Exploring Gay Men’s Threesomes:

Normalization, Concerns, and Sexual

Opportunities
Scoats, R., Anderson, E. & White, A
Author post-print (accepted) deposited by Coventry University’s Repository

Original citation & hyperlink:

Scoats, R, Anderson, E & White, AJ 2021, 'Exploring Gay Men’s Threesomes:
Normalization, Concerns, and Sexual Opportunities', Journal of Bodies, Sexualities,
and Masculinities, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 82-106.
https://doi.org/10.3167/jbsm.2021.020206

DOI 10.3167/jbsm.2021.020206
ISSN 2688-8157
ESSN 2688-8149

Publisher: Berghahn Journals

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright
owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study,
without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively
from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The
content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium
without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during
the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version
may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from
it.
Cover Page:
Exploring gay men’s threesomes: Normalisation, concerns, and
sexual opportunities
Although there is now an abundance of research regarding group sex between men, much of
the current literature constructs group sex as homogenous and overlooks the nuance of how
and why men engage in particular sexual behaviours. Accordingly, this research expands our
understanding of group sex through a focus on a specific type of sex: the threesome. The
results demonstrate how perspectives on threesomes may develop over time; at first
appearing exciting before becoming relatively normalised and indistinct from dyadic sex.
Encounters and exposure are fostered through the sexual opportunity structures available, in
particular, geo-social networking apps. Despite their normalisation, however, threesomes are
not necessarily viewed as risk free. Thus, this research offers new insight and understanding
into how gay men engage in group sex, and the contextual factors which make it possible.

Keywords: consensual non-monogamy, hook ups, group sex, gay men, sexual scripts,
threesome

Acknowledgements: This research would not have been possible without the insight and
effort of Florian Zsok who sadly passed away before the end of this project. This article is
dedicated to him.
Exploring gay men’s threesomes: Normalisation, concerns, and
sexual opportunities

Introduction

Much of the prior research on group sex among gay men, and men who have sex with men

(MSM) comes from a public health perspective, aiming to understand sexual risk behaviour

and minimise instances of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (e.g. Phillips et al. 2014;

Rice et al. 2016). Although an important and valuable area of study, these studies have

frequently focused on specific venues, locations, and organised events at which group sex

takes place (e.g. Meunier 2018; Meunier and Siegel 2019) or locations where people are

tested for STIs (e.g. Violette et al. 2019). These approaches pre-select participants with an

assumption of sexual risk (Frank 2019) thus providing a skewed understanding of group sex.

Further complicating matters, few of these studies attempt to adequately understand

and acknowledge the many different group sex activities (see: Frank 2013) which might take

place in a given situation (cf. Grov et al. 2013). However, Barry Adam (2006) has suggested

that individuals may be specifically motivated to engage in certain forms of group sex yet

avoid others; a viewed shared by others (LaSala 2004; Scoats 2020). Accordingly, given that

group sex is a collection of diverse (albeit overlapping) sexual behaviours, it is important to

understand different facets of it rather than view it (and those who engage in it) as a

homogenous whole.
 This paper expands the literature on group sex by exploring a component of the field

that is under-examined, threesomes. Commonly understood as “sexual interaction between

three people whereby at least one engages in physical sexual behaviour with both the other

individuals” (Scoats 2020: 37), there is a lack of research into this form of group sex

(Thompson et al. 2020). This is a particularly salient omission when we consider that it has

been highlighted as one of the most engaged in group sex behaviour between MSM (Grov et

al. 2014). Furthermore, there appear to be important differences between engaging in a

threesome in contrast to other forms of group sex (e.g. the types of behaviours engaged in,

whether or not protection was used; see Grov et al. 2013).

This article contributes to the literature on gay/mostly gay men’s group sex through

an exploration of their most recent threesome with two other men, specifically focusing on

how and why they engaged in this particular sexual act. This research expands our

understanding of threesomes among gay men, specifically the normalisation of group sex, the

ease by which threesomes are discussed and arranged, and the role of experience in

constructing differing understandings of threesomes.

Men’s interest in group sex

Research into group sex often concentrates on populations perceived to escalate or be at

greater risk to sexually transmitted infections (Frank 2019). As a result of HIV, gay men and

MSM have thus been the focus of much of this research (e.g. Grov et al. 2013; McInnes et al.

2011; Phillips et al. 2014). Research also suggests that gay men and MSM engage in group

sex at higher rates compared to the general population (see Herbenick et al. 2017). For

example, William Goedel and Dustin Duncan (2018) found just over two fifths of their

sample of 202 MSM had engaged in some sort of group sex within the last 3 months, and just
under three quarters had lifetime engagement in group sex. Similarly, Lauren Violette et al.

(2019) found, from 841 sexual health clinic visits by MSM (690 individual participants),

34.8% had engaged in some sort of group sex within the last 3 months of their visit.

Likewise, Randolph Hubach et al. (2014) found that 36.8% of their non-urban (i.e.

rural/mixed rural) MSM sample had engaged in group sex or a threesome within the last year

(an additional 27.7% had experiences more than 1 year ago). In comparison, Debby

Herbenick et al.’s (2017) nationally representative sample of adult men and women in the

United States found much lower rates of lifetime group sex experience (11.5% and 6.3%

respectively).

There is also evidence to suggest that rates of men’s group sex encounters may

actually be rising, at least in some contexts. Eric Chow et al. (2019) showed that rates of

group sex among gay and bisexual men in Melbourne and Sydney increased from 30.9% in

2013 to 36.8% in 2018.

Exploring precisely why gay men and MSM appear to engage in group sex at a higher

rate than other populations, it is important to consider several interconnected factors, such as

the influence of sex and gender. For example, both biological predisposition and social

expectations around gender may contribute to men being more sexually explorative and

agentic than women (Katz-Wise and Hyde 2014). In addition, independent of sexual

orientation, men universally tend to have a stronger sex drive (Baumeister et al. 2001) and a

higher desire for sexual novelty seeking than women (Schmitt 2003). Men also tend to hold

more permissive attitudes towards casual sex (Schmitt 2005; Twenge et al. 2015) and tend to

be less restricted in their sexual practice (Cubbins and Tanfer 2000; Hatfield et al. 2012;

Petersen and Hyde 2011). Whether we understand these attitudes and desires as a result of

biological differences or social influences, the perception of their naturalness also has the

potential to feed into the social scripts men draw upon to justify their need or engagement in
extradyadic sex (Anderson 2010; Coelho 2011; Sowell et al. 1998). Accordingly, gay men

and MSM’s higher involvement in group sex may be a result of both biological and social

factors.

