Talk:Ménage à trois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	Sexuality Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Are we all agreed that ménage à trois is the correct spelling?

I count four of you editing the page. Isn't that one too many? >;-D Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick

Contents 1 Threesomes 2 Love triangle redirect 3 Ménage à trois vs. threesome 4 Adultery in literature 5 Troilism 6 Troilism Redirected 7 why is this being considered for deletion? seems a valid entry to me. i hope prudism isn't rearing its head! 8 Movie section 9 Safe for work 10 RfC 10.1 An outsider's interpretation 10.2 From the OED 11 Image again 12 Article more POV? 13 Group Sex Categorization 14 Speculation 15 Cleanup of "In Fiction"

[edit] Threesomes

This article is a redirect from threesomes and is being considered for deletion. I took quite some time drafting appropriate information on threesomes only to have it deleted within minutes for being too sexual. Threesomes are sexual, it is the whole point. May I please enquire what else one would expect to find in an article on threesomes? This article will be deleted I guess as it would appear that Wikipedia don't want to have information on this subject present. Sorry to sound rant-ish but I am tired and spent quite some time on what I considered to be an appropriatedly worded article on the subject of threesomes only to have it ripped out without a thought.

Here I will copy from my talk page, as I often do perhaps out of laziness, to give my angle and why I reverted the aforementioned edits.

While I understand your desire to add to the article, my edit comment pretty much spelled out my concern: rv; this article is quickly becoming a wannabe "sexual dictionary". This article should define what a ménage à trois is, but the edits you made, defining "spitroast" and "double penetration", while types of threesomes, are probably too "in-depth" and possibly over-elaborate (not that I'm intending to censor). This article has already had several reverts in the interest not of keeping it "clean", but in adhering to the intended environment of an encyclopedia. Perhaps the edits you made would be fine if linked to from this page, but detailing every form of sexual act involving three people would be gratuitous, exhaustive, and would encourage the addition of nonsense.

This is all my opinion. Thanks for dealing with my edits so civilly, and if you must revert them back in, you can find them here.

-- Omicronpersei8 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point however as I saw it this was the threesomes page too and other than simply saying "a sexual act involving 3 participents" I couldn't see what else could really be said. My intention was to give more details about what types of threesome there are and so on. Wikipedia gives definitions to a wide range of sexual acts and that was why I felt this was within the same vein. I did not set out to make it overtly sexual and tried my best to remain within the house style making it very clinical yet trying to be thorough and informative. I won't do a revert personally but won't object if others do as I still feel that this is relevant and that (hopefully) was written in the correct style. However I do agree that perhaps it doesn't fit Menange a trois which could be searched out by folks innocently wondering what it is BUT as this is also the page for the definition of threesomes there is no where else for it to go. Any thoughts on a solution?

I assure you my intention was only to be informative and to add genuine content to the site not to start a sexual dictionary as such. As I said before this page has been flagged as lacking and I sought to rectify that.

Thank you for replying so swiftly and for clarifying further. AWD

Any further comments please? Could we perhaps split Menange and Threesomes as they are not the same and my original addition would be more welcome there? AWD

Editing this page to remove specific types of threesome to "keep it clean" is pointless. There are MANY articles on sexual subjects in Wikipedia that describe different sexual positions and techniques, and it would not be innappropriate. Calling them "spitroast" and the like might be a bit much, but we should at least elaborate on the different types, (MMF, FFM) and their prevalance in modern culture. I am for the inclusion of detailed info on positions and types of thresomes.Easter rising 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article is about the concept ménage à trois, which is a domestic arrangement with a long cultural heritage. Keeping it on topic is perfectly reasonable, as is keeping the examples to those which are historically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love triangle redirect

Is a love triangle really the same as a ménage à trois? The way I understand it is that nothing physical has to happen in a love triangle but the latter is all about the physicalities of the three people together. Perhaps it deserves a seperate mention/article? violet/riga (t) 19:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and a new article has been created. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some mention of this. Perhaps you should add it?

[edit] Ménage à trois vs. threesome

I agree with the below that the two things are not the same but they are in the same article so I have added a section on threesomes within it.

Given that "ménage à trois" means "household of three", shouldn't the article describe it as more of a "romantic relationship involving three people" or a "domestic relationship involving three people"? Despite the popular usage, is it appropriate to identify ménages à trois with sexual threesomes? (anon)

Yeah, I always thought it referred to situations like Erwin Schrödinger's - he, his wife and his mistress lived in the same house - even if it is unknown whether sexual threesomes take place. RMoloney 02:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My dictionary (concise OED) says a ménage à trois is an arrangement in which a married couple and the lover of one of them live together - and it lists no alternative meanings. So, if there are no objections from Seinfeld fans, I suggest that the bulk of the copy of the article as it is be used to form a distinct 'Threesome' article, and 'Ménage à trois' be rewritten appropriately. RMoloney 02:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this entry, because it seems unlikely (though I don't remember the movie well enough to be sure). It's only a Ménage à trois if everybody concerned agrees with what's going on (just because you find your boyfriend has slept with your best friend that doesn't make you part of a Ménage à trois).

• Licence to Kill (1989)
  • Actors involved: Timothy Dalton, Carey Lowell and Talisa Soto

DJ Clayworth 17:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section I re-added regarding Nina Hartley is directly related. It is a notable person, with a good citation, and is directly related to "ménage à trois", not threesome. Your desire to reduce this article to a stub is not shared by everyone. Atom 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the edit, which sounded like an endorsement of Hartley's views as written, is not compliant with WP:NPOV. If rewritten in such a way not to sound like an endorsement of her views, I wouldn't mind having it.

The image is also POV in that it implies that there is one sexual position for a ménage à trois, ignoring, for example, three same-sexed persons and other sexual positions. That's even disregarding the fact that the image actually added nothing to the article. I am not against explicit images if they have some real reason to be there, but adding explicit images just for the sake of adding explicit images is not a good thing. --Nlu (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. It presents one perspective. The article is a stub. Someone with a differing view can certainly add their view too, and cite it too. NPOV does not mean not stating an opinion about something, it means allowing all people with a view, and citations to back them to state them. Again, I'm not sure what your objection is. There was no image added, only a paragraph directly relevant to the article. It talks about one of many possibilities, and does not phrase it as if it were the only one. Again, please feel free to keep the article NPOV by adding whatever alternative views that are supported by the facts that may have been missed.

