Problems with quid pro quo as a negotiating position for threesomes


 

House of the Virgin Mary now a chapel in Ephes...

 

Quid pro quo, something for something, seems innocent enough. We use it everyday when buying an item in the store (money for the item) or when trying compromise. This strategy gets used by couples when they are trying to protect their position by not giving up too much when they try to compromise. Couples will even employ this strategy when discussing threesomes.

 

Imagine a fictitious couple, Mary and Joseph, who are discussing a threesome and never had a threesome. Mary states she will participate in Joseph’s two woman threesome if Joseph is willing to participate in Mary’s two man threesome. Joseph ponders the idea for a while and Mary then comes back stating, the two man threesome must occur first.

 

Should Joseph agree to Mary’s proposal? In this author’s opinion Joseph should not agree to it unless he is using the two woman threesome as a negotiating position to get his threesome. It is this author’s feeling Mary’s position has two flaws. The first flaw, people’s opinions change. Having one threesome does not guarantee another threesome will occur. It is quite possible after having the first threesome Mary may not want to have another threesome. In such a situation, Joseph agreed to the threesome but Mary has decided not to reciprocate leaving Joseph feeling, most likely, upset. This will leave Joseph feeling, to some extent, he cannot trust Mary and erode at their relationship.

 

Second flaw, having contact with the same gender can raise issues for many people. The idea, in its abstract, sounds plausible but when faced with making it a reality, can cause some people to rethink their decision. Depending on the statistics an individual is willing to accept, approximately 5% – 10% women are either lesbian or bisexual and the figure is about 1/2 for men. This means the vast majority are straight and the issue of same sex contact can pose a “mental roadblock,” for some. This means even though the person’s intention at the time was to go through with having the planned threesome, it is possible when they are confronted with the reality of having the second threesome they may change their mind.

 

The above scenario does not take into account other issues such as the first threesome brings up issues that prevents the other threesome from happening, Joseph changing his decision about having his planned threesome, or the issue of seeing their partner having sex with someone else. Nonetheless the two scenarios does highlight such an agreement is fluid and subject to change. This means anyone who makes a quid-pro-quo agreement regarding having a threesome should do so with the understanding that both threesomes are not guaranteed and that the decision is made on incomplete information. If such an agreement can be made with the understanding it is subject to change then hopefully it will limit any damage done to the relationship due to a change in decision.