Understanding gay men and MSM’s group sex is further complicated when factoring

in some of the specific features which might make this form of sex an attractive prospect to

some. Group sex might be a means by which couples bring excitement and novelty to their

sex lives (De Visser and McDonald 2007; Karlen 1988), an exploration of power dynamics

(Frank 2013), or constitute a form of play and recreation (Harviainen and Frank 2018). It

might be the pinnacle of one’s sexual fantasies (Lehmiller 2018) or perhaps just another

sexual behaviour to be engaged in because they can (Scoats 2020). Accordingly, group sex

specifically may be appealing because it allows for experiences that other forms of sex do

not.

Beyond motivation and a desire for group sex it is also important to consider the role

of opportunity (Weinberg and Williams 1975). For some, the infrastructure of gay culture

seemingly provides them with a potentially wide array of opportunities for sex; as Adam

(2006: 23) suggests: “many men experience gay sexual culture as an efficient delivery system

for ‘fast food’ sex”. Physical spaces such as sex clubs, bath houses, circuit parties and

cruising spots all provide opportunities for casual encounters, recreational sex, and group sex

encounters (Bérubé 2003; Frank 2013; Hayward 2020; Meunier 2018). Increasingly, there are

also opportunities for men to meet via the use of online means such as websites and geo-

social networking apps (Goedel and Duncan 2018), which some have argued may specifically

help facilitate group sex (e.g. Tang et al. 2016). Theoretically, the advent of these multiple

opportunities for group sex may also help to normalise it through the continued exposure it

creates; similar to how viewing pornography may contribute to expanded sexual horizons

(Weinberg et al. 2010). Consequently, it is possible that gay men and MSM’s development of
sexual scripts (Gagnon and Simon 1973) may also be more likely to include group sex. In

contrast, the normalisation, interest, engagement, and opportunities for group sex between

sexual minority women only may be less (Blumstein and Swartz 1983; Gotta et al. 2011;

Levine et al. 2018; Wosick 2012). Thus, in addition to individual motivational factors, the

available sexual opportunities may also facilitate group sex encounters.

Delineating group sex

Although there is now a wealth a researching exploring gay men and MSM’s group sex, there

are still aspects of this topic which are under-developed; specifically, explorations of

differing types of group sex (e.g. van den Boom et al. 2016; Rice et al. 2016). As Christian

Grov et al. (2013) suggest, much of the prior research on group sex encounters between men

has focused on organised group sex parties but neglected other contexts and varieties of

group sex. This approach, however, is problematic (particularly from a public heath

perspective) as there are meaningful differences between who and how men engage in group

sex. For example, Grov et al. (2013: 2291) found there to “significant differences with regard

to sexual behavior, substance use, and relationship status” when comparing those whose last

group sex encounter was a threesome, spontaneous group sex, or at an organised sex party—

e.g. those who engaged in organised sex parties were significantly more likely to have

engaged in unprotected anal intercourse. Consequently, a focus on specific environments may

distort our understanding of particular sexual acts, behaviours, and groups.

An alternative approach to focusing on group sex environments and organised events

is to explore specific group sex behaviours themselves, as this allows for a broader range of

experiences and participants to be studied. One of the most common group sex acts engaged

in by MSM are threesomes (Grov et al., 2014). Most of the data on all male threesomes,
however, is concerned with couple’s relationship arrangements (Grov et al. 2013) or focuses

on relationship structures. For example, some gay couples describe having “threesome only”

arrangements whereby they only engage in extra-dyadic sex when with their partner in a

threesome (e.g. Adam 2006; Hosking 2013; LaSala 2004; Philpot et al. 2017). In contrast,

much less is known about men’s same-sex threesomes away from the context of established

romantic relationships. Highlighting the need for more research in this area, Ryan Scoats &

Eric Anderson (2019) suggests there may be differences in how those involved in romantic

relationships approach threesomes in comparison to those not, particularly in relation to

sexual health and jealousy.

Accordingly, the current research aims to expand understanding of men’s same-sex

threesomes through a focus on how and why they happen. Rather than focusing specifically

on relationship arrangements that allow for threesomes or environments in which threesomes

occur, it is the view that a focus on the threesome itself can provide a potentially more

inclusive understanding of how and why people engage in them.

Sampling

Our survey was advertised on via social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and shared with the

researchers’ social networks, some of whom shared it with theirs. Snowball sampling has

been shown to be useful to find participants from very specific, or stigmatized groups

(Browne 2005; Mangan and Reips 2007) and was thus considered an appropriate method. It

was theorised that the anonymity of the online survey format, combined with the lack of

affiliation of the respondents to the researchers, would positively impact the validity of the

responses (Burkill et al. 2016).

 The survey was part of a larger study exploring sexual behaviour and group sex more

generally. It intended to capture the experiences of a wide range of participants and was thus

shared internationally and open to all, regardless of sexuality, experiences with group sex or

threesomes. The current study only focuses on men whose last threesome included men only

(for information regarding the other threesome data collected during this study see: Scoats

2020).

Data collection

Participants first viewed a welcome screen with general information on the study and a

requirement to provide informed consent. We then assessed demographic details including

age, sex, education, country of residence, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. For the latter,

we used a shortened version of the continuous scale by Ritch Savin-Williams (2014)

containing the following response options: straight, mostly straight, bisexual, mostly gay,

gay.

Within the section specifically looking at threesomes, participants were presented

with the following definition of a threesome: “A threesome is a sexual act involving three

people, of which at least one engages in physical sexual interaction with the two

others.” Participants next indicated whether, per this definition, they had ever had a

threesome. Depending on participant response, the survey branched out into different

pathways regarding their sexual experiences. Participants with threesome experience were

asked about their most recent threesome (so to allow for the collection of in-depth data; see:

Prestage et al. 2008), and how many of which type they have had. The key responses being

analysed in the present study are the open-ended questions: “Why did you engage in your

most recent threesome?”; “How did your most recent threesome come about?” and “Is there
anything else about threesomes that you would like to tell us? This could be a particular

experience you had, or maybe something that you feel the previous questions missed”.

Ethical clearance for this study was gained through the University of Winchester,

whose guidelines correspond with those set forth by the British Sociological Association.

