Talk:Threesome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ménage à trois

It's a French phrase who use has been co-opted to refer to a sexual threesome. After the first paragraph, everything in the article refered to sex, what the emotional requirements of such a relationship are, etc. Everything in this article refers to threesomes and so better belongs here, rather than co-opting that discussion. Banaticus 09:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The article on Ménage à trois contradicts this pages contrast by stating that Ménage à trois don't necessarily involve a sexual relationship. 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.19.137.77 (talk)

I am the publisher and editor of III(THREE):The Fantay and Experience of Threesome Sex. This wikipedia entry about threesomes needs much work. I am not that expreienced with editing on wikipedia. If anyone wants to edit the entire page more fully, I'd be happy to work with them. How do we post a Dispute or Under Construction label? -- Crystal Haidl www.threesomebook.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.143.180 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Octupi picture

I'm not sure what the octupi picture is doing here - most of the other links to the picture are of non-con or bestial sexual acts. No where else on the page does it discuss anything related to the picture. It seems rather startling to go from discussing jealousy in a three-way relationship to a painting of bestiality. Genericchimera 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrible, biased and not about threesomes

I don't quite know where to begin. This article containes virtually nothing about the actual act itself - fails to present a balanced argument on the pros and cons - fails to place the activity in its social or historical context and appears to have more to say on polyamorous relationships than on threesomes themselves - does not take account of threesomes that take place outside of established relationships.

Most of it is actually off topic. A threesome is not a type of relationship, it is a type of sexual activity, and this article does not clearly represent the distinction. --JamesTheNumberless 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolls

This page is under attack by trolls from 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.80.134 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging?

why is not this article merged with Gang bang? It is more or less about the same thing.. --Have a nice day. Running 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same thing, not even any overlap whatsoever. Mathmo ^Talk 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor at best

This article is bad for so many reasons! Would anyone have a problem with me editing the heck out of this? I mean, if it doesn't work out, then so be it, you guys can cut and snip what you like, but I think searching "threesome" and getting this article reflects poorly on Wikipedia to be frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapanacc (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold ;-) —Cliffb 13:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing by me

I have edited the bad bits out of this article. I have also more properly classified threesome as an intimate act, as nonreproductive relations, especially involving three people are not necessarily and are very rarely sexual in the most accurate sense. Karla Lindstrom 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge discuss

I'm not really in favor of a merge because while this article is definitely more stub than anything, the Ménage à trois article talks more about the relationship aspects; an ongoing relationship of three people is rather different than three people having sex, since we already have two separate articles for these two separate concepts, it makes sense to me to keep it that way, and work to improve this article. -- Akb4 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akb4. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is much improved

Thanking whoever did this. I am still for the use of intimacy, as to me sexual seems to be mechanical and biological, but this is fine. Karla Lindstrom 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

None of the external links work. Krylonblue83 (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

biased away from homosexuality

It seems the article at some points even puts some effort in going around homosexuality, always mentioning males penetrating females in all sorts of ways, an never mentioning single sex 2somes, nor same sex direct interactions during a 3some (like say, a female being penetrated by a male, that is being penetrated by a second male) --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove In popular culture section

This section is ridiculously trivial and unencyclopaedic. There is no evidence of cultural impact for any of the examples included. I propose the list is deleted as a unsalvagable trivia magnet without significant sourcing and re-write. Fæ (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed list: In popular culture

"Gossip Girl", "They Shoot Humphreys, Don't They?": Dan, Olivia, and Vanessa engage in threesome sex when it is believed that Olivia will be leaving college to film a movie. "Peep Show", in Series 3, Jeremy fulfills a sexual fantasy by having a threesome with his girlfriend and her colleague, but finds it not as he had imagined. Britney Spears "3" (2009). Lady Gaga "Alejandro" (2010) - Lady GaGa is engaged in a simulative threesome during her The Monster Ball Tour. ThreesomeSongs.com, Let's Express Our Love with a Threesome (2009): a comedy album of eight R&B songs that beseech a woman to give her boyfriend or husband a threesome. Ludacris "Teamwork (song)" (2003). Stereo Total "Liebe zu dritt" (2002) Seinfeld, in the episode The Switch of season 6, George suggests a ménage between his current girlfriend and her roommate. Flight of the Conchords in the episode New Fans of season 1, Bret and Jemaine are offered a threesome by a new fan after taking illegal drugs. "Well, the new fans gave us illegal drugs and wanted to have a threesome with us" -Jemaine

Now removed but copied here for information. Fæ (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

References

The only source given was marked as a dead link in August 2010. But now the same link is just a commercial porn site with no reference value, so I've removed it - and so the article is now unsourced -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Safety

"Using male condoms in a threesome may not be safe"

What? Where's the reference? It then goes on to say new condoms should be used with each partner - should this not be reworded to "Reusing condoms in a threesome may not be safe, however a new condom should be used with each partner"?

