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

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

You could link to the whois output pages instead of including their text.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Why would you want me to publish something you think is inaccurate?

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I could be wrong - happens frequently :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Not that frequently. In this case, though, I think you are. You'll note I've avoided playing the "yeah but you have male privelege" card thus far, however, because I'm good like that.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I am actually trying to find out why I'm wrong if I am, rather than just being awkward, but hopefully you'd given me the benefit of that doubt :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

It is interesting that the only people challenging my conclusions to this post are male.

[hythloday.livejournal.com]

There are a host of alternative explanations for that that aren't quite as appealing as the obvious one. :)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Men are more likely to be underworked and overpaid layabouts, reading LJ at work? :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Women are commenting, they're just agreeing with my perception of things rather than indulging in point-scoring exercises ;)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

ps. You aren't indulging in point-scoring. The other fella was.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

On the bright side, at least I'm not part of the fascist heterosexual orthodoxy :-P

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Yeah, which is why I'm genuinely surprised you don't trust me when I say my impression of society is that queer women are objectified by a hypocritical and predominantly male gaze. I had so many hopes that you would understand!

Boooooooo to heterosexism. Booo to it.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Oh, I trust you when you say that it's your impression, I'm just not sure if your impression is correct.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that my life has been sufficiently alternative (in many respects) for sufficiently long that I've lost the ability to figure out what the average man in the street is likely to be thinking half the time. Which initially sounds like a good thing, but it would be useful to be able to keep track of the guy if only to avoid him.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

The problem is that it's difficult to believe in oppression you haven't experienced. This is why it's important to write things like this.

When I read in the papers that a female couple was asked to leave a pub because they displayed transgressive affection in public, do you think I should accept that's just how things are and not care about it or try to change the underlying assumptions behind it? When blokes drive past me and hurl sexually abusive comments at me, should I accept that that's normal and okay? When male shop assistants patronise and objectify me to my face, should I have the right to complain to their managers, and should I have the right to be believed and treated with respect regardless of my gender?

Because I'm not just talking about sexual violence, I'm talking about the assumptions and bigotry of normal people, every fucking day of the week. And we don't make noise about it most of the time, because when we do we're told our impression is wrong, and we're overreacting, and it's just comments, it's just fun, and it's not, it's fucking violence, and it's not acceptable. And when we blog about it, even queer intelligent men tell us our impression is wrong, and we're overreacting.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

The problem is that it's difficult to believe in oppression you haven't experienced. This is why it's important to write things like this.

Sure - and that's I think it's important for me to discuss it after reading it, instead of shrugging and moving on.

When I read in the papers that a female couple was asked to leave a pub because they displayed transgressive affection in public, do you think I should accept that's just how things are and not care about it

No.

or try to change the underlying assumptions behind it?

Which are?

When blokes drive past me and hurl sexually abusive comments at me, should I accept that that's normal and okay?

No. How often does this happen? What do they shout?

When male shop assistants patronise and objectify me to my face, should I have the right to complain to their managers, and should I have the right to be believed and treated with respect regardless of my gender?

Yes. Is it your experience that this isn't the case? Do you think it's just because you're female, or could your age be a factor? I used to get crappy attitude from shop staff a lot when I was younger, but hardly ever now.

Because I'm not just talking about sexual violence, I'm talking about the assumptions and bigotry of normal people, every fucking day of the week. And we don't make noise about it most of the time, because when we do we're told our impression is wrong, and we're overreacting, and it's just comments, it's just fun, and it's not, it's fucking violence, and it's not acceptable.

You start off here saying you're not talking about violence, and then sum up by saying "it's fucking violence". Being thrown out of a pub for kissing your same-sex partner isn't violence, it's prejudice. Being yelled at by yobs or patronised by shop staff isn't violence, it's rudeness. This set of statements is the kind of thing that I would generally read as an over-reaction, because it's delivered with far more passion than precision.

Yes, all those things are unacceptable, and it's hard for me to say how often they happen to a female compared to how often they happen to a male. I'll take a guess that a gay male couple would be more likely to get in trouble for kissing in public than a gay female couple though. And for that matter I've noticed people sneering at us when we're kissing on the tube... some people are just prudes :)

[bluecassandra.livejournal.com]

You know that argument we have about how deeply fucking annoying it is when people that don't have to deal with shit say that people who do have to deal with shit should be all logical and none emotive about it because it's getting in the way of the debate, particularly when it feeds into a women=emotion, men=rational, rational= better construction?
Just have it with yourself now, yeah?

[libellum.livejournal.com]

See my point below on the difference in stakes...

Denny can shrug off the issue for the sake of it not being "a simple explanation." And in doing so, he contributes to the enforced silence of the oppressed and men not believing the testimony of women and at that point I get so angry and frustrated that I stop being able to type.

Yeah.

[bluecassandra.livejournal.com]

On the upside, he was reading hard enough to bother sending me the link, and he must've known I'd agree with you!