Participants were not under any obligation to finish the survey once started nor provide any

personal information which might have led to them being identified. Participants were also

able to have their data subsequently removed from the study by contacting the research team

(no requests were received).

Participant Demographics

In total, 365 men filled out the survey, 104 of who’s most recent threesome was with two

other men. After removing participants who had not provided any response to the qualitative

questions the sample consisted of 87 men. Twenty-three participants provided information for

all three open-ended questions, a further 55 provided information for both how and why their

last threesome happened, and 9 participants only commented on how their last threesome

came about.

Using the aforementioned 5-point scale to measure sexuality, 27 identified as mostly

gay, and 60 as gay. Most participants were currently residing in England (63) or the US (12)

with a small number of participants from other locations with the United Kingdom and as

well as across the globe.

Participants also predominantly identified as white (73), one identified as Black/Black

British, one as having other mixed heritage, and 12 did not answer this question. Most

participants were educated to University level or higher (71), 12 to college (UK) or sixth-

form level, 3 to secondary school level, and the remaining participant did not provide
information. There was a mean age of 32 years old (std. dev. 11.49), although 20 participants

did not answer this question.

Data analysis

The responses to the open-ended questions within this survey were analysed using thematic

analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). Adopting an inductive approach (Nowell et al. 2017), two

researchers independently conducted analysis and generated initial codes. These codes were

then compared, an agreed upon set of codes (or codebook; Berends and Johnston 2005;

Richards and Hemphill 2018) were established, and the data set was then coded

collaboratively by the two researchers.

These two researchers then generated themes with an aim to capture the “patterns of

shared meaning” within the data (Braun and Clarke 2019: 592). Finally, in collaboration with

the rest of the research team, these themes were (re)organised until it was agreed that the data

was meaningfully and accurately represented by the chosen themes (Nowell et al. 2017).

Within this article, some participant quotes have been altered to remove identifiable

information and adjusted for grammar

Findings
Participants described a range of experiences and perspectives related to their most recent

threesome. Circumstances, motivations, and experiences with threesomes all appeared to

impact how and why they were engaged with. Threesomes were frequently constructed as a

normalised sexual activity and not particularly difficult to arrange. Despite these attitudes,
few participants seemed to enter threesomes without any forethought, instead, they would

foster strategies they believed would reduce the potential negatives of an encounter.

The normalisation of threesomes

For much of the sample, threesomes appeared to be a normal part of their sex lives. As Scoats

(2020) has argued, beyond one’s first experience, threesomes have the potential to take on a

normalised status as a sexual behaviour and may be viewed as simply another option in one’s

sexual repertoire without internal stigma. This perspective might explain why those who have

had threesomes in the past appear more likely to have future threesomes (Morris et al. 2016),

although this is influenced by a range of factors (Adam 2006; Scoats 2020).

In the present sample, participants were often fairly well-experienced with threesomes

and the normalisation of threesomes corresponded with the quantity of threesomes

participants estimated they had engaged in. Of the sample, only 7 participants suggested that

their most recent threesome with two other men (MMM) had been their first. In contrast, 5

participants estimated they had had 100 or more MMM threesomes; the median number of

previous MMM threesomes being 5 (mean 13.10, Std. Dev 23.54). One interpretation of this

may be that the normalisation of threesomes within this sample is a result of their multiple

experiences. Alternatively, it may be that the normalisation of threesomes is what (in part)

allowed participants to have multiple experiences.

One way in which threesomes were normalised was through the relative

insignificance placed on them—both in terms of their own view, and the collective view of

their social network. Demonstrating the diminished importance around threesomes one

participant said:
 We are very open about our sexuality and it seems silly to close yourself off to

attractive friends. All gays are flirty with each other, even when they are just friends,

so it seems natural that you should be able to have sex with your partner and friend

together and it not be a big deal. Everyone just wants to have fun.

Similarly, another participant suggested that: “It was something to do on a Saturday night”.

As threesomes were so frequently seen as “not a big deal” participants would thus engage in

them simply because there was an opportunity to do so: “[A] friend we'd had a threesome

with before was visiting my partner socially when I got home. Watched a film and had sex

because, why not?”. Another participant stated that they had not initially been intending to

seek a threesome but were happy to alter their plans to accommodate one: “I was interested in

hooking up with our friend again and my partner expressed interest in joining us, which

sounded great to all”.

In line with research highlighting the expanding uses of sex, particularly the capacity

for it to be seen as a leisure activity (Atwood and Smith 2013; McCormack and Wignall

2017; Scoats et al. 2018), some participants would have regular arrangements to meet up with

others: “This was a regular monthly event. The 3 of us get together at least once a month

depending on everybody's work schedule. I have several regular 3-way (and 4-way) groups”.

Another said: “Our friend came over to both hang out and have sex. He's a regular, someone

whom we met about 2 years ago who we see every couple months”.

Participants also frequently described threesomes as a “fun” or “enjoyable” activity,

often lacking any socio or emotional significance or importance (Scoats 2020). For example,

when asked why he had had his most recent threesome a participant said: “For fun,

stimulation, sexual gratification and because in the past I have enjoyed other threesomes”.

Epitomising the casualness in which threesomes were usually described, others said: “Why
not? It's just some fun at the end of the day”; “Partner and I wanted to have some fun”; “It

was fun. Great chemistry among the three of us. We had hooked up together once before and

wanted to repeat it”.

Within the frame of threesomes being a normalised sexual behaviour, they were thus

often incorporated into the concept of sex in general; the former not necessarily being

separate or notably different from the latter. In this context, the question of why someone had

a threesome is subsequently reduced to: “Why did you have sex?”, and the response for some

participants was simply: “Why not?”. Accordingly, when threesomes were seen as a

normalised sexual behaviour, asking “Why did you have your last threesome?” was perceived

a strange question:

This seems like a really stupid question. Why do people have sex at all? I was horny.

They were horny. We all like group sex. We had the time and opportunity to do

something all of us enjoy. So, we fucked.

