• mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      No, not inherently. If the two same sex people dont engage in any sexual contact directly, its just a heteosexual threesome.

      Bisexual threesome is when everyone is having sex with everyone else.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        But I mean, for one person it’s not bisexual. Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?

          Only if the bisexuals same sex partner is the their primary partner, and not the plus one.

          If not, I would call it a threesome, or to be more specific, a bisexual threesome.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Are you going by “it’s not gay if it’s a three way” rules?

            Either all people are of one gender, in which case it’s homosexual. Or there’s some combination of genders. So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.

            • throbbing_banjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Straight guy in an open marriage here. Have never engaged in sex with another man, have had plenty of mfm threesomes. Two men fucking the same woman at the same time are not fucking each other.

              The transitive property does not apply to intercourse.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              6 months ago

              there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.

              Element of multi-gender participation, but if say two guys are both wishing the other guy wasn’t there, they never look at each other or come into contact… it’s not very bisexual, no?

              Wonder how much has been written about this…

              • Zron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                I’m not going to assume your experiences, but I’m a mostly straight guy who’s had both FFM and MMF threesomes while I experimented with polyamory.

                I vastly preferred the FFM stuff, because boobies, but I did learn that I can find effeminate men attractive, if I couldn’t it would have never worked. If you’re really a person who can’t interact with someone of the same sex, then I really don’t think a threesome is viable.

                I’ve had threesomes end where the other dude just really wasn’t into it, and we all decided to call it off. If everyone isn’t having fun, then no one is.

            • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.

              What if you keep your eyes closed the whole time though?

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Im just getting specific in a reply to the commentor above.

              A bisexual + “plus one” implies that the plus one is not the regular partner, and that if the “plus one” is not bisexual, i.e in this context engaging in sex with the same gender, then that implies the original couple is instead.

              So a threesomes is not a “bisexual, plus one” unless the couple is in a same sex relationship, i.e 2 men or 2 women who invite a 3rd of the opposite sex to bed.

              A threesome with an otherwise hetro couple who invites a 3rd of either gender to all have sex with is a bisexual threesome, but not a “bisexual, plus 1” situation. The same threesome where everyone engaged in only hetrosexual contact would just be a hetrosexual threesome.

              • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                😂 😂 😂

                The convoluted techincal logicistics of why it’s not gay and precisely when it does become so is silly. The answer is that yes, doing sexual acts with someone of the same sex/gender meets the common definition of being gay. But gay and straight are just words used to self identify. Humans are way dynamic than trying to cling to these arbitrary labels. Having a threesome has zero impact on you telling a potential partner that you are gay/straight because you’re interested in them.

                Labels are important and helpful, but we gotta remember they are just words that can’t define the sum of a human not accurately catch the essential essence of any single person. So it’s healthy to recognize their limitations, trying to precisely define what is and isn’t gay just feels like cope so you can keep calling yourself straight. Just do it, this doesn’t matter.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The real point here the people discussing this seem to be missing is that it doesn’t matter what any of us consider to be gay. The members of Moms for Liberty would definitely not call this “normal” in terms of sexuality and would be against it if it were any other three people.

                  • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Well, that is is true. This sort of nuance, understanding and acceptance would absolutely be lost on someone so outwardly bigoted. Everyone, and especially MoL essentialism about what IS and isn’t normal is just so sad and misguided.

                • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Im not concerned about “gay or not.” I personally think you have to physically interact with someone to have sex with them, but honestly dont care if someone considers all threesomes gay. “Be gay, do threesomes” would be a fine credo for the world.

                  Im just making a pedantic comment in reply to a pedantic comment.

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You’re missing the point. That specific threesome can’t be 100% heterosexual. By definition.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        No offense to anyone’s preference, assignment, or kinks… but yes. You have to at least be a little bit gay to bang someone with another of your same gender.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 months ago

      Maybe, but pointing out that it isn’t heterosexual makes it look worse for those hypocritical puritanical fucks, so I’m fine with it.

    • profdc9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah the pigeonhole principle here would seem to dictate that, or some principle involving holes anyways.

    • LadyAutumn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think they meant in the context of the founder