92.6.128.187 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The new rewording of the sentence is a lot better. To claim that using condoms is not safe is, as it turns out, not safe. So good catch, this needs to be changed.Meatsgains (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the new wording is also quite inaccurate. For one man having sex with two women, male condoms can be completely safe, if he changes condoms between phallic penetration of partners. If he's using a dildo to penetrate one partner, while having penis-in-vagina intercourse with the other, then one male condom is quite adequate. (Or two, if the toy is a shared toy.) If cunnilingus is the sex act of the evening, then dental dams are called for. As this article struggles with elsewhere, the possibilities are quite dizzyingly endless.

Suggested reword: "the need to change condoms in a threesome involving a man engaging in penetrative anal or vaginal intercourse with two partners can be avoided by using female condoms." Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite suggestions

Hey -- I want to do a lot of edits to this article, so I'm going to bullet-point them here for anybody to oppose.

• Fix the grammar.
• The "Types" section is an incomplete list full of gender assumptions, in desperate need of citations so it's not just somebody's personal slang. I want to tidy it up, link to articles on relevant fetishes, clarify that it is an incomplete list and that the possibilities are up to the participants.
• This article desperately needs a "threesomes in media" section, which will need a lot of citations. Ugh. I'll appeal to some sociology friends.
• Rewrite the "safety" section so it makes sense and is accurate. "using condoms in a threesome may not be safe" is an incredibly misleading statement. Using condoms in a twosome may not be safe, if they're used incorrectly!

In general I want to make this article read more neutrally and generically. It is too heteronormative and relies too heavily on tropes of what past authors seem to have considered "standard" threesomes. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Be bold! It is not like there is much danger of making the article any worse and it would be refreshing to have a well written and cited article about sex. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes on rewriting intro: made article's content the first definition, clarified their relationship to polyamory and menage a trois, left out love triangle. If anybody's confused by love triangles, they'll look up that Wikipedia article themselves. (reductio ad absurdum, "a threesome should not be confused with a Sherman tank.") I wanted to put group sex in the intro, but the group sex article treats group sex largely from the bathhouse angle. So I clarified that, with the convenient linguistic trick of an orgy being group sex but not a threesome.

Notes on rewriting types: Oh, this is such a tricky section. It should really just refer to sexual activity and the square-cube law. Trying to add more is just pulling up arbitrary examples, and that's already happening at Sex positions, so I linked there.

That is not how swinging defines soft-swinging, the "gang bang" article defines MMF "gang bang" as a "tag team," "one active member" is incongruous in its name and only highlights the incompleteness of the list, and "full threesome" is not a term I've ever heard, and is a bit troubling in terms of describing sex acts as "full" or "complete." Participants define that. The "Lucky Pierre" definition is also a bit off from what I understand and other articles define.

Rewrote safety. The previous form was lacking.

No time this evening to do citations, but there weren't any before. Feel free to post criticisms. Please, SOMEBODY write a "threesomes in modern media" section.Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Threesome1.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Threesome1.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Threesome1.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Threesome in colour.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Threesome in colour.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Threesome in colour.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Another recent reversion

IP user removed all the images, no reason listed. Happy to talk about it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I reverted the recent edit because:

• the focus on swingers is a bit weird; they're a subculture and their terminology shouldn't be prioritized in this article. Also, "male" and "female" aren't capitalized, and claiming that one threesome combination is the most popular definitely requires a citation.

• I feel like there were a whole lot of cases where the new language was less clear or said different things, especially in the introduction.

• "369" is not a recognized name for a sex position, and the citation for it was by the same person who made this very large edit. The citation also clearly liberally hyperlinks "369" to a webpage defining it in an attempt to improve its Google presence, making me suspect the motivation behind its inclusion on this page.