Likely a consequence of threesomes being just another sexual option, it was sometimes

difficult to determine whether it was specifically a threesome which was desired or just

sexual release, in general. For example, one participant simply said: “Sex is fun”. Another

suggested: “Not the most eloquent of answers, but... I was horny”. Indeed, several

participants referenced feeling “horny” or being “sexually aroused” as the reason for their

most recent threesome: “Because the guys were hot, and I was horny”. Others talked about a

desire “for instant gratification” or “pure sexual gratification/enjoyment”, demonstrating that

the situation was desirable but not allowing us to understand the specifics of precisely what

was desirable.
 In contrast, although overall threesomes appeared to be normalised for most, those

with limited previous experiences still viewed them as exciting and novel. These participants

discussed having threesomes because they were curious; or because they wanted to try

something new. One participant responded: “For excitement and wanted to try something

different”. Another said: “A new experience, excitement. Alone in the house and travelling

on work”. Additional examples are provided later in the article.

Accordingly, participants’ responses suggest that although threesomes may initially

be exciting and novel, for those that enjoy them and continue to have them, they are no

longer viewed this way. Instead, they become just another sexual option and consequently

have a variety of motivations (Meston and Buss 2007; Scoats 2020), as one participant

suggested:

Many gay men have group sexual encounters fairly frequently… I was in a seven-

year, open relationship with my last partner. We had threesomes on a semi-regular

basis (about every other month) with one of six friends with whom we all shared good

chemistry sexually. We also hooked up with a new third guy we met in a bar or online

probably two to three times per year. I have also been invited as a third person for a

male-female bi couple once and for gay couples several times. I am not including

attendance at sex clubs in these numbers.

Attention, communication, and safety

Despite the widespread normalisation of threesomes and the casual way that many

participants described them, some still raised issues around safety, the egalitarian distribution

of attention, and the importance of communication for having good experiences. Indeed,

although concerns around jealousy, neglect, and the exclusion of members of the three was
discussed by participants, so too was the importance of communication (Philpot et al. 2017)

as a method by which potential difficulties could be minimised. Despite the protective

potential of communication some participants still highlighted problems that could stem from

these discussions.

Emphasising the potential for people to be left out or neglected, a participant

suggested that: “It's always about one other person that you like. Usually the 3rd person is left

out”. Another said: “In general I have enjoyed my experiences having threesomes, foursomes

and fivesomes with other men, but I tend to prefer one on one sexual encounters. There is less

likely to be issues of jealousy or someone feeling neglected”. As this quote highlights,

someone feeling left would not be a desirable outcome and may even be a reason to avoid

threesomes. Accordingly, someone being left out could be a pivotal factor: “Threesomes can

be marvellous as long as everyone is on the same page. It's easy for someone to feel left out,

so caring for each other is important. But when everyone is in sync, wow.”

Despite the potential risks around exclusion, some participants felt that these risks

could be reduced if there could be open discussions:

I feel that out of all the threesomes I've had, when I know and trust the people

involved, it has always been more enjoyable. Frank conversation about feelings, what

you want and expect out of an experience, before and afterwards are important. Much

like how I dislike impersonal sex, I feel the same applies for threesomes. It's such an

intimate experience, with so much potential for people to feel left out, or get hurt, I

can't do it with someone I can't talk to. Hence why my history of them has been with

friends or partners or both!

Others also discussed the importance of interpersonal aspects of their threesomes; feeling

“comfortable”, “safe” or having “great chemistry” were all seen as significant factors. Most

commonly participants referred to having developed a good personal relationship with at least

one of the others in the three. For example: “We were all together and openly talking about

sex and the subject was raised. We were in a safe environment with people we knew and

trusted so I guess it just happened”. Another suggested: “I was feeling horny and was

comfortable with this couple after meeting them before. They are an attractive professional

couple and it didn't feel awkward”.

Participants’ conceptualisations of risk and/or safety were, however, varied. In the

following two examples both participants suggest that threesomes added variety to their sex

lives (Hosking 2013; LaSala 2004) but the locus of risk was situated differently:

Me and my partner gotten into a serious relationship early, and we are often curious

about other men. I was 16 and he was 17 when we got together 6 years ago. We see

this a way of exploring other men while being together safely and we enjoy doing this

together. I see this a way of reducing adultery.

In this example, the participant suggests that it is by sexually exploring together (presumably

in contrast to individual exploration) that the couple find safety. He also appeared to suggest

that a threesome may reduce the likelihood of infidelity—and presumably the probable

breakdown of the relationship (Anderson, 2010). Thus, in this example the perception seems

to be that the risks associated with a threesome are less significant than the risks associated

with sexual boredom. In contrast, the next example emphasises the risk stemming from the

threesome itself:
 As part of a poly leather Boy/Daddy relationship, we wanted to explore more

possibilities in our sex lives. After much discussion and exploration of safety

(emotionally, mentally, & physically), we had a hot time! After we were done, we

went back to our place (just the two of us) and had another hot time! Having a

threesome made our experience of each other better!

However, making sure everyone was included did not necessarily led to a problem free

experience. For example, needing to be cognisant of everyone else’s experience could present

its own difficulties: “Threesomes can be a bit hit or miss, sometimes they are really hot,

sometimes not so much because you have to think more about it than sex with just another

person. You have got to consider who's not getting enough attention etc.”. In contrast, a focus

on one particular member of the three might also be seen as a positive: “It's easier to join

another couple’s chemistry than try to create your own from scratch with someone single,

especially for a night…Guaranteed a lot of attention.”

In sum, although many participants overall viewed threesomes as a normalised sexual

behaviour they were not viewed as without risk. Feeling safe, being comfortable with the

others present, and the egalitarian distribution of attention (Scoats, 2019) were generally seen

as important factor to consider and communication was often a tool through which to

navigate these issues. Additionally, perceptions of risk appeared to vary and be influenced by

other contextual and experiential factors.

A network of opportunities

Participants frequently referenced sexual spaces and personal connections/acquaintances as

being facilitators to their threesomes. Both in the real world and the virtual, physical locations

such as bath houses and sex clubs, as well as online mobile apps such as Grindr, appeared
common for aiding and facilitating instances of threesomes. More than a third of participants

referenced some sort of sexual space in their responses. Additionally, participants also

frequently highlighted how their interpersonal connections and networks provided them

opportunities for threesomes.

To look first at physical spaces, these were typically spaces which already had (or

were perceived to have) a focus on sex. Describing a specific event, a participant said: “My

partner (my Daddy [sic]) and I went to a sex party as part of a leather event for GLBT folks.

We approached another participant and had a great time!”. Others also talked about particular

locations that had facilitated their threesome: “met friends in a gay sauna”, “At a sex club”;

and even specific areas within spaces (Hayward 2020): “In a dark room in a club”.