Certainly the article could be more encyclopedic. Maybe if myself, and others continue to add alternative views, and a little further research is done that will develop. Nipping in the bud any attempt to add facts related to it because you view them as only one view would result in nothing being added until someone wrote the entire article with comprehensive views. Please, feel free to do that, but let people add facts in the mean time. Atom 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adultery in literature

Removed this link. There appears to be no specific connection between menage a trois and adultery, let alone literary representations of adultery. --mtz206 14:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troilism

Is it really troilism? wouldn't it be better to be triolism ?82.120.131.110 20:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's French, as is "trois" (obviously). Metamagician3000 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "troilisme" does not exist in French; the proper term is "triolisme". Korg (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Okay, then. Metamagician3000 03:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct French spelling is "triolisme". This is an invented word. It takes the prefix "tri" to mean three, then adds "oli" which is phonetically identical in French to "au lit" which means "in bed", and finally appends the scientific-sounding suffix "sme". You obtain the "descriptive pun word" tri-oli-sme. Hard to translate it into English and convey the ideas it contains. Maybe "thrinbedism".

[edit] Troilism Redirected

Troilism is rarely used as a synonym for ménage à trois; the people who perform these acts make quite a distinction. A troilism article has been established to elaborate on the differences.

The etymology of troilism is actually more complex than described above. On the etymology webzine Take Our Word For It, two possible origins are posted. One is the French root described above. The second involves the Shakespeare play Troilus and Cressida.

There are also differing definitions of the term. One is ménage à trios; the other is the act of watching two people have sex. Both definitions indicate that there are three people involved. An example of the second connotation is when a husband watches his wife have intercourse with another man. This is a common occurrence in the swinger subculture, but still has many variants. The watching partner (a mixoscopian) may or may not masturbate, take photographs, watch from a different location (through a two-way mirror, peep-hole, or video camera); pay or force one of the partners to perform the sex act, or be forced to watch the sex act. Regardless, all of these involve three people, typically two partners in a committed relationship and one outsider, and only two people actually perform intercourse.

This differs from the typical connotation of a threesome, since it is more accurately a twosome plus one mixoscopian. The Shakespearian root is enforced by the second definition. At one point, Troilus is forced to watch his lover, Cressida, have sex with another man. Although the Shakespearian definition is quite intriguing, it is simpler to stick with the French root. --hypercritic 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your definition on that? I had always thought of troilism as very similar to a menage or a threesome. Atom 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

From all my sources, the act of two people performing a sex act while a third watches is always called "troilism," never a "threesome" or "ménage à trios," even though three people are involved (technically). We could assume that troilism is an all-inclusive term, and that threesomes and ménages à trios are more specific acts within the category of troilism, but that would specificially exclude various connotations. The semantic difference is that the third partner is absolutely not involved in the direct act of sex. Regardless of the original intent of these three terms, each is a different and valid scenario, but with widely differing connotations. Threesomes and ménages à trios are considered to be anything between mildly kinky to perverted. Troilism, on the other hand, can have very dark, almost grotesque overtones.

--hypercritic 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct French spelling is "triolisme". This is an invented word. It takes the prefix "tri" to mean three, then adds "oli" which is phonetically identical in French to "au lit" which means "in bed", and finally appends the scientific-sounding suffix "sme". You obtain the "descriptive pun word" tri-oli-sme. Hard to translate it into English and convey the ideas it contains. Maybe "thrinbedism".

[edit] why is this being considered for deletion? seems a valid entry to me. i hope prudism isn't rearing its head!

Further to the below I have expanded the article by adding more detail about threesomes.AWD

i am all for open information. none of the entry is lewd or offensive, even if the subject matter may be. I would say it should not be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.143.63 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete. Who added the deletion suggestion and why? What's the justification? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zotdragon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As duly noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ménage à trois, this page was proposed for deletion because it is merely a dictionary definition and a list. —Centrx→talk 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

take a look around, this is not a satisfactory reason to delete this page. personally i'm finding this page in a far worse shape than last time i saw it. this article absolutely should go into such areas as various sexual positions that an extra person allows. this is what makes it so very distinictively different from one on one sex. and is one of the primary reasons popular culture has such a fascination with threesomes. Mathmo 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article doesn't have much substance. No psychology investigations have been done on this unorthodox relationship type? I find that hard to believe. RobertM525 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The vote is over. There were 15 for keep, 1 for delete. The delete recommendation was based on the article being little more than a dictionary definition. Apparently that argument did not carry the day. Atom 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie section

Are you certain that all of these movies contain MATs, not merely Love triangles (where the differences are between the sexual/emotional aspects)? Btw, what is meant with core theme? 惑乱 分からん 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Threesome, at least, ends with one. -- nae'blis 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safe for work

Shouldn't the first glance at a page devoted to a style of relationship be safe for work? Ménage à trois is not necessarily a sexual position, yet pictures showing a few positions that three people could use are one of the first things seen on this page. Furthermore, why are these pictures even here at all? The term "ménage" roughly means group/family/neighbors, again the term doesn't necessarily involve sex at all. This page is more graphic than the Wikipedia Kama Sutra page! Banaticus 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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 refers to sex, what the emotional requirements of such a relationship are, who's written about it, etc. So I recreated the threesome page and moved all of that information over there. You can argue there whether or not the information is too sexual for Wikipedia and whether it should be kept. Banaticus 08:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a phrase meaning a domestic arrangement of three partners which is erroneously assumed by some illiterates to mean a threesome. The sexcruft has been repeatedly cleaned, and will be cleaned again. Guy 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Erroneously? Where are you from? Wher I am from ménage à trois is virtually synonymous with a sexual threesome. Of course there are many types of threesomes, not just a ménage à trois. Atom 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy and I are in agreement. Although ménage à trois might be synonymous with threesomes where you are from, that is primarily because you don't know better. That's why that connotation of the word is properly referenced in this article, but everything that dwells on that topic is properly placed under a different article, such as threesomes. Banaticus 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand better now that you've explained that I am ignorant.  ;) Well, I think the usage is very common in North America, and in the UK and Australia. If what you mean is that it is taken less sexually, and more generally in France, and french speaking countries, then that isn't really the issue here. As you know there are a multitude of words in the English language borrowed from other languages. French is, of course, probably the major language borrowed from. The usage of words in English, after hundreds of years of divergence, is different. As an enyclopedia, and not a dictionary, the intent is to broadly cover the meaning, as it is used. Not to dictate correct usage.