Basically, I put a bunch of effort into making this page be less focussed on specific threesome stereotypes and more generally applicable, and this edit seemed to be heading in a very different direction, with a dash of self-advertisement, so I undid it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The same user made another revision: "The sexual act itself is common among swingers or others engaging in non-monogamous recreational sex. Threesomes relationships may take place in the context of polyamory or a ménage à trois where the sexual activity is just one component of the relationship."

I changed it back because:

• it's still a weird focus on swingers.

• I don't think it's correct to say that threesomes are common among people engaging in non-monogamous recreational sex. I think twosomes are the vast majority of non-monogamous recreational sexual activities.

• The edit to the polyamory bit is not very grammatically sound -- "threesomes relationships" is confusing. But it did make the point more directly, so I did a compromise edit.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of swingers

Bottomline: Threesomes or threesome sex cannot be defined usefully without references to the modern concept of swinging.

Swingers have labored for decades trying to throw the yoke off that it is nothing more than wife-swappping. Swingers are far more than just married couples, and it is far more than just twosomes! There is a wide variety of individuals, couples, orientation, and sexual activity that occurs in swinging. It is a very big tent, but threesome sex is probably the single biggest attraction for people to join the lifestyle--both singles and couples.

See final comment: I'm not opposed to mentioning swingers; I think all of your edits have had too much focus or emphasis. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The maths alone should be proof. There are hundreds of swinger websites. Each with thousands of profiles in their memberships. The larger websites have millions of members, and the biggest boasts over 42 million world-wide! Sociologist believe there are about 2-4 million couples in the North America who are swingers. Either by polling, by anecdote, or by searching the databases of swinger websites, the result is the same, single men seeking to do a threesome with a couple or couples seeking a threesome with either a male or a female. Nearly every profile of new swinger couples state that their desire is to find another person who would like to do a threesome with them. Sometimes it is to explore one of the members bisexuality. Sometimes it is to engage in some mild cuckold fantasy. Most frequently it is seen as the "tamest" way to introduce some spice into sex life. For the experienced swingers in group settings, with other couples or just singles, the sexual activity they engage in almost always includes a sexual act that can be classified as a threesome. The nomenclature for threesome sex is replete with names and combinations and positions for threesome sex that are almost unknown by the majority of people who have never had sex with more than one person at a time. Non-English speaking Wiki entries for "threesome" (or translation) almost always include these descriptions. [see German]

I think that this is indicative of the visibility of swingers, as the more organized manifestation of threesomes. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But no matter what, threesome sex is almost always the first vehicle for entering into swinging--if not in fact or in deed, then at least by preference or fantasy. "Threesome" and "Threesome Sex" could probably be divided into two different Wiki entries, but the average reader would have no understanding (or sympathy) as why there would be two dividing philosophies that would demand separate entries. For most, threesome is one concept, and that idea is overwhelmingly the sexual act itself. Just do an unrestricted search for the word threesome on the Internet and look at the kind of results you would likely see.

Yeah, that's why there's just a brief nod to other uses of the word threesome. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that there is a cultural divide between polyamory and swinging. I've seen it for decades. The first emphasize the emotional bonds and the relationships and the degrees of commitment or love that exists in such relationships. The second are more likely to emphasize the sexual activity and its recreational and casual aspects. The result is a constant ontological turf war where the two sides fight over control of the language. Nonetheless, it is a disservice to have a encyclopedic entry on threesomes without a direct reference to swinging--particularly if the entry elaborates the concept with direct references to polyamory and Ménage à trois and mentions non-monogamous sex without a naming the central path by which such threesomes occur.

This is a constructive comment. I think of polyamory as being a status and swinging as being an identity, but I see now how swingers might think of "swinging" as an activity and not an identity. I do not think that swinging is the central path by which threesomes occur. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, when people want to know the Who, What, When, Where and Why of threesomes it must include swinging. It is a huge fantasy for many people, and it is the single most cited request in profiles of millions of swingers. And it is statistically the overwhelming experience of swingers and those that have casual threesome sex.

