Have you ever been involved in a threesome?

Yiou had sex with th guy. I don’t care if you call it an experiment or not. Oral sex is sex. The fact that you had sex with the guy makes it sex.

Kind of. I wouldn’t be willing to risk it (and I would never be willing to have another guy in the room in the first place). I do know that FOR SURE a guy sucking another guy’s dick is straight up homosexual sex.

Yes, but you guys also had sex with each other, so you weren’t in the way (and your buddy wasn’t straight. I’m sorry to break it to you. Straight guys don’t “experiment” with sucking dick).

Diogenes, at this point all you’re doing is making a fun thread not fun.

“Spit roast” is every bit as misogynistic as “gang bang”, in my opinion, reducing the woman involved to the same status as the pig at a luau. “Threesome” is far less judgmental - it accurately describes the situation of three people having sex. All these other distinctions really do seem like panic about “catching teh ghey!!!1!!” “Me and my buddy had sex with this slut BUT WE’RE NOT GAY!”

Lissener had a great line about sexual identity - that it is defined by who you fall in love with rather than who you have sex with. Ships and prisons are filled with heterosexual men having sex with each other. I don’t deny I had sex with a man. Which is why I identified as a “1” on the Kinsey scale. Which describes a huge percentage of the population.

Damn, I really am surprised at seeing these kind of things coming from liberal you. If I had sucked his dick, I’d identify as bisexual and have no problem with it.

Methinks Dio doth protest too much.

What am I protesting?

You’re surprised?

That’s fine if you’re talking about orientation, which I was not. I was talking only about specific sexual activicty. Oral sex is specific, sexual activity. Male on male oral sex is specifically homosexual activity, regardless of natural orientation.

What am I saying that isn’t liberal? A guy who wants to suck a dick is, by definition, not 100% straight. Orientation is defined by attraction. Being attracted to a cock is the definition of homosexuality.

Lissener is wrong, by the way. Lots of people have lots of sex without falling in love. That doesn’t mean they don’t have sexual orientations.

I notice you claiming he’s wrong and I see nothing but your opinion backing you up.

I think we were talking about threesomes, and then it got into a purse fight about the distinction between a threesomes and a gang bang. Please replace “threesome” with “sexual activity that involved more than two people.”

Let’s all get drunk and nekkid. That ought to sort things out.

You either misunderstand the premise, or your logic is faulty.

“Lots of people have sex without falling in love” actually supports my assertion.

Here, from a real world perspective. Since I’ve been involved with recruiting male models for porn websites, I’ve gotten to know a lot of guys who keep a pretty clear dividing line between sex and love. Since 90%+ of the population is straight, 90%+ of the guys I work with are straight. But women don’t buy porn, so if a guy is going to make a living in adult work he has to appeal to a male audience. What all this means is that most of the actors in gay porn are actually straight guys, doing a job for money.

Here’s how it usually works: I see a guy I think has some potential as a model. I give him a business card. If he contacts me, I get him a gig doing a solo video shoot, like a male stripper/centerfold video. Basically a modeling job . . . with a money shot. Invariably, once a guy’s done that, he gets other offers: we’ll pay you $X,XXX to have sex with another guy on camera. About half the time, the guy needs the money enough that he’ll give it a try. I tell them to think of it as an episode of Fear Factor. Look at it this way: if someone bet you $50 to eat a worm, you’d probably do it. So, for $5,000 . . .

Most of them find it’s not that big a deal; it’s a job. There are people who get $15 an hour to work in a sewer or shovel elephant shit. Surely you can go through the motions of pretending to enjoy having sex with the “wrong” gender for a couple grand an hour, no?

True, some of the guys discover through this process that they’re bi. (So far I haven’t had anyone that I know personally decide they were all out gay, unless they already knew it.) But the vast majority of the guys that I’ve worked with in this context simply do it as a job, then go home to their girlfriend or wife. The most successful gay porn star that I personally know–a pretty big name, FWIW–has a wife and two kids. Not that that’s any kind of proof, but I’ve known him for 9 years. He’s still 100% straight, but he’s become a pretty good performer. An actor.

That’s the distinction I was trying to make: what you do with your genitals doesn’t determine your orientation. There are, as you yourself point out, more than reason to “share” your genitals with another person; it’s not always love. Who you share your love with, though, that’s what counts as far as orientation. If you have sex with guys for money, but you only fall in love with women–or you have to fantasize with women in order to fake sex with guys–then you, yourself, are straight, even if you perform gay sex for a living.

Bottom line: sexual orientation is about who you are, not what you do.

Have you never heard of sex without love? You need a cite that it happens?

Sexual orientation is defined by sexual attraction. It’s not behavior. It’s not love. It’s attraction.

Agreed, 100%.

Ok, then.

My point was that “threesome” or “ménage à trois” is far less sexist and degrading than “spitroast” or “gang bang”, and I think many people who have engaged in sex with more than one other person at a time would prefer the term. And defining the less offensive and more accurate term as being exclusively for one particular variation is silly.

As Lissener said, and as I pointed out earlier with the example of prisons and the Navy (and single sex schools - any enforced single sex institution), lots of people who identify as “straight” have had sex with people of the same gender. I fit perfectly on the Kinsey scale as a “1”. If I had sought out additional male sexual partners, I would have no problem identifying as bisexual. Hell, for some reason nearly every woman I’ve had sex with has been bisexual, so in my social circle it’s the default.

Gang bang and spit roast are perfectly cromulent words and not necessarily sexist. It’s just unfortunate that there’s no analogue for the male versions.

“Spit roast” is purely a descriptive phrase, incidentally. Think about it.

Are we all agreed that a threesome with Dio would involve a lot of arguing?

:wink:

Descriptive or not, it’s incredibly sexist.

I’m stunned so many people have voted ‘Not Interested’. Other than being in a committed, monogamous relationship, I cannot wrap my head around not wanting to be in a threesome.