I understand that your intent is good, and you feel that any sexual connotation should be under threesome, and not here.

A detailed description of sexuality with three people (generally) would be better in the threesome article.

The Merriam Webster dictionary (American) describes the phrase thusly: Main Entry: mé·nage à trois
Pronunciation: -ä-'t(r)wä
Function: noun
Etymology: French, literally, household for three

an arrangement in which three persons (as a married pair and the lover of one of the pair) share sexual relations especially while living together

And so, here in the English language Wikipedia, gathering detailed information about this, including "three persons who share sexual relations expecially while living together" really is appropriate.

Your more limited "French, literally, household for three" is not incorrect, but appropriate for the french Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia should have the english version. Francophiles trying to convert and correct English speakers is pretty much a waste of time at so many levels. Not the least of which is that investigating whether the French or Americans have the larger more inflated egos could take the remainder of life on earth as we know it to research and determine.

I agree the general picture of three people having sex is not as specific as the definition. I am a believer that an article should have a good lead image, and that an image that conveys much of the meaning, is better than no image. Sooner or later a better image will come along. Perhaps a photo of a well known, historical ménage à trois?

Atom 11:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Atom thinks "the usage is very common in North America, and in the UK and Australia." I'm not sure which North America, UK, and Australia he's refering to, but the vast majority of residents of those continents and that commmonwealth use the French term to distinguish between a household of three and a sex position. I strongly disagree with the use of an image of a sex act to illustrate an emotional agreement. (And by my count that makes several against the image and only one for it. Why is it his opinion trumps others opinions?) ➥the Epopt 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Ménage à trois" means a wealth of things, which includes both the arrangement of three in a household, as well as them having sex. It is not just one thing. I'm sorry that the image only illustrates one of (the most noted) aspects of what a Ménage à trois is. But just because any given image does not illustrate the entirety of the content of an article does not mean that it is not good at well illustrating one aspect of the article. In this case it does. I have encouraged and called for additional, or even better replacement images. I have no desire to limit the images, or any attachement to this particular one. From an editorial perspective, I believe that an article is much better quality if it has a lead image that captures all, or at least some of the nature of the article.

The reason that I state my view of things, and expect that to be respected, is that the article by policy needs to be NPOV. That does not mean that we limit the article to the consensus opinion. It means that we balance the article to represent many views (ones that can be cited as fact). Now, I don't think it would be particularly hard to show that the term has been used for a long time to represent a type of sexual relationship. One could argue that the term is MOST noted for that type of relationship, and a minor aspect of it was a household of three people. In such a situation the balance would most appropriatly be to focus the article on that aspect, while allowing a minor representation of less known aspects.

Also, you characterize a Ménage à trois as an "emotional agreement", not a sex act. I can respect how you might feel about that, and it is not my desire to argue that. Empotional agreements are very important. Some might feel that they are more important than sex. I would point out that in the article, as it is currently written, says "often a married couple and another lover, live together or are romantically or sexually involved" and doesn't really suggest anything about the emotional aspects. Interestingly enough, I live in a household of three adults, a real Ménage à trois, and understand the aspects of it, including the emotional aspects. In our Ménage, we do not all three have sexual relations together.

The article at one revision, did have some things about Polyamory, as well as a quote from Nina Hartley that *did* talk about her views on the emotional aspects. Those were edited out by another editor.

Atom 02:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that it is primarily about the act of fucking is absurd. Have you not read any of the books listed? What proportion of Truffaut's film of Jules et Jim, the archetypal ménage à trois, is taken up with actual sex? Yes, we have people trying to subvert this article into "threesome", but there is a clear and evident difference between the two concepts. I see that threesome is no longer a redirect and the image already appears there; this is just fine. Ménage à trois is to threesome as cohabitation is to sex or homosexuality is to sodomy. Guy 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also assuming good faith, link to the image in the RFC. Don't start completely new sections on the discussion page in a seeming attempt to be "heard" -- continue the discussion where it's already being discussed. As to the appropriateness of the picture, it's quite graphic. Since the primary focus of the article isn't on the sexual relationship (which is the focus of the threesome article), the picture isn't a good one to illustrate this topic. I have yet to see a link to the RFC and although such might serve to bring more people into the debate, discussion on such should occur here, on the article's talk page, so that such discussion isn't repeated in the future. Banaticus 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

An RfC has been filed regarding the image. I think arguments for and against have been made above. Let's see if we can get a consensus. --Nlu (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As I have said above, any editor is free to replace the image with a better image. The image is not unrelated to the article. It does not represent the entirety of what "Ménage à trois" is, but one aspect of it. In fact, the most noted aspect of the term "Ménage à trois". I think additional images, including a lead image that is more about Ménage as a household of three people would be very good. I have looked for a better image, and found a number of them, but all are copyrighted.

My long term vision of the article is a picture of three people in their living space together as the lead. A sub-section below discussing the common usage in the english language of "Ménage à trois" to mean a threesome, as well as a kinf of sexual relationship can be discussed, along with alternative usages an interpretations. This existing image could go with that section, rather than being the lead image at that time. (once a better lead image is found).

Removing the image just because one or more people feel that it only represents one of the several aspects of Ménage à trois, is innapropriate. The purpose of the Policy NPOV is to allow many views of different aspects of an article to be expressed. It doesn't have to please all people, or be directed at one view. So, some people have more of a focus and interest on the french definition of Ménage than americans. Let's let everyone express their view (as long as they are supported by facts). I think that no one would argue that the use of the term in UK and American culture has been focused on the emotional and sexual relationship betwene three people for a long time. So...what is wrong with expressing that? Is someone hung up on their French understanding of the term trying to change how English speakers have been "mis-using" the term for two hundred years?