More commonly, however, the most pervasive sexual spaces were virtual, part of a

“sexual infrastructure” (Race 2015: 255) accessed through location-based mobile applications

designed for dating and/or casual sex. In response to the question of “how did your most

recent threesome come about?”, it was not uncommon for responses to be only one word:

“Grindr” (although other websites and mobile apps were also mentioned). Single word

responses such as this may represent the perceived significance and utility of such spaces but

may also be a result of how participants respond to open ended questions (Roberts et al.

2014).

Although some participants specifically utilised apps such as Grindr to find others for

a threesome e.g. “with a mate and we used Grindr to find the third”; “Drunk after a night out,

staying at a friend’s and we ended inviting someone over from Grindr”, others were not

specifically motivated to have a threesome, but were offered and subsequently accepted:

I was passing through a rural town and happened to check Grindr (gay hook up app)

and was contacted by a couple for a threesome. At the time I humoured them for
 conversation only, however about a week later I passed through again and decided to

stay the night.

For some, their interpersonal networks acted as a link by which individuals’ potential and/or

previous hook-ups, friends, and acquaintances could be brought together: “I went to a New

Year's party my long-time fuckbuddy organised with several of his prior hook-ups. I and one

of his bisexual acquaintances stayed after the others had left…”. Another participant

described:

An acquaintance with whom I'd had oral sex with, in the past, messaged me on

Grindr. As we were chatting, a friend with whom I have previously had sex with on

more than one occasion. Both had asked me for sex. I suggested a threesome. Myself

and the acquaintance met up, then went to my friend's.

Although these examples do highlight the potential ease by which threesomes might be

facilitated, men were not necessarily indiscriminate in who they chose to have sex with. One

participant outlined how: “A brief acquaintance that I'd been talking to for a while on Grindr

(but never met) briefly had a free house. A guy he'd had a threesome with the evening before

was also free again”. He did, however, add that it was an endorsement from his brief

acquaintance for the third person which meant that he did not mind meeting someone who he

had not himself interacted with: “He vouched for his friend, and seemed keen to see him

again too, and I was up for that”.

Similarly, another participant described how it was important to explore the dynamics

between individuals before agreeing to a threesome (as discussed in the previous section):
 I had been seeing guy called Jack, purely in a no strings attached fuckbuddy kinda

way, and he invited me round to hang out with another guy he was seeing called Tim,

to see how we all got on. None of us were in a committed relationship and were open

to seeing if we fancied a threesome as Tim had never had one.

As Justin Lehmiller (2018) has suggested, the disparity between those interested in

threesomes and those actually engaging might be partially explained by the difficulty in

finding others also interested. The availability of these sexual spaces and interpersonal

connections combined with the apparent capacity for participants to discuss threesomes with

ease, may have consequently reduced this barrier around finding other interested parties. In

contrast, these opportunities and connections appear much less prominently in the literature

on mixed-sex threesomes (at least among monogamously identifying individuals, see Scoats

2020). Theoretically, the availability of these sexual opportunities may therefore be another

factor contributing to gay men’s elevated engagement in same-sex group sex.

Discussion
This research aimed to expand understanding of all-male threesomes beyond investigations of

specific relationship structures (e.g. open relationships), locations (e.g. sex clubs, bath

houses), and events (e.g. organised sex parties) where this form of group sex has been

previously documented. Through a focus on how and why threesomes happen, rather than the

aforementioned contexts, it was hoped that this research could bring new insight to this topic.

Three key themes were identified in the data which both replicate and expand previous

research.

The first theme highlighted the normality of threesomes within the sample, often

demonstrated via the casual way in which they were discussed and entered into by many
participants. Despite the overwhelmingly normalised perception of threesomes, the second

theme demonstrated the concerns participants had around them, the steps they would take to

foster a better experience, and the importance of interpersonal relationships. The final theme

highlighted the sexual opportunities available to the sample and how these both contribute to

the normalisation of threesomes and engagement with them.

Regarding the normalisation of threesomes, this finding might be attributed to the

quantity of participants’ experiences. Thus, as the sample has a higher proportion of those

with multiple threesome experiences (presumably because they are both interested in them

and view them as acceptable to engage in), this may account for the overall perception of

threesomes as normal. Correspondingly, those who perceive threesomes negatively, as

abnormal, or unappealing are going to be under-represented within the sample. There are,

however, still a range of additional factors which nevertheless contribute to the overall

normalisation of threesomes for these men regardless of their experiences or attitude towards

them. The casual way that threesomes are spoken about; their contextualisation as a leisure

activity; the availability and ease by which they are offered and arranged (Lehmiller 2018);

and the online environments which aid and facilitate conversations about consent and desire

(Wignall et al. 2020) all serve to reduce potential (logistical and cultural) barriers to

threesomes (Scoats 2020), even if some ultimately decide not to engage in one. Accordingly,

the normalisation of threesomes for the men in this study is likely a combination not just

experience but also wider contextual factors.

It was also apparent that men’s perceptions of threesomes developed over time. Those

with more experience were likely to view it as another option in their sexual repertoire,

whereas those with less experience interpreted it as a novel and exciting activity (Morris et al.

2016; Scoats 2020). A shift from novelty to normalisation may represent a trialling of this

specific sexual behaviour before it was incorporated into some men’s sexual scripts (Gagnon
and Simon 1973), although clearly not all participants were necessarily interested in future

threesomes. Of note, the term “threesome” at times became almost a synonym for sex;

stripped of significance, importance, and the notion that threesomes happen at only special

times and/or places. Determining precisely why particular people decide to incorporate

threesomes into their range of sexual options while others do not is a topic which requires

further research (See: Scoats 2020).

Experience also seemed to highlight and forefront the potential risks around the

unpredictability of threesomes. Although unpredictability may be way by which the eroticism

of a situation may be enhanced (Bollen and McInnes 2004), it also created sexual admin for

those who wished to reduce the potential risks around an encounter. Participants discussed

the need to feel safe, comfortable, and have ‘good chemistry’ with the others involved

(Scoats 2020). Although these desires for comfort and connection are not exclusive to group

sex (e.g. Giordano et al. 2012; Kleinplatz et al. 2009), negotiating them may be more difficult

when multiple people are involved; especially if some of those people have not interacted

before and are instead relying upon positive assurances from another person (Worthington

2005). For some, undertaking the required level of sexual admin appeared to be an accepted

part of entering into future threesomes, whereas others were less willing to take on this

burden. As recent research has suggested, acquaintances (rather than friends or strangers)

may actually be a more appealing prospect for threesomes (Thompson et al. 2020).

