Bisexual Hot Chicks and the Porn Principle

Wow! Gentle readers, we have yet another winner in the "pester me once and I'll ignore you, pester me twice, and I post your words on my website and my friends make ruthless fun of you" category known as "stupid IM transcripts." That and, quite frankly, it's a Monday, and as we all know, at least 90% of all funny jokes are not funny on Mondays.

Thus, we do what we must to make the Monday bearable.

Enough of the yapping, let's get jiggy with the transcripts. First up is a conversation from December 19 that I'd since managed to forget. Today's winner is the yahoo user commercialparts; perhaps some of y'all should consider giving this hard-workin' man a shout-out?

  Session Start (Yahoo! - quallsac:commercialparts): Thu Dec 19 10:04:30 2002
commercialparts: hello,,, i did read your profile,, and yes i know im sending this at my own risk,,, but here goes,,, my wife is very interested in experiencing a woman in OUR bedroom,,,, she nd i are looking for just a woman,,, would you be at all interested?
  *** Auto-response sent to commercialparts: I, too, must sleep. I do not type in my sleep, and therefore you must await my awakening to receive a response.
me: and by any chance did you actually look at the webpage that accompanies my profile?
commercialparts: wow you are awake
no sorry ,,
if i have offended you i appologise,,,
im sure i have my answer
me: So why do you do the trolling and not your wife?
commercialparts: as i just stated,,,,,, WE BOTH are looking,,,
any who's,,, you have a great day ,,
  Session Close (commercialparts): Thu Dec 19 10:15:49 2002

Aside from the callous misuse of the poor comma key, ho-hum. This is low-level noise and really not worth repeating, except that another ping popped up today.

Today is Monday, thus requiring me to wake up and roll out of the snarky side of the bed. Since my burning questions (kind of like jock itch, except you can tell your friends about it without blushing) were still left unanswered, I felt the need to get more information.

  Session Start (Yahoo! - domesticat01:commercialparts): Mon Jan 06 12:07:57 2003
commercialparts: hello,,,
commercialparts: my wife is looking for a woman to make love to for the very first time,,,,
me: Then shouldn't she be doing the research?
commercialparts: she is,, also looking,,,
figured if both of us are ,, we would double our chances
me: In theory, yes. But why via instant message?
commercialparts: hey im open for sugestions,, will be a first time
me: That wasn't what I asked - why search for people through IM services?
commercialparts: well,,, for one thing,,, we dont do the bar sceen to much,,(gay bars) and if we do it here,,, we get a answer quicker it seems
me: I have trouble seeing the difference between picking up a random stranger via IM and picking one up at (as you call it) a 'gay bar.' That way, you at least get to see the person in question first.
commercialparts: oh believe me,,,, if someone is interested ,, there will be a meeting and talking ,, before any engagement is made
me: I should hope so; I'd think it would be rather rude to toss your wife into the sack with some random stranger and say "Here, make like puppies or something."
commercialparts: well ty for your concern,,, im just goin to make a guess here,, and guess you wouldnt be interested?
me: Not even remotely, but the "stupid IM conversations" page (which is linked in my profile) is about to get a Post of the Day.
commercialparts: ok,,, well you have a great day,,,, and again ty for responding

See, here's what I totally don't get. I'm trying to be obnoxious with this post, but I also have to remember that I have friends of varying genders and gender preferences, so I'm trying to make sure that I'm not crossing the line between obnoxious and offensive here.

But, man, oh, man, this smacks me as unbelievably sexist. "My wife is looking for a woman to make love to for the very first time"? Aside from questioning the existence of said wife (because I've never been contacted by a chick trolling for chicks), did anyone else translate that as actually saying: I think it'd be really hot to watch my wife get it on with some bisexual hot chick. I mean, if she's old enough to get married (even in Alabama), isn't she old enough to do her own asking?

Now, if that's really her sexual preference, rock on for her! What happens between consenting adults in bed is nobody's business but their own. However, if this woman is really interested in having such an encounter, wouldn't it stand to reason that she'd be doing her own looking? I mean, I can't prove anything here without getting a bit more cuddly with these net-trollers than I like, but the husband doing the trolling reeks of nothing but pushing his wife into fulfilling the Porn Principle.