1. Bartelby definition "A relationship in which three people, such as a married couple and a lover, live together and have sexual relations. "
2. Go ask Alice Blog "Just a short time ago, my wife said that she thought that I would like to make love to her and another woman. I thought she was joking. She wasn't."
3. American Heritage Dictionary "A relationship in which three people, such as a married couple and a lover, live together and have sexual relations. "
4. The Phrase Finder "A living arrangement comprising three people in a sexual relationship. "
5. The Logic of Menage a Trois
6. Review - Ménage à Trois -By Mark Lilla "It is now well known that in their youth Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger were briefly lovers. "

Just a few of many. In english speaking countries, the term "Ménage à trois" is nearly always about three people in a sexual relationship. Having a section of this article discussing that fact, and an image associated with that section is not out of line.

Atom 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But a question is: is a sexually explicit image, albeit a black-and-white drawn image, appropriate? There are times when a sexually explicit image may be necessary, but this is not one of them, particularly since the image itself is POV. The issue is not relevance; the issue is propriety. Sure, polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry all involve sexual relationships between multiple people as well, but I don't think sexually explicit images would be appropriate on those articles. No more so is one here. --Nlu (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but it does not stick well. The difference is that those are terms used primarily to discuss relationships. Where the primary definition of Ménage à trois, as I showed several times above is about a "sexual relationship involving three people". I understand that you are used to, and prefer one of the alternate definitions, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a term used primarily in regard to sexology and sexuality. I don't see any problem with a sexuality article having an image that describes it. An image of an anus would not be appropriate here. An image of a Ménage à trois is appropriate here. Atom 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This image is in keeping with Wikipedia's images in articles about sex. The solution to this particular image's POV is to add other relevant images to the article. Durova 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that particular image is especially ideal for the article, but removing it altogether is POV as well, trying to argue for the MAT-is-social-not-sex perspective. If we could get a GFDL photo of a three person grouping not engaged in sex per se but something that indicated ongoing sociosexual involvement (perhaps cuddling up watching TV?), that would be best. Threesome is, in my mind, about three-person sexual relationships without the ongoing relationship component. -- nae'blis 17:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit like illustrating the article on marriage with a picture of two people fucking. Not only is it gratuitous, it almost entirely misses the point, which is about the emotional and domestic relationship far more than the sexual one which forms only a small part of the whole. Guy 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinion, it is appreciated. Your analogy is humorous, even if inaccurate. In this case, marriage, and a sexual relationship with three people are really vastly different things. As for it missing other elements -- as I have said, no one has objection to those things being in the article, or images representing those aspects either.

Your assertion is that the sexual aspect is a small part (relative to the other aspects). I'm sure that you, and some others have that view. But, my view is that the average person on the street in the U.S., Canada, or Britain see a "Ménage à trois" pretty much as the dictionary definition ("A living arrangement comprising three people in a sexual relationship."). Note that in the common definition it doesn't say anything about a long-term relationship, or emotionally intimacy, vows, children or any of the things that you imply when you compare it to "marriage". Again "Ménage à trois" is primarily defined as a sexual relationship involving three people, and so is an article about sexuality, not an article about committed relationhips. Since the sexual aspect is, actually the primary characteristic, having a picture that suggests that is sexual is not really out of line.

Consider that (in english speaking countries) when you have three college girls living together, or a married couple and one of their friends, or relatives living with them, or three construction workers at a short term jobsite sharing living arrangements, they don't call that a "Ménage à trois". Why? There is no sexual relationship. The sexual relationship is the defining characteristic. When you see a play, a movie, or a book and it talks about "Ménage à trois", what are they implying? Three people living together and having sex. They often use it as a selling point to attract an audience.

To suggest that a "Ménage à trois" has nothing to do with sex, or that sex is a minor and unimportant part of the term is just silly and incorrect.

Atom 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• In response to the RFC, I would feel a lot more confident deciding if the image was appropriate if there were some sources supporting the article's text. This article says that ménage à trois is distinct from threesome, but you certainly can't tell by comparing the two articles. Assuming that the assertions are correct, I think the image would be appropriate as part of a larger article, but not as the lead image of the article. According to Wiktionary, a menage can mean either a three-person domestic relationship or a three-person sexual encounter, so an image regarding each meaning might be appropriate. TheronJ 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Ménage" means "household". Some people use the term to refer to threesomes, but that's really an affectation. I don't have a problem with splitting the sex act from the relationship. According to Atom's position above we should illustrate marriage and cohabitation with sexually explicit images. Guy 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the verification and original research policies might resolve this dispute cleanly. My personal impression is that the term's english usage has two distinct and accepted meanings: (1) a three person emotional relationship and (2) a three person sexual act. If that's true and verifiable, then, IMHO, the page should reflect that, as well as the meaning in everyday French usage. I agree that the literal translation doesn't involve sex, and the page should reflect that too. I won't edit the page because I don't have any sources, but my main recommendation is that the people who are editing it bring in some verifiable sources for their arguments. Thanks, TheronJ 13:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is, I think, the source of the problem. I don't think the sexual act is one of the accepted meanings (certainly not in any source I can find), only the relationship. Thus, menage a trois is to threesome as marriage is to fuck. Guy 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• RFC Comment - Remove image unless proponents can introduce verified text establishing direct relevance. Thanks Guy, that discussion was helpful. Based on that, my bottom line advice would be this:

1. IMHO, Guy is right that the burden should be on editors wishing to include the image, not those wishing to remove it.
2. I think this is particularly true with an image like this, which may be offensive to some readers. Even though Wikipedia is not censored, that policy discussion makes it clear that "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography)" (emphasis added). IMHO, although a picture of three people having sex is arguably equally relevant to a picture of three people having dinner, or shopping, or what have you, it's unnecessarily graphic and offensive when used to illustrate a concept that people seem to agree is primarily a domestic one. (Similarly, if you wanted to use one of the same sex sexual position line drawings to illustrate same-sex marriage, I think that choice would be unnecessarily offensive to some readers and editors).
3. On the other hand, the factual statements in this article aren't directly attributed to any source, reliable or otherwise. If Guy is right that the term is not popularly used to describe threesomes, then I would say keep the image out, based on the factors above. However, if an editor can establish, through reliable sources, that the term does have threesomes as a secondary meaning, then the image might be appropriate, albiet solely in a section discussing that usage. Given that I think the burden is on proponents to establish relevance, I would recommend that the image stay out unless and until the article includes a stable and verified section discussing the usage of the term to describe the sexual position as opposed to the domestic relationship.