[libellum.livejournal.com]

But despite efforts to understand, and coming from a queer, enlightened, politically activist, sexually liberated perspective, if he still fails to believe us when we say his experiences are not representative of an underlying hypocritical heterosexism in society ... well, it don't bode well, is all. The fact that even someone in that position is inclined to a) dismiss it as unimportant and b) trust their own experiences over the testimony of the victims is fairly good demonstration of male privelege and the effect it has on women being accused of lying, overreacting, or making it up when they try to speak up about sexism.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Here is a link (http://jane-the-23rd.livejournal.com/110556.html#cutid1). It is anecdotal evidence that does not prove my point. However, reading it will be good for your soul ;)

[burritob.livejournal.com]

That link is horrible! I'm sickened both by the act described, and the person describing it. While I hold little against the author (who admitted to her anger in the writing), that's the sort of rant which drives "moderate/liberal/enlightened/whatever men" away from "feminist causes".

I grew up in the hospitality industry, and had a fair amount of contact with unenlightened, blue-collar types - deliverymen, builders and the like. Some, I daresay, held sexists points of view. Likewise racist, or homophobic views. But few of them were open about it. One time, a new driver was way out of line dealing with a woman who worked in our restaurant. We complained, he was sacked.

I've only been in the UK for a couple of years, and it does seem like sexism, racism (and other -isms) are more prevalent and openly-held in London than they are back in Australia. I don't know whether the UK lacks legal protections Australia has, or whether they simply haven't been enforced to the extent required to bring about a change to the zeitgeist. In any event, I can kind of understand where your point of view comes from - but it's still horribly depressing to hear it.

I like to think that the majority of men view other people the same way I do. By and large, in the circles I move in, that appears to be the case. I know that there are others whose views I consider neanderthal, but I believe that they're a diminishing minority. When I hear about isolated injustices, I honestly believe that complaints can be made and grievances redressed. I believe that by individually asserting what's right when we need to, we gradually drive society in the right directiion.

So yes, when I read your post it struck me as reading far too much into the situation. Maybe it's not - if the world is the way you perceive it to be, I guess your reaction is spot on. The problem is, that reading of the situation assumes a world that doesn't fit with the one I think I live in.

I don't really know how to reconcile that, but I can assure you that When I Am King that those men who sully the good name of my enlightened brethren will most certainly be on The List...

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I don't think your experiences are representative. *shrug* If you read the rest of the thread, it seems to be the case that most men don't experience what every woman who's replied (and a couple of men) agree to be prevalent behaviours. It's called male privelege, and it's not your fault, and you avoid being chauvinistic by accepting you have it and listening to the testimony of people who don't have it.

I like to think that the majority of men view other people the same way I do. By and large, in the circles I move in, that appears to be the case. I know that there are others whose views I consider neanderthal, but I believe that they're a diminishing minority.

I consider this to be irresponsible wishful thinking. It's like believing AIDS isn't a problem in Africa, because you're not in Africa and therefore can't see it.

[burritob.livejournal.com]

I did read the rest of the thread, and I agree with your summary of the respondants :)

I have to say, though, "t's called male privilege" just seems like a polite way of writing "either you agree with me, or you're wrong". There's no question in my mind that some individuals and some segments of society do look upon and treat women in the manner you describe. I also readily agree that I can not get a fiirst-hand appreciation of the extent of the problem. However, it seems a bit rich to suggest that I'm being wholly naive in believing that some quantity of men do in fact view women as respected equals. Their number might well be lower than I like to believe, but I'm willing to hear that.

Asserting that no man can determine - without female input - what constitutes chauvinistic behaviour walks us to another extreme, wherein men are prevented by being good by their very nature, and must subjugate their judgement to women if they want to be good. Or doesn't it? I'm genuinely having trouble finding the happy medium in this debate.

I consider this to be irresponsible wishful thinking. It's like believing AIDS isn't a problem in Africa, because you're not in Africa and therefore can't see it.

That's just being crass - if you care to re-read my comment, you'll note that rather than advocating a "heads in the sand" approach, I think that the people with the right ideas should be moving everyone else in the right direction. If you feel that that is wrong and/or ineffectual, I would love to hear more as to why...

[biascut.livejournal.com]

I've only been in the UK for a couple of years, and it does seem like sexism, racism (and other -isms) are more prevalent and openly-held in London than they are back in Australia.

It's my experience that any new culture seems more sexist/racist/whateverist than one's home culture because noticing prejudice is like trying to smell your own perfume: you stop noticing what's there all the time, and it's very hard to see even when you're specifically looking for it. When you move to a new country, you don't really notice the absence of the forms of prejudice you grew up with but you do notice the new ones you didn't encounter at home.

My ex-girlfriend was American and was shocked at the way discourses of race operated in Britain, and I was similarly shocked by how they operated in America. Both of us felt that the foreign countries were "more racist" than where we'd come from, but I think it's much more the case that we were just encountering different ways of thinking about race (eg. integration vs. assimilation).

Depending on how long you spend in London, you might find that Australia seems much more sexist than you remember it when you go back!

[bluecassandra.livejournal.com]

You've read our forums. I have a horrible feeling that their sociopolitical commentary, such as it is, is pretty averagely stupid, ignoring the insane bits about stockings.