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

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Of course I don't. I think that the mainstream FHM-reader male fantasy of a MFF threesome is objectifying, reductive, and indicative of a prevalent assumption that female queerness is only okay if controlled and possessed by men. It's not just the domain of bigots - it's the domain of decent guys who just don't think about their assumptions. They wouldn't necessarily condemn homosexuality either - they wouldn't think about it; they see their male fantasies as apolitical. That is what I object to.

I also object to a male person saying "I haven't seen the sexism you describe in action" when they are protected from this *particular* form of social violence (not all forms) by their gender. Look at it this way:

- every single female respondent to this thread agrees with me and things my observations match their own experiences
- all but *one* of the male respondents to this thread feel that my observations are an over-reaction

I'm not talking about all men or all women or all forms of oppression, but the pattern is being demonstrated even as you disagree with me! When there is a male/female divide, in what way is it helpful to pretend it isn't there? I'm not proscribing anything - I'm shocked the divide exists and hadn't expected it to until I started getting replies. Looking at that pattern, and the fact that your gender protects you from the social violence under discussion, are you honestly telling me that your gender has nothing to do with your hesitance to believe my claims?

[samoth.livejournal.com]

Well I'll try and buck the trend by being a (straight, monogamous) male respondent and entirely agreeing with your observations. In the interest of full disclosure though, I'm a male who was raised for most of his life by a pair of lesbians, so I probably have a rather different perspective on this than the average 'guy on the street'.

I do recognise entirely what you're talking about in terms of how gay female sexuality is regarded as fine if it's in a 'phwoar, 3some' FHM style, and repellent if it's in a form which excludes it from being purely for male entertainment.

I've found myself in a number of very uncomfortable discussions with otherwise quite enlightened and 'right on' men when I've questioned this attitude with them when they've made the 'traditional' comments about it, and I've tended to disagree. I do entirely see that it's a case of people assuming that their attitude is apolitical and normal and shouldn't cause any offence.

I've definitely seen the kind of unpleasant behaviour you describe directed towards women displaying physical affection in public, both of the 'phwoar can we watch' variety, and of the 'ewww, horrible butch dykes' variety, depending on who was involved.

It is offensive. It is objectionable. It's perpetrated by both sexes too, as I've seen women indulge in much the same set of prejudices too, towards gay women.

I'm slightly horrified there haven't been more supportive male responses here to be honest.

[biascut.livejournal.com]

*shakes your hand very very vigorously*

very very pleased to make your acquaintance! rock on!

[samoth.livejournal.com]

*shakes back*

Delighted to meet you too :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Thankyou thankyou thankyou! You restore my faith and sense of reality. Not that I need male support but the whole enlightened-yet-blind-to-sexism thing was *really* getting to me. There is a genuine problem - several of them - and I don't know how to communicate to otherwise enlightened and "right-on" men about it either. Except by writing on LJ, I suppose.

"Supportive" is the word. Several of the male respondents do agree with me, I suspect, they just aren't willing to come out and say it, for some reason. They have less at stake in it. It's not their fight. *sighs*

Anyway, I'm glad you can see it too and I'm not actually going mad :)

[samoth.livejournal.com]

They have less at stake in it. It's not their fight. *sighs*

While I can see what you mean here, and agree that men in general have less 'stake' in it, I don't think I do feel entirely like it's not my fight.

I've always tended to feel like it *was* my fight too, because with my upbringing then I've always wanted to be able to clarify how where I stood was different to where the 'norm' for my gender was assumed to put me from a personal point of view, and also because I find those attitudes unpleasant to be around and want to be part of the process of change, rather than just assuming it's the status-quo and should be ignored.

I do think informing people about sexism, particularly the kind of implicit, unexamined kind in otherwise fairly enlightened people *is* a worthwhile fight, and is something that I wish to be involved in. Although I have to admit that some of the biggest discussions/arguments I've had with people with utterly unreformed, anti-feminist, etc. viewpoints, have often been women. This makes me most sad (and also makes me look very odd, when I'm apparently arguing the 'feminist' standpoint much to their surprise)

So yeah, I do think you're doing a good thing by forcing people to examine this issue rather more, and I do think you deserve support in doing so. You've definitely got mine.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Well, you rock. My generalisations are pessimistic and I am pleased to be shown that they are not universally applicable :D

I'm still trying to clarify where I stand, by the way. Being a confident, independently-minded feminist who is also a masochistic femme submissive is not the easiest of things to do while trying to be thoughtful and responsible and adult.

I've only recently started realising how many misogynistic women there are out there. I've seen bigoted sexist women, but not against women in my experience. Realising how common that is is just as depressing.

And thankyou, again :) Feel free to propagate the post if you want. And do you mind if I add you?

[samoth.livejournal.com]

Tah muchly.

I'm still trying to clarify where I stand, by the way. Being a confident, independently-minded feminist who is also a masochistic femme submissive is not the easiest of things to do while trying to be thoughtful and responsible and adult.

I do understand the contradictions you face in trying to reconcile those two - I had similar issues as I got older and tried to deal with the contrast between an upbringing by fairly radical feminist lesbians, and discovering I had somewhat Dom tendencies. If it's any consolation, I don't actually think there's any contradiction in your politics and your sexual preferences, but it's easy to see how many people might *assume* there is one.

I've only recently started realising how many misogynistic women there are out there. I've seen bigoted sexist women, but not against women in my experience. Realising how common that is is just as depressing.

I've run into an unfortunately large number of misogynistic women - I don't know if it's just that I get to see it more frequently as they're more likely to voice such opinions towards other women in my presence than yours as they assume I'll support them? An awful lot of it is the same kind of unexamined received opinion that this discussion has been about though too.

And do you mind if I add you?

Feel free, I've added you back :)

[burritob.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to add here that I do agree with your observations (why wouldn't I?), but I can't readily subscribe to your inferences when they are predicated on this male/female schism. As has been noted by you and others, there's misogynistic women, and enlightened, progressive men - the way that I see it, the problem comes from the ideology, not the presence or absence of dangly parts.

But I may well be miissing your point? If I've been talking past you on your own LJ, I do apologise - you are a gracous host. :)

In any event, if FHM readers are mainstream, decent guys, I'm forced to concede that I don't share a worldview with the masses, and we are most probably doomed.

[forthwritten.livejournal.com]

the way that I see it, the problem comes from the ideology, not the presence or absence of dangly parts

The problem being that society exposes you to different ideologies based on what gender it perceives you as.

[burritob.livejournal.com]

The problem being that that implies that we are inherently divisive, and will never be able to achieve a fair and equal society whose members need not constantly walk around on eggshells. That rubs me up the wrong way.

I must say, the thought of being considered irrationally optimistic is novel to me :)

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

Where have I hesitated to believe your claims?

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I inferred it, perhaps incorrectly. Did you hesitate to believe them?

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

You have now said so many things over the course of this discussion that it would be tedious to go through them all indicating whether I agree, disagree or am unable to comment. However, I understand the thrust of your claim to be that the site referred to plays on a widespread male desire to possess female sexuality/queerness. I have no hestistation in accepting that.

It seems to me that you discredit a perfectly good argument by unnecessarily gender polemical language and by responding to perfectly reasonable comments with argumentum ad capslock.