Thanks, TheronJ 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An outsider's interpretation

I came here upon seeing the RfC. I would like to make one rhetorical question: Is the image in question the best and most appropriate image available from an encyclopedic perspective? The article itself suggests that a ménage à trois can consist of multiple variations, yet the image displays only one. Also, the image itself is not of a particularily high quality and could possibly be replaced with an image that preserves the intent of the current image. I suggest that alternative images be found and a consensus is established as to the best image to represent the article. --Hemlock Martinis 06:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree. I have looked for several types of images for the article. Primarily the lead image should be of a real life Ménage à trois. Perhaps three people talking in a kitchen or living room. The sexual image we have is fine, but could be of better quality, and I prefer artwork over a photograph. Also, something perhaps more subtle. Atom 11:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the term ménage à trois is primarily to do with emotional and domestic relationships, the image should be something which reflects that. A still from Jules et Jim would be good, but would fail "fair use". But in the absence of an encyclopaedic image illustrating the concept as defined in the article, a line drawing illustrating a minor facet of the concept discussed in the article and thus elevating the sexual part of the relationship to an undue weight, is not really a terribly good alternative. Guy 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are three people in my household. If someone can come up with a reasonable scenario to photograph, I can probably get someone to take a GFDL photograph of us for this article (although likely not for threesome, heh). But I'd want consensus on what we should display, first. -- nae'blis 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer a picture of a genuine ménage à trois picture, not just three people, or a three person household. If your household is a ménage à trois ("A living arrangement comprising three people in a sexual relationship."), then that would be great. My vision is of the ménage à trois members in their kitchen or living room talking or working together. But, there are an infinity of variations. Atom 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I didn't mention that explicitly; we're a polyamorous triad, FMF. -- nae'blis 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting enough, but not really too rleevant to the case in point. What we have here is a drawing of a threesome (a sex act) used to illustrate an article about a relationship, albeit a sexual one, rather like illustrating marriage with a line drawing of copulation. The image is illustrating the wrong concept, it belongs at threesome which is now a separate article. Guy 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Err? I'm going to assume there's an indention error here and your comment actually goes to Atom, otherwise it makes no sense in context. I'm specifically not saying I'll take a picture of our house in a threesome, only that if we can come to some consensus about what would be an appropriate picture, I may be able to get one taken. -- nae'blis 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's all too confusing.... What we need is a picture like this: http://www.arnadal.no/film/images/julesetj.jpg Guy 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that that image might give you fair use problems. Is there a historically famous menage that might have a public domain image somewhere? TheronJ 15:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Jules et Jim is the archetypal literary version, and Truffaut's film is of course a masterpiece, but as you say the fair use issue unfortunately prevents us using that. Pity, really. Just because we don't have the right image we should not use the wrong one, though. Guy 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another comment: Keep it or replace by a less explicit one if you think it's unnecesarily porn, something like three people in the same bed caressing each other. I find the non-sexual aception of "menage a trois" (sorry for my bad French spelling) quite odd. If used in that sense it's only used as a generalization of the more specific sexual definition. My first choice is keep it. Second choice: replace by a simmilar one somewhat less explicit. I don't like the solution proposed by JzG above as it only depicts three people at the beach, that's no menage a trois nor anything of the like: just three people together. --Sugaar 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the OED

A relationship or domestic arrangement in which three people (usually a husband and wife and the lover of one of these) live together or are romantically or sexually involved; (also) a sexual act involving three people. Also in extended use. Cf. À TROIS.

Most of the examples cited in the entry refer to the first sense, but it does cite one for the second:

2000 Village Voice (N.Y.) 5 Dec. 140/4 She..unsuccessfully appealed the NC-17 rating dumped on American Psycho due to a scene depicting a ménage à trois.

I've learned that it's so rarely productive to question the OED that I'm pretty much convinced here. It is only the most recent example that refers to it as a sex act, but the OED's editors appear to have found sufficient justification to add this definition to the entry. I support merging threesome with this article, and once that is done, see no problem with using the image here. —ptk✰fgs 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image again

Hi, I'm sure you aren't trying to be offensive. I will assume good faith.

First, we are in the middle of an RFC, and have gotten a few comments. The focus of the RFC is the image, and so that is why it is there. It is not that some people can't look at a revision to see it, but it is frankly simpler to provide it for them.

Second, just because the image was saved with the title "threesome", does not mean that it is incompatible with this article, an article about a threesome with a sexual relationship. Does the image indicate they live in the same household? No, but so what. It indicates the spirit of the term ménage à trois ("A living arrangement comprising three people in a sexual relationship."), and more importantly, it is intended to indicate the sexual aspect of a ménage. Eventually we hope to have a much better image as the lead image, an image none of us has been able to find so far. (all the ones I have found are copyrighted, and can't be used in the article).

Third, when "we" submitted a request for comment, we wanted people like you to come and comment, and give their honest opinions, not to come in and monkey with the image based on whether you agreed, or did not agree. If every respondent to the RfC did that, we would be in utter chaos.

Fourth, if you would read the other comments in the talk section, you would realize that all of these things have been talked about, and that removing the image is stepping on everyone's toes. It isn't that some of the people working on this would not love to have the image disappear, but that we are trying to work together, rather than each taking actions according to our own views without regard to the others. In the end, we will find a great lead image, and put this image in the section about the sexual aspect of the relationship, or maybe if we are lucky, find a better image than this one to represent that. More importantly, it will be a consensus that we agree on, and abide by rather than endless image shuffling.

So, if you would kindly participate with us, rather than stepping on toes, it would be most appreciated.

