If you ask the common person whether it is a threesome or train when a man is having sex with two women, people will say “threesome” with no second thought. Now if you flip the question and ask if it is a threesome or train when it is two men and one woman having sex people insist that it is a “train.” Why? It simply takes three adults engaging in consensual sex together to constitute a “threesome” so why is it that people are so adamant in resisting calling a two man-one woman threesome just that--a threesome?
If you noticed, a lot of times when people talk about women’s roles in sex, the language is never framed to suggest that women are active participants of sex but rather an object being used for sex or something to be conquered. People have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that sex is not something that happens women but something that women actively participate in. It is evident in the language used when talking about women engaging in sex:
“I .”
“She been bro.”
“She been .”
When you can’t grapple with the fact that a woman with two men is a threesome, you are guilty of believing sex is not something women can dominate in but rather another space where women have to be dominated and subjugated.
Now, people have tried to counter my argument with “Well, in a two women, one man threesome, they’re all having sex with each other. If it’s two men and one woman that’s a train because they’re just having sex with the woman.” I’m not buying that because why are you even assuming the men in the latter situation aren’t having sex with each other? Will homophobia and rigid masculinity--yes, I said it--not allow you to even consider that to be a possibility? Also, you honestly feel that people would comfortably call a man-two women a “train” simply because the women aren’t having sex with each other? It doesn’t matter whether the women are having sex or not. People’s first impulse is to call a two women-one man sexual encounter a “threesome.”
People are so attached to the word “train” because it feeds into calcified masculinity’s need to thrive off the subjugation and domination of women. The idea of a woman being pleasured by more than one man at the same time challenges the very premise toxic masculinity stands upon. It suggests that the woman is not in a position of subjugation but in fact, she is centered and is possibly the dominant one.
People are also hesitant to call a one-woman, two-man threesome a threesome because it goes against the idea that a woman of morality should only reserve sex for a man she is romantically involved with. It is socially acceptable for a man to have sex with multiple women. A great portion of manhood’s validity is founded upon how many women a man can get. Validation, for womanhood, on the other hand, is founded upon how a woman can remain reserved and reserved for one man only. A woman engaging in sex with more than one man, at the same time at that, completely challenges that notion.
This logic is also cisheteronormative--meaning it centers cisgender, heterosexual people and excludes individuals who do not find themselves within this identity. What happens when it’s not even one man/two women or one woman/two men? What if it is three men or three women? Are those not threesomes as well? What if said threesome involves someone is non-binary or conforming? Is that a threesome or train?
The fact of the matter is, people’s reasoning behind why it’s not a threesome when it is two men and one woman is simply rooted in sexism. They guise it with excuses that are not founded in logic. A threesome is when three adults engage in consensual sex. Gender is a non-factor. In order to fully understand and accept this, you would have to actually see women as your equal and not as something to be conquered through sex.