LawTalkers - Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03

Is there anything not obvious about this?

Does anyone look at this situation and think "hmm..... two kids, one a newborn, and he's nailing two women he works with..... sounds like a great idea to me!!!"?

Does anyone think "this is something men dream about the world over. Forget the kids, forget the wife -- an ongoing threesome is a higher calling!"?

Or, have we finally found something we can all agree on?

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand

08-05-2003 06:56 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
In-house at Vivid. Now that is my dream job, followed closely by in-house at Private, Extreme and for Suze.com, not necessarily in that order

I hear you, Lester. They all need a "Custodian of Records" for the age verifications and stuff... No offense, but you might need to adopt a different Nom de Plume for the movie credits, though. MoreinSF??

Flinty_McFlint

08-05-2003 06:58 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Flinty, the sarcasm switch must be in the "up" position for those who are sarcasmically challenged.

My bad. But it's good to know E/O hasn't learned to read me yet, that will come in handy at the poker table....mwahahhhahaha.

Flinty ("Up") McFlint

SlaveNoMore

08-05-2003 07:00 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

LessinSF
In-house at Vivid. Now that is my dream job, followed closely by in-house at Private, Extreme and for Suze.com, not necessarily in that order

I know I sent you that link for the in-house job with Scores.

not7y(only after I didn't get it)S

LessinSF

08-05-2003 07:15 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Do you think that is the case? I know people that worked in house at tobacco companies and were literally showered with cigarettes, but with a porn place I wonder if a lawyer would be considered a boring old necessarily evil and not necessarily worthy of receiving fringe benefits.

Rightly or wrongly, I picture it as a cross between Hunter S. taking his attorney everywhere and introducing him and the pool parties in "Boogie Nights."

Penske_Account

08-05-2003 07:24 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Is there anything not obvious about this?

Does anyone look at this situation and think "hmm..... two kids, one a newborn, and he's nailing two women he works with..... sounds like a great idea to me!!!"?

Does anyone think "this is something men dream about the world over. Forget the kids, forget the wife -- an ongoing threesome is a higher calling!"?

Or, have we finally found something we can all agree on?

Yes.

OTOH, maybe Austintatious is Lady Val's sock and 3somes are a new code word for depos. Go figure.

LessinSF

08-05-2003 07:26 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I know I sent you that link for the in-house job with Scores.

I was dinged for not having enough chest hair, skin color, or bad jewelry. What's your excuse?

Penske_Account

08-05-2003 07:27 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
Rightly or wrongly, I picture it as a cross between Hunter S. taking his attorney everywhere and introducing him and the pool parties in "Boogie Nights."

My research indicates that this is more or less correct. No pun intended.

Penske_Account

08-05-2003 07:29 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
I was dinged for having enough chest hair, skin color, or bad jewelry. What's your excuse?

Assuming you meant to say "not having", I'm now officially pissed at Slave for not sending me the link.

I have the chest hair. He knows strange girls call me swarthy and bad jewelry I can purchase for the interview.

Bastard!

AngryMulletMan

08-05-2003 07:30 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It's one thing to fish in the company pond. But when you reach the limit, you've got to catch and release.

Fishing in the company pond is stupid for oh so many reasons, even if the tool wasn't married.

And you've got your flyfishing metaphors a little messed up. Catch and release has no "limit". But if you're fishing to take the damn fish out of the pond, you've got a strict limit. When the tool got married, he took himself out of the catch and release sport by definition and he ought not be nymphing, barbless hook or not.

And if that sounds like I'm judging the guy, I was.

str8outavannuys

08-05-2003 07:46 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Really, is it more stupid to have a threeway? If the dude's gonna cheat, he may as well shoot the moon. Hell, the extra partner should be a mitigating factor - you know, he wouldn't have cheated but for the opportunity of a THREEWAY.

(I think the gentlemen of the jury, at least, may buy it)

Sadly, the only jury that really matters here is male-free.

That said, I agree with Shape Shifter. If you're going to do cheat, going for the 3-way increases the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis. The only downside, I suppose, is that you potentially lose some deniability (he said/she said vs. he said/both of those sluts said) if you want to claim that the whole sordid affair never took place.