Atom 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I wandered over form the RfC page. Having read the above, I think a few things. First, my own understanding of the term has long been that in common use it's a fancy way of refering to a threesome, but some people recognize that it's root or literal meaning is about cohabition. That said, the only time I've ever heard MaT used in that context was during a discussion of the phrase itself. My experience is that MaT has, rightly or wrongly, become a euphamism for threesome, though I gather that this is not universal. Certainly when I hear MaT, I understand it to be the sexual activity, and in response to a comment above, I may not be a Rhodes scholar, but I'm not dumb, either. If I had to guess, I'd propose that MaT has retained more of its original meaning in areas that are more heavily influenced by the French language. Community ideas on sex and sexuality may also be involved.

So I guess that leads me to my second thought: English is a living language, and as a living language, the meanings of its words and phrases sometimes change. Gay used to mean happy. Faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks. Domino's primary meaning used to be a hooded cloak; but now it's mostly used to refer to the rectangular tiles with imprinted dots. MaT may be undergoing a similar process.

My third thought, then, is about the article. From the above discussions, it apears as if in some English-speaking circles, MaT does retain its original meaning. In other circles, it is losing or has lost that meaning. How, as an encyclopedia, do we deal with this? We present both ideas, and refuse to take sides.

Finally, the image: really, with no offense meant to the artist, it's not a great image. More, I think that an image at an article's top should encapsulate the article. I understand that some (all?) of the editors working on this page like to have an image at an article's opening, but with a term that has two fundamentally different meanings, and in the absence of an overwhelming majority prefering one meaning over the other, it may not be possible to find an image that encapsulances this article. So, do we really need to have any image at all? --Badger151 06:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Atom, you have it the wrong way round. The responsibility for justification lies with the editor seeking to include. The default is not to include content until consensus is reached to include it. There are at least two major problems identified, one being the quality of the image and the other being its nature (as I have pointed out above). Please do not reinsert it until there is consensus to do so. We can link the image here for the duration of the discussion. The image is not of a menage a trois, it is of a threesome. A threesome may be part of a menage a trois, and a menage a trois does not require that all three partners have sex as a threesome. More to the point, a menage is a relationship, whereas this is a sex act. Guy 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The image has been in the article for some time, it was not added by me. Removing the image has been the action that has been disputed. Some period of time after the image was added some objected, hence our discussion, and the RfC. As I said, we are working on a bigger picture issue than this immge, or one image. By removing the image that has been here, you are interfering with that.

I understand that it is your opinion that the image is not a ménage à trois. We asked for your opinion. The dictionary definition, my definition, and some others definition is that it is a ménage à trois. Read the talk page for my early explanation of why that is the case. We also discussed how the term is used differently in France than in the U.S., probably the source of your different definition. In any event, we are glad to have your opinion, but not your removing of the image while we are discussing the issue. If we got 20 responses to the RfC and they all decided to include or remove the image based on their opinion it would be chaos, which is what is happening. Wait for us to gain more opinions, hopefully find better images, get a consensus and proceed.

The article makes it plain that menage a trois IS NOT threesome and threesome IS NOT menage a trois. The burden is on you, as the person seeking to introduce content, to achieve consensus. Any content can be removed if disputed, it stays out unless there is consensus to put it back. This Talk page clearly shows that such consensus is absent. I don't see anybody other than you unequivocally supporting inclusion of the image of the sex act in the article on the rleationship. The image is here, we can see what it looks like. Your repeated assertion that the image should stay in during discussion is a reversal: you must justify inclusoin before putitng it back in. Guy 12:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; the image appears to be off topic here. It's correctly used in threesome because there, it actually illustrates the topic of the article. —ptk✰fgs 12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic. We are discussing Ménage à trois, and the image of a "Ménage à trois". Not a threesome. The image shows the sexual aspect of Ménage à trois, which is a threesome. All Ménages involve a threesome. As the term is most often used to allude to the sexual aspect with three people, it is roughly synonymous with threesome. The basic difference being that it is a threesome where the people share a household. It is my view that the responses of the RfC 'clearly indicate that image should be there. Yes there is a dispute, and there is not complete agreement. Which is why we have submitted an RfC. The dispute is a result of people removing the image, not of someone adding the image.

The definition of Ménage à trois is ("A living arrangement comprising three people in a sexual relationship"). So,m the article can be on topic in discussing any aspect of this. The living arrangement, the sexual relationship, three people in that situation. Where you got the idea that it was about a relationship, and not about sex, I am not certain. You are entitled to your opinion, and can include whatever subject matter you want that is relevant. To remain NPOV, you need to allow content form other people, with other views. Trying to remove all content related to sex every time it is added is not NPOV, is disruptive and objectionable.

The core part of the definition of Ménage à trois is that it is a sexual relationship. The other component is that it is a threesome. Trying to discuss the sexual relationship, as well as images representing that are most defintely on-topic.

No one has objected to you finding your own images of other aspects of Ménage à trois, or better images to replace the one representing the sexual aspect. Rather than disrupting the article, maybe you could consider doing that?

Atom 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. There are many polygamous households, for example, which never have threesomes but are obviously ménages à trois. I don't see what's so hard to get about this. This isn't about removing content just because it's related to sex. We don't have a line drawing of coitus at marriage, do we? No, we don't. —ptk✰fgs 12:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea that a picture of a threesome illustrates a necessary aspect of a menage a trois is straight original research. There are many plausible scenarios in which a menage a trois can exist, including the sexual part of the relationship, without a threesome ever taking place. It doesn't look ats if Atom is going to accept any answer other than his preferred one, though; it's pretty cl;ear who's the one disrupting the article here, given the numerous concerns over the appropriateness of the image and the fact that only one editor appears to want it in there. Perhaps if we could find a friendly neighbourhood uninvolved admin to issue a polite WP:POINT warning... Guy 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Atom, it looks to me like the weight of RFC opinion is to keep the image out. Can you leave it out of the main page while we discuss it here? I think the image on the talk page is enough for reference, or if people are really confused, you can provide them with a link to the old page. Thanks, TheronJ 15:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. I'm guessing that my earlier comments got lost due to that indentation error, but they're in this section of the page, and so shouldn't be too difficult to find, for the intrested reader. I understand that some editors on this page interpret MaT to be indicative of a household of three adults, while others interpret the phrase's meaning, or common meaning, to indicate a threesome. Both are correct. Interpreting MaT as threesome is not original research, because in many circles it means threesome. Our job as an encyclopedia is to present what is, not what we believe should be the case. I see that someone pulled out a copy of the OED above. That's fine, but the nature of English as a living language, coupled with the time necessary to edit, print, and distribute a book or piece of software means that dictionaries often lag behind the language itself. Consider dictionaries released at the time the computer mouse was released - mouse was defined as a small rodent, but not a user interface for a computer. For what it's worth, my Encarta Dictionary, with a 1999 copyright, lists menage as a formal term describing a household or the management of a household, while MaT is listed solely as "a sexual relationship involving three people". The origins of the phrase are then listed: "[From French, literally "household of three"]". My unabridged Websters, with a 1970 copyright, doesn't list the term at all. I won't repeat my comments on the image, as they're right above, and I have nothing to add to them. Best, --Badger151 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One point made above (unclear from the lack of signature whether by you, Atom, or another person) is that the image depicts a ménage à trois. Maybe it does (I don't have as strong of an opinion on it as some other editors do as to that point), but even if it does depict a ménage à trois, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is appropriate. Even though Wikipedia is not censored, an image of an adult having sex with a minor on statutory rape would still be unjustified because it is unnecessary. The same situation applies here; nothing in the article makes the image necessary to demonstrate a particular sexual position for a ménage à trois. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have:

