An article from Bustle entitled "

Stop Sexualizing Bi Women By Assuming They're More Interested In Threesomes

," has been making the rounds on my news feeds this morning, and a screed-length comment I had written was enough to inspire this hiatal writer to break silence, because isn't it about time a cis-white dude had a voice?

The article, which was actually written in September of 2015, puts forth the following:

Bisexual women aren't any more likely than other women to decide that's what they're interested in. Identifying as bisexual doesn't really provide much interest about sexual proclivities. Bisexual women can be kinky or vanilla, poly or monogamous, or even taking a break from sex altogether. The sexualization of bi women — the leers when women come out as bi, the crude comments about their supposed willingness to engage in threesomes, the unsolicited approaches from unicorn hunters on dating sites — speaks to something in the way society thinks about them.

Ehhhh. Sure, there's some truths in there. But there's also a lot of truths the author is ignoring. Being bisexual, or more specifically living dat outwardly bi life, inherently demands you're living an alternative lifestyle. As long as you're presenting as bi (meaning that you're out and not in a "passable" state), people are going to look at you. They'll talk about you. They'll wonder.

Those who are willing to take that on—to engage in an openly alternative lifestyle—more than likely have gone through a good deal of introspection in making their decision to be out. And as such they are necessarily more open to the scrutiny associated with it, to challenging societal norms, and to explore that which is "other." It's not a coincidence that so much of the bisexual, kink, swinging, poly, and body-positive communities have some pretty tight overlap in the sexually alternative venn diagram. And threesomes are part of that "otherness."

So while the Bustle piece, like a lot of "problematic culture," tries to drive home some worthwhile takeaways and best practices, it does so at the expense of ignoring some not-convenient-to-the-narrative realities.

Of course bi people are more open to threesomes. By the very nature of having just one less preventative barrier to entry (HEY-OH! In this case, gender), there's a greater likelihood of being inclined to engage sexually with people of that gender.

"But not not all straight people want to have a threesomes with two opposite sex partners either!" Of course not, that's because there's lots of things preventing people from having threesomes. They can be emotionally and even physically tricky to navigate.

There's also the not-pc fact that while many bi people have completely monogamous, emotionally and physically satisfying relationships, there are other bi people whose bisexuality presents itself as a NEED for the physical or emotional intimacies that only someone of the same sex can offer. A threesome can offer those little "release valve" opportunities to satisfy those needs.

And while not as prevalent, this can apply to having multiple opposite sex partners as well. I have a tiny dick. If having a big dick is important to my partner, I completely understand how having another dude in the room could help satisfy that need for her. The need to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex is no different.

On to the topic of unicorns. Of course they're often abused (I'm speaking in the metaphorical sense) and their devotion unreasonably demanded by many couples. I'm well aware of the inherent value and sought after-ness of a single woman (particularly in Chicago's highly-coupled kink scene) and the inherent lack of value of a single man. But let's not pretend that the unicorn relationship isn't offering both parties something that might be perfectly suitable for their respective desire at the time. To assume that every unicorn is actually secretly wanting to be in a poly relationship or is finding the the dynamic to be "less than" because she and the couple aren't in a longterm commitment is in itself some patriarchal bullshit.

To reduce the complexities of sexuality down to an obtuse food metaphor because the internet is super good at understanding nuance: if you only like chocolate ice cream, chances are you're not going to have much interest in combining vanilla ice cream with your chocolate. If you only like chocolate ice cream, you might want to just have one serving, or sometimes you might like to indulge and have two helpings of chocolate ice cream. If you like chocolate AND vanilla ice cream, you might like chocolate one day, vanilla the next, and don't want to combine them - either because you don't like the way they taste together, because you don't want to gorge yourself on more than one serving, or maybe your tastes just change depending on where you're at in life. But if you LOVE both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, yes, yes you are probably much open to a whole world of two helpings, combining both chocolate and vanilla and while you're at it, bring in the rainbow sherbet, throw in some cherries, blast some whipped cream, drizzle that fudge and shake on a hearty helping of nuts.

What all sexual expression will look like one day.

But even though it's more likely, if you meet someone who likes both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, don't just assume they want to eat both with you, if they want to eat with you at all.

Of Course Bisexual People Are More Interested In Threesomes