Theoretically, acquaintances may be appealing precisely because they require a reduced level

of sexual admin i.e. there are fewer risks in terms of harming/altering the dynamic in a pre-

established friendship or having to navigate the awkwardness and unknowns of a stranger.

Thus, acquaintances may be viewed as the lowest risk in terms of inter-personal

complications as well as requiring a lower level of sexual admin.

 The overwhelming prevalence of online sexual opportunities may also serve as an

explanatory factor in gay men’s greater engagement in group sex over and above other

groups (Tang et al. 2016). Indeed, research has found that sexual minority women and men

hold similar attitudes and desires to engage in consensual non-monogamy (including those

types with a greater focus on sex) (Moors et al. 2014). One influential difference, however,

are the sorts of sexual opportunities which are available to gay men. In contrast, queer

women may engage with online hook up apps in ways do not necessarily foster the

availability of these opportunities for casual group sex to the same extent (Murray and

Ankerson 2016).

Furthermore, the availability of sexual opportunities highlights the inadequacy of

sexual health interventions which specially target group sex event attendees (Frank 2019).

Although interventions of this nature may be able to reach some of those who engage in

riskier forms of sex within these contexts, these are clearly not the only circumstance in

which group sex occurs. Accordingly, whilst avoiding the presumption that those who engage

in group sex are inherently sexual risk takers (Frank 2019), knowledge regarding how to

navigate these experiences in a “safe” (and consensual) manner might be better transmitted

through other methods such as sex and relationship education or mobile apps themselves

(Kirby and Thornber-Dunwell 2014).

In sum, this research highlights some of the particularities of gay men’s group sex

experiences, the sexual culture around them, and how they navigate threesomes with other

men. It offers theoretical understanding as to why and how gay men engage in threesomes

(and perhaps group sex more generally) more so than other populations as well as exploring

some of the sexual and social dynamics that influence their participation. Although the men

in this study may only represent a small portion of gay men’s lived experiences, the findings

point towards a sexual culture in which threesomes are often openly discussed and are
relatively easy to arrange and attain, often without substantial effort. These broader

contextual factors should be kept in mind when further exploring gay men’s group sex

activities, especially from a public health perspective.

Limitations

There are several limitations in this study. Due to the number of participants and the

relatively homogenous, results must be interpreted tentatively. Although they may speak to

many others’ experiences, they are not necessarily representative. Regarding the collection of

data, it was not compulsory for participants to answer all questions and thus some data sets

(such as demographic questions) were incomplete. Furthermore, like other research that deals

with open-ended text responses, the data in the present study sometimes suffers from a lack

of context, depth, responses that are only a single word, and an inability to follow up on

responses (Decorte et al. 2019). Consequently, it is possible that the research team may have

misinterpreted some participants’ responses. However, the consistency of the broad trends

discussed in the article suggest that the impact of potential misinterpretations is likely

minimal. Further research is, however, needed to test such assumptions.

References

Adam, Barry. D. 2006. Relationship innovation in male couples. Sexualities 9(1): 5–26.

doi:10.1177/1363460706060685

Anderson, Eric. 2010. ‘At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy’: Cheating

and monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships 27(7): 851–872. doi:10.1177/0265407510373908

Attwood, Feona, and Clarissa Smith. 2013. More sex! Better sex! Sex is fucking brilliant!

Sex, sex, sex, SEX. In T. Blackshaw (Eds.), Routledge handbook of leisure studies

(pp. 325–336). London: Routledge.

Baumeister, Roy, Kathleen Catanese, and Kathleen Vohs. 2001. Is there a gender difference

in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant

evidence. Personality and social psychology review 5(3): 242-273.

doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5

Berends, Lynda, and Jennifer Johnston. 2005. Using multiple coders to enhance qualitative

analysis: The case of interviews with consumers of drug treatment. Addiction Research &

Theory 13(4): 373-381. doi: 10.1080/16066350500102237

Bérubé, Allan. 2003. The history of gay bathhouses. Journal of Homosexuality, 44(3-4), 33-

53. doi: 10.1300/J082v44n03_03

Blumstein, Phil, and Pepper Schwartz. 1983. American Couples. New York: Morrow.

Bollen, Jonathan, and McInnes, David, 2004. Time, relations and learning in gay men's

experiences of adventurous sex. Social Semiotics 14(1): 21-36. doi:

10.1080/1035033042000202906
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis.

Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4): 589-597. doi:

10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Browne, Kath. 2005. Snowball sampling: Using social networks to research non-heterosexual

women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 47–60.

doi:10.1080/1364557032000081663

Burkill, Sarah, Andrew Copas, Mick P. Couper, Soazig Clifton, Philip Prah, Jessica Datta,

Frederick Conrad, Kaye Wellings, Anne M. Johnson, and Bob Erens. 2016. Using the web to

collect data on sensitive behaviours: A study looking at mode effects on the British National

Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0147983.

Chow, Eric, Toby Lea, Christopher Fairley, Limin Mao, Timothy Broady, Benjamin

Bavinton, Garrett Prestage, and Martin Holt. 2019. P419 Patterns of group sex activity among

gay and bisexual men in Melbourne and Sydney in Australia, 2013–2018. Abstracts for the

STI & HIV World Congress (Joint Meeting of the 23rd ISSTDR and 20th IUSTI), July 14–

17, 2019, Vancouver, Canada. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2019-sti.505

Coelho, Tony. 2011. Hearts, groins and the intricacies of gay male open relationships:

Sexual desire and liberation revisited. Sexualities 14(6): 653–668. doi:

10.1177/1363460711422306
Cubbins, Lisa, and Koray Tanfer. 2000. The influence of gender on sex: A study of men’s

and women’s self-reported high-risk sex behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(3): 229–

257. doi:10.1023/A:1001963413640

De Visser, Robert, and Dee McDonald. 2007. Swings and roundabouts: Management of

jealousy in heterosexual swinging couples. The British Journal of Social Psychology

46(2), 459–476. doi:10.1348/014466606X143153

Decorte, Tom, Aili Malm, Sharon R. Sznitman, Pekka Hakkarainen, Monica J. Barratt, Gary

R. Potter, Bernd Werse, Gerrit Kamphausen, Simon Lenton, and Vibeke Asmussen Frank.

2019. The challenges and benefits of analyzing feedback comments in surveys: Lessons from

a cross-national online survey of small-scale cannabis growers. Methodological Innovations

12(1). doi:2059799119825606

Frank, Katherine. 2019. Rethinking risk, culture, and intervention in collective sex

environments. Archives of Sexual Behavior 48(1), 3–30. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1153-3

Frank, Katherine. 2013. Plays well in groups: A journey through the world of group sex.

Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gagnon, John, and William Simon (1974[1973]) Sexual Conduct. London: Hutchinson.

Giordano, Peggy, Wendy Manning, Monica Longmore, and Christine Flanigan. 2012.

Developmental shifts in the character of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence
to young adulthood. In A. Booth, S. Brown, N. Landale, W. Manning, & S. McHale (Eds.),

Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 133–164). New York, NY: Springer.

Goedel, William, and Dustin Duncan. 2018. Correlates of engagement in group sex events

among men who have sex with men in London who use geosocial-networking smartphone

applications. International journal of STD & AIDS 29(3): 244-250. doi:

10.1177/0956462417722478

Gotta, Gabrielle, Robert-Jay Green, Esther Rothblum, Sondra Solomon, Kimberly Balsam,

and Pepper Schwartz. 2011 "Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A comparison

of couples in 1975 and 2000." Family Process 50(3): 353-376. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-

5300.2011.01365.x

Grov, Christian, Jonathon Rendina, Ana Ventuneac, and Jeffrey Parsons. 2013. HIV risk in

group sexual encounters: an event-level analysis from a national online survey of MSM in the

US. The journal of sexual medicine 10(9): 2285-2294. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12227

Grov, Christian, Jonathon Rendina, and Jeffrey T. Parsons 2014. Comparing Three Cohorts

of MSM Sampled Via Sex Parties, Bars/Clubs, and Craigslist.org: Implications for

Researchers and Providers. AIDS Education and Prevention 26(4): 362-382. doi:

10.1521/aeap.2014.26.4.362

Harviainen, J. Thomas, Katherine Frank. 2018. Group sex as play: Rules and transgression in

shared non-monogamy. Games and Culture 13(3): 220-239. doi:10.1177/1555412016659835

Hatfield, Elaine, Elisabeth Hutchison, Lisamarie Bensman, Danielle Young, and Richard

Rapson. 2012. In J. M. Turn & A. D. Mitchell (Eds.). Cultural, social, and gender influences

on casual sex: New developments. Social psychology: New developments. Nova Science.

Haywood, Chris. (2020) ‘Men, sexual spaces and heterotopias of masculinity’ in Longstaff G,

Sikka T, Walls S, ed. Mediating the Self: Representational Technologies, Identities &

Discourses. Palgrave.

Herbenick, Debby, Jessamyn Bowling, Tsung-Chieh Fu, Brian Dodge, Lucia Guerra-Reyes,

and Stephanie Sanders. 2017. Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally

representative probability sample of adult women and men. PloS ONE 12(7). doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0181198

Hosking, Warwick. 2013. Agreements about extra-dyadic sex in gay men’s relationships:

Exploring differences in relationship quality by agreement type and rule-breaking

behavior. Journal of Homosexuality 60(5): 711–733. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.773819

Hubach, Randolph, Brian Dodge, Thea Cola, Patrick Battani, and Michael Reece. 2014.

Assessing the sexual health needs of men who have sex with men (MSM) residing in rural

and mixed rural areas. The Health Education Monograph Series, 31(2): 33-39.

Karlen, Arno. 1988. Threesomes: Studies in sex, power, and intimacy. New York: William

Morrow.
Katz-Wise, Sabra, and Janet Hyde. 2014. Sexuality and gender: The interplay. In D. L.

Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J. G. Pfaus, & L. M. Ward

(Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1.

Person-based approaches (p. 29–62).

Kirby, Tony, and Michelle Thornber-Dunwell. 2014. Phone apps could help promote sexual

health in MSM. The Lancet 384(9952). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61849-3

Kleinplatz, Peggy, A. Dana Ménard, Marie-Pierre Paquet, Nicolas Paradis, Meghan

Campbell, Dino Zuccarino, and Lisa Mehak. 2009. The components of optimal sexuality: A

portrait of “great sex.” The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 18(1–2): 1–13

LaSala, Michael. 2004. Monogamy of the heart: Extradyadic sex and gay male couples.

Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 17(3): 1–24. doi: 10.1300/J041v17n03_01

Lehmiller, Justin. 2018. Tell me what you want: The science of sexual desire and how it

can help you improve your sex life. Croydon, UK: Lifelong Books.

Levine, Ethan Czuy, Debby Herbenick, Omar Martinez, Tsung-Chieh Fu, and Brian Dodge.

2018 Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among US adults:

Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of sexual

behavior 47(5): 1439-1450. doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7

Mangan, Michael, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2007. Sleep, sex, and the Web: Surveying the

difficult-to-reach clinical population suffering from sexsomnia. Behavior Research Methods,

39(2): 233–236. doi: 10.3758/bf03193152

McCormack, Mark, and Liam Wignall. 2017. Enjoyment, exploration and education:

Understanding the consumption of pornography among young men with non-exclusive

sexual orientations. Sociology 51(5): 975–991. doi:10.1177/0038038516629909

McInnes, David, Jack Bradley, and Garrett Prestage. 2011. Responsibility, risk and

negotiation in the discourse of gay men's group sex. Culture, health & sexuality 13(1): 73-87.

doi: 10.1080/13691058.2010.514360

Meston, Cindy, and David Buss. 2007. Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior

36(4): 477–507. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2

Meunier, Étienne. 2018. Social interaction and safer sex at sex parties: Collective and

individual norms at gay group sex venues in NYC. Sexuality Research and Social

Policy, 15(3): 329-341.

Meunier, Étienne., & Karolynn Siegel. 2019. Sex club/party attendance and STI among men

who have sex with men: results from an online survey in New York City. Sexually

Transmitted Infections 95(8): 584-587. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2018-053816

Morris, Hannah, I. Joyce Chang, David Knox. 2016. Three’s a crowd or bonus?: College

students’ threesome experiences. Journal of Positive Sexuality 2(November): 62–76.

