The original poster (OP) and their boyfriend recently had an argument after the boyfriend brought up the topic of threesomes, initially seeming casual but later revealing seriousness. The OP responded by stating that if a threesome were ever to happen, the only condition they would accept is if the third person was another man.
The boyfriend reacted negatively to this condition, becoming defensive and suggesting that another woman would be more comfortable. When the OP clarified their lack of attraction to women, the boyfriend argued that a ‘two guys and one girl’ scenario is fundamentally different from what he considers a real threesome, citing issues of masculinity and relationship comfort. This exchange left the OP feeling unsettled about the inherent double standard in his expectations.
AITAH? My boyfriend got mad when I said I’d only have a threesome if it was with another guy
As renowned relationship therapist Esther Perel states, ‘Desire is a hungry ghost. It needs to be fed, but it also needs to be contained.’ This situation highlights a common tension where one partner introduces a sexual fantasy that, while perhaps exciting to them, immediately conflicts with the established boundaries or realities of the other partner.
The boyfriend’s reaction suggests a strong adherence to a conventional, heteronormative script for threesomes, often referred to as ‘MFF’ (Male/Female/Female). His insistence that ‘two guys and one girl isn’t the same’ points toward internalized expectations surrounding male performance, perceived threat to masculinity, and the cultural normalization of male sexual access to multiple women. For the OP, stating a preference for a ‘MMF’ scenario is a direct reflection of their actual sexual orientation; however, the boyfriend immediately interpreted this as invalidating his desire or challenging his sense of sexual identity, turning a preference into a conflict over relationship structure.
The OP’s feelings of being ‘one-sided and unfair’ are valid because the boyfriend is attempting to enforce a fantasy scenario that excludes the OP’s actual attractions while dismissing the OP’s boundary. A constructive path forward involves decoupling fantasy exploration from immediate expectation. The OP should communicate that while they are open to discussing sexual boundaries, any exploration must respect established attractions, and the boyfriend needs to examine why his desire is so tied to a specific configuration that excludes his partner’s reality.
THIS STORY SHOOK THE INTERNET – AND REDDITORS DIDN’T HOLD BACK.
The OP is currently grappling with feelings of discomfort and unfairness stemming from their boyfriend’s rigid expectations regarding hypothetical sexual scenarios. The central conflict lies between the OP’s honest boundary setting, based on their actual sexual orientation, and the boyfriend’s insistence on a specific configuration (two women and one man) that he frames as the only acceptable ‘threesome,’ seemingly prioritizing his fantasy over the OP’s comfort or reality.
The situation forces a question about the nature of mutual negotiation in non-monogamous discussions: Is the boyfriend justified in defining what constitutes an acceptable threesome for the couple based on societal norms or his own comfort, or does the OP have the right to veto any scenario that does not align with their genuine attraction, regardless of whether they ultimately desire the act at all?