What, you ask, is the Porn Principle?

Chicks boinking chicks is the hottest thing ever, but guys don't touch other guys because it's really gross.

It is the double standard that has brought millions of dollars into the world of porn.

I like to think that somewhere out there, a married couple had an argument about sex. He said, "I wanna see you do it with another chick 'cause it would be really hot to watch." She snorted with laughter and said, "If I'm going to do it, you've got to sleep with another guy first. You bring home a guy that I approve of. Do him. I'll watch, and I'll critique - think scorecards, like old-time Olympic diving judges. Only after you've done that will I boink your Bisexual Hot Chick."

If he argued or complained, even one teensy little bit, I hope she chucked something really heavy and really breakable at him. Then left his sorry ass - because one of the crappiest things in the world is a marriage in which the two partners hold unequal power, and pressuring someone into sexual acts outside of their preference or comfort level is as good of a definition of unequal power as any that I've seen this morning.

However, there is a far more important question: is time spent trolling for bisexual nookie billable to your employer? How does one credit that in the time sheet?

The world may never know.


I am left wordless.

In about a month, the search engines won't be, not with a title like that. *bows*

The next time I'm on ICQ (which, at the going rate, should be January 2004), I'm half-tempted to message you by saying: "Pardon me, but my teddy bear and I are looking for people to do shamless uninhibited hugging with..."

It gets billed to "Misc. entertainment expense". Duh. :)

Each of these posts just tells me NOT to get on IM... *shaking head*

Yeah, seriously. Every now and then I get tempted to reinstall Trillian, and a day later Amy comes up with one of these gems.

I really have to wonder what is so special about your profile, Amy, because, man-oh-man, I never get these weird people!

It's because she's married and online a fair amount.

Well, the big problem is that yahoo's 'who is online right now?' function does not discriminate between those who are truly online & available, versus folk who are online but away. Thus, according to yahoo, I'm online All The Damn Time™ when in fact I'm marked away or n/a for the vast majority of the time. Oy vey.

Um ... not to poke a hole (no pun intended) in the Porn Principle, but there is man-on-man porn out there. The issue is that nobody admits to buying it.

For the record, I did not post the clarification about guy-on-guy porn. *points above* There is also bi- and omni- porn out there.

I'm not sure Sarah reads this site, but I'll make sure she's pointed to this post so she can make some sort of comment about gay sex to amuse you all. ;)

You know, I used to keep an entire website where I posted conversations like these. My opinion as to why the porn principle upholds? Because women are more aesthetically pleasing than men are. A straight woman is more likely to be 'bicurious' than a man is because she can objectively look at another woman and see beauty. Men are much less likely to respond as such to another man, whether by a complete lack of aesthetic (my opinion) or by a generalised cultural conditioning to respond negatively to other men(probably the more popular and/or correct reason.) Whether this is rational, logical or sensible, I don't know...but hey, those are stereotypical heterosexual rednecks for you.

I dunno whether to laugh or cry. Methinks I'll laugh. Haha! =)

There was actually a movie a few years back that hit on this topic, The Sex Monster. (and no, it's not a porno) It is a very funny look into this principle.

Wow... while still not being the most retarded i.m. i've ever seen (you don't even want to know what it was- suffice it to say that if someone's screen name includes the word 'pants', do not, i repeat, do NOT respond), that's prettyfrickingfunny. and may i say... i agree. i will never understand the double standard of the "girl-on-girl is hot, guy-on-guy is not" thing. not only is it a double standard, it's a false double standard, b/c it's totally untrue! guy on guy is TOTALLY hot! (don't believe me? check out any indie flick about "timmy dealing with his sexuality and discovering his true identity"- you'll thank me later. they're all great.) although still recovering from thomas's verbal image of jody doin' it w/ another guy, i have re-discovered the joys of gay sex, as my pal preston just got a new ,way hot b/f. and BTW, while we're on the subject, the next person who talks to thomas should verbally kick his ass for telling this guy named Eric that really annoys me that he could be on tech. that little weirdo freaks me out and seems terminally incapable of shutting up. "baby goth" my toned ass. kiss it, thomas!