What is the overwhelming experience of swingers and those that have casual threesome sex? Do you have a citation that polls people who have casual threesome sex, and not specifically swingers? (Again, confusion between "swinger" as an identity and activity.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not reverted my reference to swinging in the central definition because I want to make sure we have an common understanding rather than engage in constant edits and rollbacks. My point is that you have stated that you want the definition to be more generalized yet are attempting to exclude the single largest category of millions of adherents who want, fantasize or regularly engage in (recreational) threesome sex. To have a definition that includes polyamory and Ménage à trois with only an oblique reference to swinging fails to give a proper definition. JVB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannVanbeek (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(NB: I have copy-edited this comment from my talk page, without specific permission. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC) )

So, first off: I know a lot of people who have engaged in three-person sex (I will decline to disclose whether I have participated). None of them identify as swingers. I am not convinced by your statements about the prevalence of swinging; I think they indicate a bias of visibility. I'd be interested in seeing unbiased research on this, but unfortunately I doubt that good research exists.

I'm not opposed to including a mention of swinging. I found that all of the edits you proposed were drawing too much focus to swinging; I made comments and explanations on the talk page every time I reverted them, inviting discussion. I found particularly egregious the edit that mentioned one specific threesome position as popular, and had as a citation an article that you had written yourself. Please don't do that.

This is an activity that engages different subcultures; I think it's clear at this point that we belong to very different subcultures, and I'm glad that we can work together now. Some sections that I think this article could use might include "threesomes in sexual subcultures," but I'd be opposed to starting such a section with only one big, prominent swinging section. I'd sooner have this article be short but generalizable than long and specific but partial. Of course, we can discuss this!

I'm going to put up a suggested compromise edit in a minute. Please let me know what you think! Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line: we have different cultural views on threesomes. I have found your statements to intrude on my views on threesomes. I think (tell me if I'm wrong!) that you just find my statements to omit your views on threesomes. Let's work together to make sure that we neither omit nor intrude on each other's views. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested merge into group sex article

Partly on grounds of notability (or lack thereof), I think this article would make more sense as a subsection of the group sex article.--TyrS 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

the illustration captions need improving

Please seeWikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Image_captions. Four out of the five current illustrations lack the minimum information (artist and title of work).--TyrS 04:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Cuddling Threesome

What about an activity involving three people, cuddling in a non-sexual, but perhaps romantic fashion? Benjamin (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

?Benjamin (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin, I didn't respond to your first comment above because we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, what you're saying is, there are not enough reliable sources on threesome cuddling, and to even mention it would be to give it undue weight? Benjamin (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations

They are missing.

• Male, Female, Male (MFM) (heterosexual)
• Male, Male, Female (MMF) (bisexual)
• Female, Male, Female (FMF) (heterosexual)
• Female, Female, Male (FFM) (bisexual) --87.153.125.101 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Threesome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026151733/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLoVSAcz7M8 to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLoVSAcz7M8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The part about a devil triangle meaning the same thing as threesome is wrong. Citing one guy from Cosmo who used it incorrectly to mean a threesome is not adequate support. In threesome sex a triangle is a position. The three participants give oral to one another hence a rudimentary triangle being formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.227.112 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you add images? This site depicts the triangle sex position https://www.sexualpositionsfree.com/magtriansexp.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.227.112 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

In Media Comment

I disagree with listing these two: A Clockwork Orange, and Wolf of Wall Street.

• A Clockwork Orange doesn't feature a threesome. It does feature a few rape and attempted rape scenes.
• The Wolf of Wall Street has orgies, not threesomes.

The section should be corrected or deleted. If this "media" category is needed, then movies such as: Y Tu Mamá También (2001) should be listed and others which can be validated with references, not with links to a video on YouTube.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/best-film-sex-scenes-films-top-10-movies-mulholland-drive-moonlight-gods-own-country-blue-valentine-a8541826.html 

I went back to the date / time / wikiedit where the text under Media was changed from something that was reasonable to the three films listed above and based on what the wiki editor wrote he wanted to add movies that were "much more famous" The editor wrote "Add much more famous movies" OK, these movies above are "much more famous" but that doesn't mean it is accurate to associate them with "threesomes". In actuality the films don't represent "threesomes" but rape, and orgies.

Before this edit was made the "Media" section had the following text of (not so famous movies) maybe more accurate in that they feature threesomes. I don't know, never saw the movies and don't feel like researching this any further but this is what was there before the above edit was made. "One of the few films with a threesome is the erotic thriller Wild Things (1998) and its sequels Wild Things 2 (2004), Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough (2005) and Knock Knock (2015), all of which involved a threesome of one man and two women. Zoolander (2001), Ken Park (2002), The Dreamers (2003), Savages (2012) and On the Road (2012) all contained a threesome of two men and one woman."

