• gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Aren’t all threesomes bisexual or homosexual? By definition? What does that word mean here?

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            3
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            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
              19
              ·
              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
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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
                  7
                  ·
                  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.

                • 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
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You forgot about the golden rule… it’s not gay if it’s in a three way

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

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

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Her robust and consensual sex life is perhaps the only thing I don’t find despicable about her.

    Edit: yes, y’all, the hypocrisy and allegations of non-consensual sex and the book burning and the attempt to takeover the k-12 system with Christian nationalism, etc, etc, etc is the stuff I do find despicable. Sheesh.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      The original translation of “men are prohibited to lay down with man” is more akin to “men are prohibited from laying down with boys”

      So the only real verse in the Bible that mentions homosexuality is actually telling people to not be pedos

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        No.

        First off there are two passages in the O.T. that directly prescribe the death penalty for male homosexuality, not one like you said.

        Second neither one of which contain the Hebrew word for “boy”. Both use the words to describe a man.

        Third even if they somehow meant to write boy but didn’t in context it would still work out to mean man.

        Fourth the rest of the bible is completely consistent on this which is almost shocking given that it is consistent on so little. From Leviticus all the way to Paul, we got about a thousand years of different writers all saying the same thing on this one issue.

        Fifth even texts that didn’t make it it in the Bible (at least directly) like Enoth still go after it.

        Sixth the oldest commentaries all agree what the rules were about this.

        The abhramic faiths are on the text level homophobic. No amount of apologetics, or crappy translations, or recontextual work will change what they contain. When people or religions tell you what they are about believe them. And stop following these shit tier religions.

      • PhilMcGraw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        What is your source for this? Sounds like something my religious grandma drops to justify all of the bad in that book.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I am betting the are misremembering a thing that was making the rounds claiming that Paul meant in one of his letters Romans chapter 1.

          It isn’t correct because

          A. He had a perfectly good Greek word for being a pedo and didn’t use it

          B. The passage is clear that it was consensual act he was condemning

          C. Who cares? We have two other letters (one granted is a forgery) where it is condemned

          Why can’t people just accept that these people were homophobic? They were. If you are from an Abrahamic faith your skydaddy is a homophobic piece of shit and so we’re the people who claim to speak for him. Stop praying to it.

  • sebinspace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Now Bridget, let’s be clear: you’re not being called out for being bi. That would be hypocritical. You’re being called out for being a hypocritical cunt yourself.

    Now kindly fuck off :3

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m reminded of Congressman Henry Hyde wrapping up the day’s House hearing on Presidental Blowjobs a bit early so he could run across town a boink his mistress.

  • Juice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    But how did her husband get her to do that? For research purposes of course 🤔

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 months ago

    They do realize they’d be able to have a lot more gay sex if they’d stop criminalizing gay sex right?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Their kink is punishing people for doing the things they enjoy. Legalization makes it feel like they’re not above the poors - taking all the fun and adrenaline out of it.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Remember in Fallout New Vegas when the White Glove Society specifically wnats a meat shortage so eating beef can stay a “Luxury”?

  • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Christian Ziegler’s iPhone in the investigation and found 30,000 videos on it.

    Jesus. How does a phone even have that much storage? Cloud shit? Seriously though, God damn that’s a lot

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    A small part of me feels bad for Christian Ziegler. Guy is 41 years old with no career whatsoever outside of politics and now he can’t do that. Most politicians have law degrees but he doesn’t.

    It’s a small part. He is at best a sex pest and piece of crap homophobic self serving shitstain. At worst he is all that and a rapist.

    Maybe a much better person than I am can start some sorta program to help people who ruined their life with the alt-right rejoin society.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Don’t feel too bad; He’ll inevitably get a cushy job as a lobbyist, where he can leverage his existing connections to further influence politics while staying out of the spotlight. The politician>lobbyist pipeline is extremely apparent, and it’s basically a revolving door where politicians exit, throw on a “lobbyist” hat, and walk right back inside.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t give a shit that she’s having threesomes. I’ve had threesomes. I hate her because she’s a sanctimonious power hungry hippocrite.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m sorry that your life has been so sheltered and boring that you can’t imagine that other people have had different experiences than you have but that’s really a you problem, not a me problem.

        • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Bragging involves embellishment. I just stated facts that were relevant to my point. Your envy does not make my simple statement of the facts bragging.

            • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I was not excessively proud or boastful. I simply stated facts.

              As I said, the readers jealousy of my lived experience does not make what I said bragging. That’s a you problem, not a me problem.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think generally the order implies who is in the middle. I think. So FFM would imply a male and female servicing a female while FMF is two females servicing a male.

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

        FFM is two women who are into each other and a man. In the first case it was my girlfriend, Heather, and another girl named Helen when we were 16. The girls were really into each other and I was there playing along. Much later, like 30 years later an old (20 years before) fuck friend named Terry reached out and asked if she could have a threesomes with my wife and I. We had offered in the past but she declined. In that case Terry was there for my wife and I just grabbed whatever hole was exposed at the outside of the pile. After a few visits she said that she would like to continue just with my wife. I said that that was ok but my wife declined.

        FMF is two women who aren’t into each other but are there for the man. I had a longtime girlfriend that my wife knew about named Heather, a different Heather. We were coworkers. When I left that job we were in a state of turmoil, I had been diagnosed as having Asperger’s and being a sex addict. My wife suggested that I invite Heather over for a threesome. She came but she wasn’t into my wife so we did things FMF (Heather on my face and my wife riding me sort if thing.) My wife put a lot of effort into breaking down barriers and made a lot of progress and everyone had a lot of fun. Heather lost her father and stopped coming to visit.

        The MFM thing is a married woman that I’ve had a crush on for about 15 years who has also crushed on me. We’ve talked a lot but she wasn’t willing to risk her marriage despite the fact that it was very stale. She sent me a note a about a month ago asking if she could ask me a question. The question was had I ever had a threesome? Two women and a man or two men and a woman? I told her what I wrote above. She said that she had talked to her husband and that he wanted to watch another man have sex with his wife. Would I consider being that man? We talked and I said that I was interested. We met (at Starbucks) and talked as a group about rules and agreed to go forward. He’s not interested in having sex with me and I’m not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife. They are about to move into a home that they have built and once they are in they will invite me over. After talking with them I got the impression that it wasn’t his idea and that she pushed for it because she wanted to have me and this was a way to do it that she was comfortable with. Either way she’s tall and pretty and I’m looking forward to a playdate. I told them a lot about my relationship with my wife that she could use as ammunition to argue that she should be able to have me on the side between threeway playdates.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          He’s not interested in having sex with me and I’m not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife.

          Back in 2000 when I was 16, I had a video camera, and made the equivilant of youtube videos, on vhs tape years before youtube existed. That quote of yours reminds me of a scene I shot in a hotel. We rented a porn juat so we could have this distracting thing in the background.

          The line I remember most is “We want to SCREW the wife. And we want YOU to do it.”

          I thought our acting, and premise of this scene was shotty at best, but it always makes me laugh because of that one line I could recording our scene.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Nice.

            The first porn movie I ever watched was Debbie Does Dallas. The one I telemedicine most was a parody called Debbie Does Dishes. I think Nina Hartley was in that one. It was stupid.