Growing up, I always thought that the threesome was a perfect creation. It was the Holy Grail of the sexual world, and no matter what the situation, no matter who the girls, if the chance to have one ever came up, I would drop everything and take part. I could be pulling my grandmother out of a shark’s maw, and if someone even hinted at a threesome I’d leave the ol’ girl and lube up. One day this all changed.
In the interest of complete disclosure, I should tell you that I’ve never actually had a threesome. I’ve had a shit ton of onesomes (sometimes three of them back-to-back, which is almost kind of like a threesome), but that’s irrelevant: you don’t need to have a threesome to understand them. Stephen Hawking has written books about black holes, and I’m almost positive he’s never been anywhere near one. That guy can’t even walk, let alone fly through space.
I have, however, declined a threesome. I never would have thought it possible, but it was because I was offered what can only be described as the world’s ugliest threesome* that I had to turn it down. I know that some of you are thinking that there being two of them would make up for their unattractiveness, but no. Think about it. Say you look at someone, and the idea of having sex with them makes you puke in your mouth a bit. Then you look at another person, and you feel the same way. That feeling doesn’t get better when you put them together. It gets worse. A threesome with the two of them would have been worse than sleeping with either of them individually. It was this revelation that allowed me to derive the following formula:
The Hotness of a Threesome (measured in Scovilles), is determined by the equation:
H = µ (α1 x α2)
Where:
- H is the overall threesome hotness.
- α is the sexual attraction you feel for the participants (rated on a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 being the person in the world you are most attracted to).
- µ is what we call the “desperation factor,” which increases the longer you go without sexual gratification.
I realise most people hate maths. But most people love colours, so let’s make a graph! The following identifies the hotness of a threesome as the participants’ hotness increases. (Please note that one participant will remain a constant 5). Also note that a threesome’s hotness increases in a constant, linear fashion.
The red line indicates the hotness of sleeping with a single person who ranks as a 5 on your sexual attraction scale. It is important to keep in mind that the apex of this hotness scale is a 5 and not 10.
At the far right of the graph we see that according to the theory, sleeping with two 5s is far better than sleeping with one 5, which I believe we would all agree with. The same holds true for most of the graph (i.e: A threesome with two 2.5’s is better than one 5). Things start to get interesting where the two lines intersect. If you have one 5, and a 1, and you use our formula (assuming a desperation factor of 1), you see that:
H = µ (α1 x α2)
H = 1 (1 x 5)
H = 5
Essentially, the formula states that if you have a threesome with a one and a five, it is essentially as hot as sleeping with the five alone. And this makes sense logically, because if you are with someone you are insanely attracted to, and someone who is solidly on the ugly side of average, you’re probably not even going to notice the ugly one. It’s like they weren’t there at all.
And then if you look at the area marked “A” on the graph, you’ll note that when the attractiveness of the participant sinks below one, it actually detracts from the hotness of the threesome.
H = µ (α1 x α2)
H = 1(0.5 x 5)
H = 2.5
We can understand this logically as well. Imagine you’re making love to a beautiful, magical creature. Now you turn your head and spot a naked bridge troll. Hmm. That’s going to spoil the mood a bit. It’s like watching a classic episode of Seinfeld on TV, but in the picture-in-picture corner there’s an episode of According To Jim playing. You try your best to ignore it, but no matter how hard you try you can’t stop peeking at the other car wreck of a show. It actually reduces your Seinfeld enjoyment.
As you can see, initial findings back this theory, though further testing is needed to confirm it. And yes, I realise that taking the time to construct and write this theory assures that I’m the kind of person who will never have enough threesomes to prove it, but fuck you for thinking it anyway.
*There aren’t any official records for ugliest threesome, so you’re going to have to take my word for it. Basically what happened is I was propositioned for sex by a creature that looked suspiciously like Danny Devito as “The Penguin” with a meth addiction. When I declined, she tried to sweeten the pot by informing me that her friend would love to join us. Her friend nodded in agreement, but kept a low profile. Possibly because she was being hunted down by the police for stealing and wearing Burt Reynolds moustache. This, plus the fact that I’m no looker myself, easily qualifies this as the ugliest potential threesome ever.
Reader Comments
July 21st, 2009
3:39 pm
You have way too much time on your hands.
July 21st, 2009
4:12 pm
Math is tits.
July 21st, 2009
4:12 pm
a onesome just means you jerked off, right?
July 21st, 2009
4:12 pm
amazing! except when the opportunity of a threesome arrives i doubt your gonna be grabbing the calculator and thinking about the numbers..your just gonna do it
July 21st, 2009
4:13 pm
urgghh. dont ruin sex with math.
July 21st, 2009
4:14 pm
i think every dude has had a lot of onesomes. i’ve probably had ten times the onesomes that i’ve had twosomes and infinitely more of either than threesomes.
July 21st, 2009
4:15 pm
Cat threesomes definitely aren’t awesome. You know pussy on the bottom isn’t having any fun. She’s getting squished.
July 21st, 2009
4:16 pm
oh peter! you moved up from “halifax” to “canada”! that’s good.