Also, wikipedia has a "Category:Films_about_threesomes which lists movies that fit this category. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_threesomes

--the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

whatchu talkin' bout willis? clockwork orange has a very clear 3some, and the 2 girls are more-or-less consensual. i say more-or-less b/c they are underage in the book, so it is rape in the "statuatory" sense. but alex is also underage in the book.

all 3 were made legal for the movie. 2601:19C:527F:A660:BC4B:A053:6ADC:8BE9 (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussing Devil's Triangle sources at RSN

I made a post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Threesome 199.127.56.123 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate your communication. I (and another editor) made responses at RSN clarifying the validity of Cosmo and NYT as reliable sources in the context of pop-culture references. Context is important in this case, and a leading pop-culture magazine is certainly a valid RS for a pop-culture topic. The fact that the cited NYT fact check article adds support the original citation further reinforces this. The burden would now be on you to find a reliable source making a counter-argument, and then you're free to contribute that to this WP article alongside the content that you removed, but not free simply to remove content posted by another user who supported it with not one but two valid citations. Jadev18 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Appealing to Reliable Source is off target. The correct policy to apply is Undue weight. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. We don't mention random slang terms in an encyclopedia article just because it gets informal Reliable Source passing mention. Alsee (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no problem with including alternate names for something (and using them as redirects to the current article) if they are shown to be common enough. Common synonyms are frequently listed in the lede of an article. However, I get a total of 244 Google hits for "Devil's threesome", including a bunch of irrelevant hits and duplicates. Therefore, I agree that it should not be included. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah I suppose, I was thinking about WP:WEIGHT later after I had reinstated the mention. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Ping Amakuru regarding your revert.[1] We have a Talk discussion open on the issue. While the discussion initially started on the question of ReliableSource, I believe discussion has shifted to WEIGHT as more appropriate. I believe is is unencyclopedic trivia indiscriminate trivia to list obscure slang terms, even if RS attest to their existence. A term should have significant or serious usage before we list it as an encyclopedic alternate. We're not UrbanDictionary and we shouldn't list five (or twenty) different slang terms just because they are minimally citable. And yes I can RS-cite another alternate synonym, surely multiple if I work at it. No, I don't want to start listing alternates or RS cites for them here. Alsee (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  Well, a week ago that would have been the case. But the fact that this term has hit the news this week has elevated it from one of many fringe terms to something that millions of people are now talking about, which means I don't think it's now undue weight to mention it. We may or may not think that the term is deserving of that, but we aren't here to right great wrongs. I support inclusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  Amakuru I think Recentism and Ten year test apply here. Yes, there's currently some buzz about the term due to the Kavanaugh hearings. I have no objection to people finding the term in the Kavanaugh article if that's what they are looking for. However the current news cycle will blow over soon. If someone three years from now is only interested in looking up the "Threesome" encyclopedia article, I don't think the article should be permanently rewritten to include a passing newsflurry quoting slang. If the term enters into lasting and significant RS usage unrelated to Kavanaugh, then it may warrant listing here. Alsee (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:NOTGOSSIP and BLP concerns. The reason that millions of people are now talking about [it] is that it is related to crime gossip about a living individual. wumbolo ^^^ 14:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Ping: Wumbolo and Martianunlimited who have most recently removed/added this content, presumably without noticing there was a discussion open on it. Alsee (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was late to notice that there was a discussion. My comment is above. I don't understand how someone wants to keep content cited to a trash WP:UGC. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Your logic is faulty though. You say we can't cite vox because they got the term from urban dictionary. But that's their choice not ours. The vox source says “Devil’s Triangle” — which many believe refers to sex between two men and one woman. That legitimises it as an understood term for that concept, in the voice of a reliable source. The fact that it may have originated in an unreliable source becomes irrelevant at that point. What was an obscure term has become a mainstream term. It may or may not recede into obscurity again, but we can evaluate that in the future rather than looking into WP:CRYSTAL balls.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  No. Saying that "many believe something" is saying that something is a rumour. They provided no evidence that it actually did or does mean this. We have zero reliable references pre-dating the Kavanaugh hearing that claim that "Devil's triangle" means "threesome". There is almost exactly as much evidence that "Devil's triangle" means drinking game as there is that "Devil's triangle" means "threesome". There is certainly no widespread evidence that it is a common term. People who want to add it want to do so for political purposes. Even if it were to be added (i.e., if the term had achieved notability in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearing), it would be irresponsible not to mention that the term only became famous because of the hearing and that there was essentially zero evidence of it meaning "threesome" beforehand. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  My "logic" is standard practice on Wikipedia. We banned the WP:DAILYMAIL, and now we can't use it even if it is cited by another source. wumbolo ^^^ 15:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's not true (We can use it as a source for its own opinions or viewpoints, just as any WP:NOTRELIABLE source). -Obsidi (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:NOTGOSSIP, and we lack RS that demonstrate it. -Obsidi (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge from Troilism