• household consisting of husband, wife, and lover of one of these (Oxford)
• a sexual arrangement involving a married couple and the lover of one of them (Collins)
• an arrangement in which three persons (as a married pair and the lover of one of the pair) share sexual relations, esp. while living together (Websters)

I don't dispute that some newer sources might allow a secondary meaning of threesome, due to informal (and incorrect, ahem) usage, but there is 100% agreement in the sources I have that the dominant meaning, and certainly the dominant meaning in literature, is a domestic arrangement involving a married couple and the lover of one of the couple, including a sexual arrangement, but based on the French original meaning "a household of three". Threesome has a separate and distinct meaning. A m-a-t may involve no threesome sex at all, and a threesome may well not be a m-a-t (for example if it is casual). Of course, English is a shifting language, and the fact that some people (erroneously according to the three dictionaries I have) use the term to describe threesome should be noted, but the sex act and the relationship are differnet concepts. Treatment of menages-a-trois in fiction tend to be novels, treatment of threesomes tends to be pornographic. I ahve no problem at all wth the articles being separate as they currently are. Guy 16:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The sexual meaning isn't secondary at all: it's the only meaning given in that dictionary. I freely admit that this is distinct from threesome, but the sexual aspect of the relationship is listed as a key part of the term.

From a philosophical point I want to agree that MaT should retain its original meaning. There's a large part of me that argues that gay, in its primary sense, should still mean happy, but it just doesn't anymore. And as for correct useage, who decides what's correct, and what isn't? We turn to the dictionaries, but they disagree. Perhaps it has to do with when or where they were written. Which dictionary is correct? And why? More importantly, language is not about dictionaries. It's about communication. Rightly or wrongly, when I hear MaT, it is the sexual act that comes to mind. For others, it is the shared household that comes to mind. But I understand that this RfC isn't so much about the definition of the phrase as about the inclusion of the image, so here is the biggest point: I don't think that any image can properly be used to lead off this article. So my vote is to remove it. --Badger151 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the sexual aspect is central, but the sex act is not; there is no requirement that all three partners must be in the same bed at the same time. Guy 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, for once, something you said that I can agree with! Atom 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. So why did you not agree with it last time I said it? Or the time before that? Guy 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because this is the first time you agreed that the sexual aspect is central. And the first time you have said that all three partners must be in the same bed at the same time. The picture is mean't to typify the stereotype, not be emblematic of every and all menage relationships. Atom 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I said that there is no requirement that all three be in the same bed at the same time, which is obvious from both the article and the external references ot the term, and I have said consistently that the meaning is much more than just sexual, it is about the relationship (in the same way that marriage is a sexual relationship; although this defines the relationship it certainly does not dominate it). Menage a trois = husband + wife + lover under one roof. Keep the sexcruft in threesome where it belongs. Oh, and if anyone can find a free image of a production of Jules et Jim then it will probably improve the article. Guy 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Atom 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article more POV?

User:Nlu I'd rather that you just make some editorial chanegs rather than reverting the entire edit. WOuld you please explain how you see my edit as *more* POV. My attempt was to be more NPOV. By adding additional perspectives, it becomes less POV. We aren't trying to find a consensus on one view of the subject, we are trying to make a good article that expresses multiple views well. I'm open to criticism that it would have been expressed better, and anyone is free to edit to help in that effort. But, reverting the entire thing serves no purpose but to return to the limited POV that currently exists. Again, please explain what you have in mind so that we can work it out. Atom 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained that including Hartley's view without including critique of that view is POV, because it implicitly endorses Hartley's view. Previously, I wrote a couple sentences qualifying Hartley's lack of empirical or other data to support her view, which you've taken out. Further, your edits implicitly, if not explicitly, makes the assertion that a ménage à trois is a sex act -- which is a point under dispute even on the talk page here. To be NPOV, it needs to at least note that whether a sex act involving three people is a "ménage à trois" is debatable and be neutral in its language about the dispute. You're not making any attempt to do that. (Not only this, but again, you removed the dablinks, one of which is entirely noncontroversial.) --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I can't say I agree with your views. I'm okay with you expressing your perspective on the article, but when you say something like "makes the assertion that a ménage à trois is a sex act -- which is a point under dispute even on the talk page here". It doesn't matter if it is in dispute, or if you or others agree. In many articles, take circumcision for example, there are different points of view, and sometimes great controversy about those views. NPOV means that we allow all views (views that can be supported by facts, not just any opinion) rather than trying to find one "correct" view. The difficulty with your position, and that of JzG, is that you have a conception formed of what you think "ménage à trois" means, and you are trying to basically enforce that view, and not allow any other perspectives other than that. I don't expect you to agree with me, or others when we say that "ménage à trois" is often viewed as synonymous with a threesome", or that the term implies a sexual relationship between people in the relationship. But, because those things are facts, supported by references as long as your arm, they have a valid place in the article. You are welcome to add a paragraph explaining that the current definition is substantially different than how the term is used in France, or that is is more about the arrangement/relationship part than sexuality in some peoples views. That's fine. But, trying to censor, or exise every attempt to equate the term "ménage à trois" with sex, or a sexual relationship, or a sexual act, or a threesome, is mistaken, and directly prohibiting wikipedia's policy of NPOV.