But as a leading pro-FMF supporter, I gotta give a little nod to Austin's friend, especially if he'd never had the chance before he got married. Sadly I'll have no such fallback. :(

Penske_Account

08-05-2003 07:50 PM

oh what a tangled web

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
Sadly, the only jury that really matters here is male-free.

That said, I agree with Shape Shifter. If you're going to do cheat, going for the 3-way increases the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis. The only downside, I suppose, is that you potentially lose some deniability (he said/she said vs. he said/both of those sluts said) if you want to claim that the whole sordid affair never took place.

But as a leading pro-FMF supporter, I gotta give a little nod to Austin's friend, especially if he'd never had the chance before he got married. Sadly I'll have no such fallback. :(

My advice is negotiate the possibility for controlled extramarital sex, incl. a 3 way, before you sign on the dotted line.

Its all about communication. If you are open and up front about your kinky carnal desires and, hopefully, you pick a spouse who respects your needs, these little dalliances shouldn't be a problem.

Its like the Bill-Hill thing.

Just remember to be safe out there.

Penske_Account

08-05-2003 07:53 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
Dabney Eats It

ps: I googled that phrase, so I'm down wit it, as the kids say, but, notwithstanding such knowledge, everytime I see it, I think of that Dagney chick.

Am I alone here?

str8outavannuys

08-05-2003 07:58 PM

men & women & women

Quote:

Originally posted by blueballs
That's easy, its due to the culture of orgiastic adultery championed by the freaks of Hollyweird.

You don't have to look far to see the example that is set by the role models that the fruits and nuts of the media capital of the world thrust unto us. Take Kobe Bryant for example. He has a slammin hot wife who I'd bet has no problem giving him access to the old pooper, but instead he looks to backdoor some sleazy bellhop.

Although, in fairness, I shouldn't put the downfall of the institution of marriage solely on Kobe's wangdoodling, he's only the latest in a very long line of adultery supporters including Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, Bob Guccione, Harry Blackmon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Patty Ireland, Elizabeth Taylor, Roseanne Barr, Bill Clinton and many other free love, no responsibility types who have infected the American culture with the notion that partners are disposable and marraige vows are only as good as the paper on which they are written.

Sad. Its one thing to be single and sow your seeds, but to disrepect a holy union is just plain wrong. At least your friend will provide some work for a divorce attorney.

Saying the reason that 'men want to gook two women at once is because of Hollywood' has supplanted your "TV is lousy in 2003" as the supidest-ass post of the year. I note that after this ridiculous blanket statement, your supporting argument actually has nothing at all to do with FMF threesomes, but rather, MF adultery. (Blaming famous people for the prevalence of adultery is also pretty stupid). Bien fait!

The reason men want to bang multiple women at once is because IT FUCKIN ROCKS, not because Hollywood (or more accurately, pornos and contemporary hip hop music) says it's cool. The reason men want to shtup women who are not their wives is a) the thrill of conquest and b) the inherent pleasure of having variety in women outweighs, for many, the costs of not being monogamous.

str("Hollyweird" is not and was never an amusing bon mot)8

AngryMulletMan

08-05-2003 08:08 PM

oh what a tangled web

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
My advice is negotiate the possibility for controlled extramarital sex, incl. a 3 way, before you sign on the dotted line.

Its all about communication. If you are open and up front about your kinky carnal desires and, hopefully, you pick a spouse who respects your needs, these little dalliances shouldn't be a problem.

Its like the Bill-Hill thing.

Just remember to be safe out there.

Good point. Since nobody said anything about the Texas tool's wife knowing about or supporting his rolling menage, I got the impression that this was not an open marriage issue.

OTOH, I am not at all suggesting that Austin should drop the tool as a friend just because he did a slimy thing. It would all depend on the context of the revelation - "Hey, I banged two chicks at once, heh, heh." vs "I did this thing I need to talk to somebody about because it shook me up." I think it depends on whether the tool thought it was a bad thing or not and that is dependent, of course, on whether his wife was ok with it, which I got the impression she was not.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 PM.

Page 1138 of 1795

1138

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page