Isn't this the same concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Candaulism is a better merge target; literature often treats triolism and candaulism as the same. Troilism's entry at List of paraphilias is useful as well. And according to [2], triolism may be a scopophilia. wumbolo ^^^ 22:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• It is not, and I have now updated the Troilism article to make that clear. Whether or where it should be merged is not yet clear to me, but it should not be merged here. In that, I agree with Wumbolo. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that at the time Piotrus made the above proposal, Troilism looked like this: [3] It's no wonder that the merge seemed to make sense at that time given that the article incorrectly claimed that troilism refers to sexual activity in which three persons take part simultaneously. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Bueller 007, I reverted here because we currently have a Troilism article. Per MOS:BOLD, troilism shouldn't be bolded and linked there in the lead as though troilism is covered here. It's also WP:Undue, given that "troilism" is barely used and refers to a paraphilia. Yes, a merge was proposed and I see that you attempted a merge, but there is clearly no consensus above for a merge. It does seems that the Candaulism article would be an okay merge target. If troilism were mentioned in the Threesome article, it should be a brief mention in a "Terminology" or "As a paraphilia" section. But, again, there is no consensus to merge it here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is barely implementing the merge since all you did was add it as s synonym for a threesome, with no mention of the paraphilia aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Troilism and Threesome have a significant difference as in the first one participant observes whereas in the second all three actively participate. Candaulism is further off the mark, and is about exposure of the (usually) female partner not her having sex. The List of paraphilias definition of troilism isn't particularly good, giving it as Cuckoldism. Which in certain circumstances it may be, but in others the watching partner may be the dominant one. Additionally, in cuckoldism, the cuckolded partner isn't necessarily present when their partner has sex. The current troilism is just a single sentence, giving a definition. Ideally it should be expanded to at least a start class article, but failing that, adding a troilism section to the threesome article would be better than keeping the existing article.--John B123 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • At the top of your comment you admit that there is a significant difference, so on that basis I don't see why it makes any sense to add it here as a section. Also, troilism is a paraphilia and as such should not be confused with the practice of a threesome which is not inherently paraphilic (and even if it were, is not troilism in any case). As for it being a single sentence, that is not a major problem as such a stub is still a valid and separate topic. Please see WP:SOFIXIT and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If an article that "consists only of a dictionary definition" is a valid stub, why is there a policy to speedy delete them? --John B123 (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken about the Candaulism article and having dictionary definitions. Just change it into a Wiktionary redirect page, like Cocksucker. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

How about instead we redirect it to List of paraphilias#T? I have now updated that entry for it based on the sources; it no longer equates it with cuckoldism. [4] I disagree with sending people to Wiktionary. Wiktionary defines it as equivalent to threesome only [5] which as we have seen is not really correct. We have better sources than they do. I don't think the term "cocksucker" is comparable, as that is slang and this is a medical term (albeit rarely used). -Crossroads- (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion works for me. As for mentioning the Cocksucker page, it wasn't about comparing. It was about pointing to an example of what can be done with dictionary entries. Whether slang or a medical term, it if doesn't need or shouldn't have its own article, we should consider other options. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And Wiktionary can always be updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting it to Wiktionary doesn't give the chance to expand on the subject which it could be if it is part of another article. Searching the term gives either a definition similar to that on Wiktionary, or in more scientific publications, it is a paraphilia, separate from a threesome. Assuming we are using the more scientific definition, it needs to be made clear the term is sometimes used for a threesome. You could view it as a variation of a threesome, so could redirect there with an explanation in the text. You could also argue that as it is a paraphilia, which threesome isn't, it should redirect to List of paraphilias. I wouldn't have objections to either. --John B123 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)