paper to write and so do you, so I'll just leave it at "Brilliant" for now.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Thankyou. The paper is now suffering from me caring too much about important things. Not being heard despite explaining myself clearly many times makes me sad. Papers are not easy to write when one is sad.

It's public, btw :)

[biascut.livejournal.com]

Great rant - I've just got a FWD'd email through from someone about it. Aargh and ugh.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Ugh indeed, although I confess I was less shocked by the thing that provoked the rant than by the fact that thus far, I've only had one male respondant to even approach understanding what I'm on about. And that among an audience heavily weighted towards queers and generally sexually enlightened individuals! I hadn't ever experienced the common feminist "men just don't get it" wail, and it's horrible.

Omg though, who forwarded it? I know it's public, but still if it's being propagated I'm curious ... someone on my flist presumably?

whois info for helpwinmybet.com (the first site)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Jim Johnson
2400 Fountain View Dr.
Houston, TX 77057
US
(832)252-1402
winthebetjim@yahoo.com

Domain created on 12-Mar-2006
Domain expires on 12-Mar-2007
Last updated on 27-Apr-2006

Domain servers in listed order:

BUYDOMAINS1.DOMAINDISCOVER.COM
BUYDOMAINS2.DOMAINDISCOVER.COM

Re: whois info for helpwinmybet.com (the first site)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

So it almost certainly was genuine, then? That fits: the Register certainly thought so.

I still find the reactions it engendered disgusting, though.