I relented on returning the image (which should be, or something like it, in the article) because after a couple of people more people gave opinions it seemed that the predominante consensus was to leave it out for the moment. Frankly the actions taken by JzG were unfriendly, divisive and at no time did he work to find a solution, only to find support to force his own view. On your part, you were courteous enough to allow the image, and submit an RfC to get other opinions, which, as you can see has gained a reprieve of the image being in the article until we work it all out. Although I feel that you are misguided in your understanding of NPOV, and of what a "ménage à trois" is, I can respect your efforts to resolve differences in an equitable manner.

As for Hartley's views, I think there is a place for that, and other views about the subject. I do agree that it needs to be better cited though, before we put it back into the article. I'm not sure I entirely agree with her view. In my case, I have three female partners in our relationship, and so the view that a one woman, two man ménage is inherently more functional does'nt fit in with my experience. But, I'm open to letting everyone express their perspective on the matter, as long as it is based on some kind of fact or research, and is not just opinion or original research for this article.

As for the dablinks, I felt that they were sufficiently unrelated. The link pointing to a star trek reference, in my opinion, is too distracting, and completely unrelated. That should be accomplished wither by a reference as the end of the article, or a disambiguation page before the article. The other suggested that a sex act involving three people should be looked at threesome. The problem with that is that "ménage à trois" 'is a sex act involving three people(among other things). And by redirecting at the start of the article you suggest otherwise. The way it should be handled in an NPOV view would be to say something like:

The term "ménage à trois" is often used to reference a sexual threesome but this is a common misnomer as a more specific interpretation is of "three persons living together, in a relationship" is more true to the original french meaning. The term has transitioned through a variety of meaning in english usage within the past forty years from the specific original meaning of "A living arrangement with three people" to "Three people sharing living space, and in a relationship" to "A married couple with a shared lover living with them" to "A couple sharing a lover" to "A couple who have sex with a third" to "Three people who have sex occasionaly" to "Three people who have sex together".

Now, I am not saying that this is the correct view (although it is supportable, I think by literature and cultural references) and so it is a view that can be properly espoused in Wikipedia. And, I am open to better prose as well as different wording based on what the research of the literature and cultural usage supports based on citations.

But, for other editors to say, "That's wrong. The way I learned it is right, not those other things. I won't let you put that in the article" is just not acceptable.

Atom 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the edits you are pushing for has any support by consensus. It is even more wrong for you to push them without any support. --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I say too much and something gets lost. Simply said, one does not need consensus to edit. Putting in edits and having them reverted is not "pushing". See NPOV. What is required is that the information is fact, and not opinion, and can be cited or sourced. I've provided numerous sources to show that my view is valid. I'm not asking for your permission to edit the article, I am trying to tell you to please follow WP policies rather than stifling a perspective that you do not agree with. If you can't respect people with other views than your own then we can get another administrator to try and enforce the policies. Again, trying to limit the article to just the point of view that you agree with is 'not NPOV. I'm sorry that you don't like that a Ménage à trois means more than your limited view.

You and others have acknowledged my point that "Ménage à trois" is seen by people as a sexual relationship. If you wanted to be constructive, you could suggest a way that this POV could be phrased in the article in a manner acceptable to you. You will note that above, I did precisely that.

[edit] Group Sex Categorization

If the initial definition states that simultaneous sexual congress is not required to be classified as a Ménage à trois, how can it be in Category:Group Sex? And if it belongs in the category, then remove that definition and any mention of standard polygamy, as that would not qualify? -- Avi 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with putting it in Category:Group sex on its merits, but there's no contradiction. Something can be relevant to group sex without being necessarily group sex -- just as, for example, if there is such a thing as Category:Methods to reach orgasm, Masturbation can fit into that category even though not every masturbatory act will bring orgasm. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it belongs in the category. Many terms mean a variety of things. In this case Ménage à trois has been used for a variety of things over the years from very strict usage to very loose usage. The loosest usage (as far as I can tell) seems to be where it is synonymous with a "threesome". The Kerouac reference just added seems to indicate a situation with a married couple and another partner sexually involved with at least one. Before seeing the Kerouac example, I would have said that a couple where one had a lover on the side would not be considered as a Ménage à trois. Apparently I'll need to reconsider. At any rate, when something is categorized (as we are discussing here regarding category:group sex it need only apply to one of the definitions, not ALL definitions. One definition of Ménage does fit this. Atom 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Sorry, I mean't to leave an edit commentary and used the popup by mistake. I agree the comment looks like it could be speculative. It certainly is POV, but the POV is cited correctly, and it is a quote from the citation. It is difficult to find sources related to this topic. POV is allowed in articles, as is ovbvious from the other comments and opinions in the article. NPOV doesn;t mean NO POV, it means Neutral POV. That means POV from various (sourced) perspectives are allowed. Atom 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For it to be neutral, the POV needs to be qualified. To have it -- particularly in the lead section -- stating the POV in such an unqualified manner is not NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "qualified". Other than being what WIkipedia calls a "reliable source", in this case, a published book. What is required to qualify it?

As for the section, I can see the logic in leaving the intro as neutral as possible. What do you suggest, another section? Atom 19:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That might work better, although I still hesitate at using something that opinionated without data to back its opinion up. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of "In Fiction"

I did some cleanup in the "In Fiction" section of the article. Some were vague references, or even exempts from song lyrics. Other were vague plot references from single episodes of TV-series. Please do not re-add your entry if it falls under one of the above categories. Also, I shortened a few entries; names of actors portraying the characters are irrelevant in this section; it is about ménage à trois, not acting or the movie itself. If a person reading the entry is curious about the movie, they can find the according information on the relevant page of the movie. The section looks a lot better now. If somebody has some more knowledge about some of the current entries, please consider which ones are relevant enough, and remove as necessary. Bobber0001 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)