Nowell, Lorelli, Jim Norris, Deborah White, and Nancy Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis:

Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods 16(1). doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847

Petersen, Jennifer, and Janet Hyde. 2011. Gender differences in sexual attitudes and

behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research

48(2–3): 149–165. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.551851

Phillips II, Gregory, Manya Magnus, Irene Kuo, Anthony Rawls, James Peterson, Tiffany

West-Ojo, Yujiang Jia, Jenevieve Opoku, Alan Greenberg. 2014. Correlates of group sex

among a community-based sample of men who have sex with men (MSM) in Washington,

DC. AIDS and Behavior 18(8): 1413-1419. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0527-8

Philpot, Steven, Duane Duncan, Jeanne Ellard, Benjamin Bavinton, Jeffrey Grierson, and

Garrett Prestage. 2017.Negotiating gay men’s relationships: How are monogamy and non-

monogamy experienced and practised over time? Culture, Health and Sexuality 20(8): 915–

928. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1392614

Prestage, Garrett., Jeff Hudson, Jack Bradley, Ian Down, Rob Sutherland, Nick Corrigan,

Brad Gray, Baden Chalmers, Colin Batrouney, Paul Martin, David McInnes. 2008. TOMS:

three or more study. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.

University of New South Wales.

Race, Kane. 2015. ‘Party and play’: Online hook-up devices and the emergence of PNP

practices among gay men. Sexualities 18(3): 253-275. doi: 10.1177/1363460714550913

Rice, Cara, Courtney Lynch, Alison Norris, John Davis, Karen Fields, Melissa Ervin, Abigail

Turner. 2016. Group sex and prevalent sexually transmitted infections among men who have

sex with men. Archives of sexual behavior 45(6): 1411-1419. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0554-

Richards, K. Andrews, Michael Hemphill, 2018. A practical guide to collaborative qualitative

data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37(2): 225-231. doi:

10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084

Roberts, Margaret E, Brandon M. Stewart, Dustin Tingley, Christopher Lucas, Jetson

Leder‐Luis, Shana Kushner Gadarian, Bethany Albertson, and David G. Rand, 2014.

Structural topic models for open‐ended survey responses. American Journal of Political

Science 58(4): 1064-1082. doi:10.1111/ajps.12103

Savin-Williams, Ritch. 2014. An exploratory study of the categorical versus spectrum nature

of sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research 51(4): 446–453. doi:

10.1080/00224499.2013.871691
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from

52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(1):

85–104. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85

Schmitt, David. 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex,

culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(2): 247–275.

doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000051

Scoats, Ryan. 2020. Understanding threesomes: Gender, Sex, and Consensual Non-

Monogamy. Oxford: Routledge.

Scoats, Ryan. 2019. ‘If there is no homo, there is no trio’: women’s experiences and

expectations of MMF threesomes. Psychology & Sexuality 10(1): 45-55. doi:

10.1080/19419899.2018.1546766

Scoats, Ryan., and Eric Anderson. 2019. ‘My partner was just all over her’: jealousy,

communication and rules in mixed-sex threesomes. Culture, health & sexuality 21(2): 134-

146. doi:10.1080/13691058.2018.1453088

Scoats, Ryan, Lauren Joseph, and Eric Anderson. 2018. ‘I don’t mind watching him cum’:

Heterosexual men, threesomes, and the erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality.

Sexualities 21(1–2): 30–48. doi:10.1177/1363460716678562

Sowell, Richard, Craig Lindsey, and Troy Spicer. 1998. Group sex in gay men: Its meaning

and HIV prevention implications. Journal of Association of Nurses in AIDS Care

9(3): 59–71. doi:10.1016/S1055-3290(98)80020-4

Tang, Weiming, Songyuan Tang, Yilu Qin, Ye Zhang, Wei Zhang, Chuncheng Liu, Lai Sze

Tso, Chongyi Wei, Ligang Yang, Shujie Huang, Bin Yang, and Joseph Tucker. 2016. Will

Gay Sex–Seeking Mobile Phone Applications Facilitate Group Sex? A Cross-Sectional

Online Survey among Men Who Have Sex with Men in China. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0167238.

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167238

Thompson, Ashley E, Allison E. Cipriano, Kimberley M. Kirkeby, Delaney Wilder, and

Justin J. Lehmiller. 2020. Exploring variations in North American adults’ attitudes, interest,

experience, and outcomes related to mixed-gender threesomes: a replication and extension.

Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01829-1

Twenge, Jean, Ryne Sherman, and Brooke Wells. 2015. Changes in American adults’ sexual

behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(8): 2273-85. doi:

10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2

van den Boom, Wijnand, Udi Davidovich, José Heuker, Femke Lambers, Maria Prins, Theo

Sandfort, Ineke Stolte. 2016. Is group sex a higher-risk setting for HIV and other STIs

compared to dyadic sex among MSM?. Sexually transmitted diseases 43(2): 99-104. doi:

10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000389
Violette, Lauren, Lisa Niemann, Vanessa McMahan, David Katz, Pollyanna Chavez, Hollie

Clark, Andy Cornelius-Hudson, Steven Ethridge, Sarah McDougal, George Ure Ii, Joanne

Stekler, and Kevin P Delaney. 2019. Group Sex Events Among Cisgender Men Who Have

Sex With Men: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Survey Study to Explore Participation and

Risk-Taking Behaviors. JMIR research protocols 8(11): e15426. doi: 10.2196/15426

Weinberg, Martin, and Colin Williams. 1975. Gay baths and the social organization of

impersonal sex. Social Problems 23(2): 124-136. doi: 10.1525/sp.1975.23.2.03a00020

Weinberg, Martin, Colin Williams, Sibyl Kleiner, Yasmiyn Irizarry. 2010. Pornography,

normalization, and empowerment. Archives of sexual behavior 39(6): 1389-1401. doi:

10.1007/s10508-009-9592-5

Wignall, Liam, Jade Stirling, and Ryan Scoats. 2020. UK University Students’ Perceptions

and Negotiations of Sexual Consent. Psychology & Sexuality. doi:

10.1080/19419899.2020.1859601

Wosick, Kassia. 2012. Sex, love, and fidelity: A study of contemporary romantic

relationships. Cambria Press.

Worthington, Barry. 2005. Sex and shunting: Contrasting aspects of serious leisure within the

tourism industry. Tourist Studies, 5(3), 225-246. doi:10.1177/1468797605070332