July 21st, 2009
4:16 pm
I don’t like the idea of having to give someone a .6 in hotness in order to devalue the threesome, because how do you determine a .45 and a .6 but that would make a big difference in the model. I would propose using a scale of -10 to +10 (where a 0 is “do-able”) and then an exponential function to detemine the hottness of the threesome.
H=µ(e^α1)(e^α2) makes a lot more sense to me.
I also think there needs to be some accounting for “dirtyness”, because if you’re having a threesome with two stuck up girls who are very hot I think that is a lot worse quantitativly than having a threesome with two decent but dirty chicks.
July 21st, 2009
4:17 pm
Seinfeld sucks, it all made sense until you threw in that reference. Now I’m back to being just totally confused.
July 21st, 2009
5:19 pm
Maybe the dirtyness could be given its own -10 to +10 scale? +10 being really nasty (but in a good way, think Carla Bruni) and -10 being plain sordid (Christina Aguilera) with 0 being Vanessa Anne Hudgens. But I would argue for a scalar term. You wont feel exponentially worse sleeping with Christina Aguilera than Carla Bruni.
July 21st, 2009
9:42 pm
Genius. People that do this sort of thing are what makes the world such a wonderful place to live.
July 22nd, 2009
6:52 am
Brilliant stuff. If you weren’t a self-admitted ugly person I would invite you for a threesome right now. Sadly your own equation has stopped this happening.
You cock-blocked yourself with maths.
July 22nd, 2009
1:08 pm
you complete hero
July 22nd, 2009
5:02 pm
I cant agree more, I went through the same situation this last weekend…. a beautiful french girl and her horrible girl asked me out and I couldn’t do it, the 1 and 5 doesn’t mix well… talk about mismatched couples
July 23rd, 2009
11:14 am
you straight people are so backward whoever heard of anyone not having had a threesome, ha ha ha
July 23rd, 2009
4:32 pm
this is beyond simplistic, you dumb twats
July 23rd, 2009
4:43 pm
The best threesome must be two guys and one girl seeing as you guys need at least 30 minutes to recover and we girls just keep rolling ;-)
July 23rd, 2009
4:48 pm
I had an awesome threesome, the 18 year old girl I was seeing said “hey I told my best friend you eat pussy really good can I bring her over” and so we fucked around for a few hours, I got on of them to sit on my face and one of them to sit on my cock.. I was kind of sad they ddnt fool around with each other though.. im such a greedy bastard.
you should do it before you die..
i have had a lot of onesomes since then, thinking about it.
July 23rd, 2009
5:18 pm
i have had many threesome and its all down to lust and availability and it maths even entered my head at that point it would just fuck up the equation.
July 23rd, 2009
5:30 pm
I think we need a picture of you, so we can all try and get you a 3some.
July 23rd, 2009
7:04 pm
I agree with . - this guy deserves a threesome of even thinking of doing this. I like the person making matters even more complicated too.
Imagine if they used shit like this to teach maths; that would be a more interesting GCSE paper for sure.
July 23rd, 2009
10:32 pm
1+1+1=3
July 23rd, 2009
10:59 pm
maybe you should think of an equation to trick someone into finally loving you
July 24th, 2009
2:06 am
This is shit. Using Faux-maths to put an article can be done for anything. Fuck you.
July 24th, 2009
9:15 am
piss poor maths there
obviously learned at the daily mail school of bad science.
this doesnt’ take into account the fact that a 1 rated man, with two 5 rated women, will undoubtedly encounter inaddequacy issues, reducing the hotness factor by en exponential ammount, when completion arrives in 3 seconds. or not at all.
Unless that man is Ron Jeremy
shazaaaam!
July 24th, 2009
11:27 am
Citun, did you read this article? or are you a moron?
July 24th, 2009
10:54 pm
I could have had sex with three girls once, they were very horny and one of them had no undwear on and kept saying she wanted cock. But unfortunately they also couldnt get off the floor of the taxi because they were all in k-holes. After much soul searching I decided to pay for them to get home, and on reflection I think that was the right decision.
July 25th, 2009
1:50 pm
What has looks to do with it, as my daddy used to say “You don’t look at the mantlepiece when you’re poking the fire”
August 9th, 2009
12:59 pm
I’ve done more 3-somes than I can recall in one sitting, and I can attest to your equation being pretty spot on (at least, as far as it goes). Hats off! Though I’ve discussed relative desirability of differing 3-some situations many times, it never occurred to me to try to graph it. ;)
I also fully agree with the two amendments:
1) A pos 10 to neg 10m scale does make more sense.
2) Ditto the dirty-scale (which could include such factors as bisexuality, and doing it in public, or quasi-public – upping the chance that, say, your mate looks through a tent flap and sees two hotties going down on you, together – thus greatly enhancing your reputation!)
I would also add one more:
the emotion-scale. Remember, 3-somes can happen in the context of relationships. What if you’re with two 5s, and they’re both in love (and lust) with you, and they’re also both in love (and lust) with each other. This is way, WAY hotter than if they’re not into each other at all, and only kinda drunkenly into you. (As is much more commonly the case). Once you’ve had it this way, it becomes much easier to turn down lesser 3-some opportunities.
August 10th, 2009
1:04 pm
You spent so much time working that one out you had no time left to do any shagging, even with just yourself.