Sarah, I came this close to putting a message to you in that post. The last line of the post was "Oh, and Sarah - we love you!" in the first draft of this entry. Can't imagine WHY I would think of you while writing on a subject like this... and I'll tell Thomas to read your comment. :D

Mwuhahahaha!!!! Umm "babyGoth" I have YET to tell him he can be on staff he is still in the "Maybe" stage. But if he annoys you THAT much....Hmmmm he might just work out. =P

for the love of god, thomas, just tell eric that tech is fully staffed, PLEASE. if you met the guy, you'd understand... he's not a bad person (i guess), but he is the most annoying kid i've EVER met, keeping in mind that i can actually get along with 90% of the mutants that populate the Con (um, except for trek track...heheheh). so that's pretty bad. i can pretty musch guarantee that none of you guys will want him alive by the end of the con. sorry for the misinfo- eric told me when he came to my place of business (for what feels like the 500th time this year) that he was definitely in. he didn't say anthing about a 'maybe' answer from you. of course, if you want to keep him on staff b/c you think it'll be fun to torture me, i guess that's an option, too. i just can't guarantee your safety in the event of the latter occuring. :)

Don't worry Sara....I will run him off screaming like a little girl in the first 30 minutes. You see how I react to people that I like...imagine what I am like to people who annoy me!

I've found that, while the porn principle is true, it mainly only holds for guys. The porn industry is male orientated and male driven and it's really only guys I've known who stand by it. I think it breaks down into two seperate questions, firstly why do guys find the idea of two females together so hot, and secondly why are they so threatened by two males together. My boyfriend and I are both straight and boring (not that those automatically go together but we are) and yet he has said straight out he'd like to see me with another female. But here's the kicker, only if he can join in. This joining in thing seems to be a main point and I've heard it from other guys too. So while I still dont get the appeal for them I have concluded that a large part of the appeal is the idea that both girls will turn around and start doing him instead. As for teh second question I think that has more to do with societies conditioning telling guys not to show weakness (big boys don't cry) and the whole macho ego bullshit. Any type of mae gayness threatens this and will make them look weak, therefore they stay away from it (at least in public). While I'm sure not all guys are like this I do think it's a very strong part of our culture (albeit a fucked up part) and is the main cause for why your average male will not watch gay porn. The conditioning is strong enough to override or remove any sexual drive involved, and is also probably why I can look at another female and see that she's attrractive whereas Boyd can not tell you if another guy is good looking or not. He just doesn't think that way. I also think that this is partly why many males have a problem with lesbians, because that is a threat to their masculinity too (you'd rather screw her than me therefore I'm not male enough to tempt you, or something). Sad yes, pervasive and common yes also. At the same time I think many females are more open to different sexuality because we don't have so much to protect or lose. Females aren't any more or less apealing than males when you remove personal preferance, it's just that we're more allowed to like both. Obviously this is all generalisation and doesn't fit for everyone, but gender roles in our society are very strong and a large part of who we are. As for two hot guys kissing, yes please :D

just keep the little freak away from me. i'm not responsible for what i do to him if we're EVER in the same room together. you'll see what i mean...

that guy is a madass. you rock, girl, on all your points about sex and married life. :9

You know the funny thing is, I've had somewhat of a similar experience, but reversed from yours---I'm male after all. I've had "women" IM me and ask if I'd like to have sex with their husband. No really, it's really odd. It seems to all be part of the "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" principle. The unfortunate thing is that when you start with lies, you really don't have much foundation for the rest of anything. As with Amy, if you're looking for X, go for it, but don't come around saying "Hi, my is looking for X," when it's really just you. I've also had guys say they want to do three-ways, and then boom, it's really them interested, not their wives. Very bizarre. The strange thing is, my profile has nothing on it to make people think I'd be interested in sex, much less sex with them. I don't get it. Very odd.

I need to get laid

What, you think we're going to help you? Bwahahahahaha.

Get in line behind Jeremy, Will, and me.

your a total fuckin idiot!!!!! rid the world of yourself immediatly. dumb pricks like you should be put away so you dont infect the world with your pro-idiodic bullshit.

Hey Amy ... last guy is another vote for "remove comment privs from unreg'd users" ...

i has sex with a girl and i liked it but i still like guys what should i do??

what, is nobody going to give bianca advice? ;)