The [[threesome]] tag needs editing.

It currently reads "[Threesomes are] usually two female characters having sex with a male characters." and "Two male characters and a female character will almost always be gangbang."

Ignoring the astoundingly poor grammar and spelling; the facts are also just wrong. Threesomes are not determined by a gender distribution at all (3M or 3F or 2M1F or 1M2F are ALL equally valid threesome combinations.)

And two males and a female do not automatically merit a 'gangbang' tag (especially linked in a M-M-F configuration, which is [more-often-than-not] a 'threesome'... unless it's like... Jesse and James dominating their captive Ash... that would be a rare, textbook-definition of a "M-M-F gangbang"...)

For example, let's say Brock, Ash and Misty are sitting around the campfire (Sorry for using the Pokemon references... everyone is just playing that new-fangled Pokey-Man game on their mobile cellular telephones!) and they nonchalantly start talking about sex which (as we ALL know) inevitably leads to Misty blurting out, "Do you guys wanna try it out?" That would be the start of an egalitarian consensual threesome, especially if Ash started making out with Brock while penetrating Misty. If there is ANY bisexuality/homosexuality present in a three-person sex session, that automatically makes it a valid 'threesome' no matter the gender-distribution. If no bi/homosexuality is present in the picture though, the referee call becomes slightly more involved. Are all three equally familiar (or unfamiliar) with one another? Did all three willingly commence having sex? Is the sex generally soft and equally pleasurable to all? If so, 'threesome'. Are the two that are mutually sexing the third a part of the same team or well-established partnership while the third is an outlier/outcast with little to-no-connection to them? Is the third individual an unwilling party? Is the sex generally rough with selfish intentions from the dominant party? If so, 'gangbang'.

(To review: A "gangbang" is a many-to-one relationship where an apparent separate group [generally outnumbering the orifices available on the individual of focus] takes turns having intercourse with the central outsider/outcast. The group does not interact sexually with their fellow group members (otherwise it would then become a many-on-many 'orgy' [albeit most-likely a gender-imbalanced orgy] rather than many-to-one 'gangbang'.) Gangbangs infer an apparent separation of the external actors and internal receiver(s) [an "us and them" mentality] and generally depicts a "waiting line". With this definition, multiple gangbangs can indeed occur within the same room without triggering the 'orgy' tag as long as there is an obvious group separation between the many external actors and the few internal receivers. For example, three women bound in stocks with three long lines of town guards awaiting to have a turn with them; an "us-and-them" dynamic, "many-on-few" relationship = multi-gangbang (and NOT an unstructured, free-for-all 'orgy'.) The dominant group is generally aggressive and the individual outsider(s) are generally submissive/unwilling. If all involved members are equally accepting of the sexual intercourse and/or there is no apparent group separation then the image is not a 'gangbang', but rather a threesome/foursome/group_sex/etc.)

Not on Gelbooru. A threesome is specifically two females and a male, except in a couple very specific cases (note the "usually" in the definition).



This is one of the very specific cases I mentioned. The other being F-F-F.

Please be aware that Gelbooru tags aren't necessarily defined to be used the way that the terms they're based on usually are - for example, "futanari" is often used in a way that includes newhalf, "trap" is often used interchangeably with "crossdressing" and, for a very long time, was defined in a way that was very different from how it's usually used. I'll point out that we didn't change the definition because we decided we didn't like it; we changed the definition purely for technical reasons.

Then how can a person find just three people without regard to gender?

You can't. You'll need to search for each gender combination separately.

That's not good.