sandwich_position requires the middle character to be penetrated by both outer characters, but bisexual_sandwich usually instead features the middle character penetrating one of the outer characters.
It's currently not possible to remove a number of invalid sandwich_position taggings without removing valid bisexual_sandwich tags.

The bisexual_sandwich tag seems to be misused a lot. The bisexual_sandwich wiki page indicates a train_position while the sandwich_position tells the user that it is not a train_position. I am in favor of this deimplication and I am also in favor of having bisexual_sandwich imply train_position.

The name does help, but leaving bisexual_sandwich as is, and forcing it to be a sandwich_position, will lead to problems with users incorrectly tagging posts.

idem said:
The bisexual_sandwich wiki page indicates a train_position while the sandwich_position tells the user that it is not a train_position. I am in favor of this deimplication and I am also in favor of having bisexual_sandwich imply train_position.

This is even more confusing since train_position and sandwich_position are two separate things. It being bisexual doesn't change which sexual position is occurring, that will lead to mistagging since it's inconsistent and an easy detail to overlook (train_position+bisexual is bisexual_sandwich, but it's not sandwich_position, and a bisexual+sandwich_position isn't bisexual_sandwich ...?).

IMO, the wiki for bisexual_sandwich should be fixed to be consistent with what the sandwich_position is, because a sandwich isn't a train.

idem said:
having bisexual_sandwich imply train_position.

Wouldn't that also cause confusion where there's a post that is actually sandwich_position?
post #1170501
I don't see a reason to exclude this from bisexual_sandwich, though the current definition already does.

Starting to think it'd be a better idea to de-implicate, and then invalidate bisexual_sandwich (after cleaning up all the mistags) and just use bisexual+relevant position tags.

watsit said:
This is even more confusing since train_position and sandwich_position are two separate things. It being bisexual doesn't change which sexual position is occurring, that will lead to mistagging since it's inconsistent and an easy detail to overlook (train_position+bisexual is bisexual_sandwich, but it's not sandwich_position, and a bisexual+sandwich_position isn't bisexual_sandwich ...?).

IMO, the wiki for bisexual_sandwich should be fixed to be consistent with what the sandwich_position is, because a sandwich isn't a train.

You are right. It does not make much sense for a sex-position tag with sandwich in the name to not be related to sandwich_position, but the current state of the tag's definition is what got us into this mess. At some point you will start fighting users on how they think tags work.

The problem is there are people, like me, who think the bisexual_sandwich is a variant of the train_position. Magnus's idea of invalidating bisexual_sandwich has merit. It would highlight that the sex-position is a bisexual_sandwich_position or a bisexual_train_position, removing the ambiguity of what a bisexual_sandwich is.

idem said:
bisexual_sandwich_position or a bisexual_train_position

I do want to clarify that I mean as separate tags, i.e. bisexual sandwich_position or bisexual train_position.

magnuseffect said:
I do want to clarify that I mean as separate tags, i.e. bisexual sandwich_position or bisexual train_position.

Yeah, I do not know what I was thinking. So just remove the bisexual_sandwich tag entirely and then rely on bisexual train_position to achieve the same result?

idem said:
The problem is there are people, like me, who think the bisexual_sandwich is a variant of the train_position.

I don't see how those are related. Sandwich is a threesome position where two characters face the one in the middle. Train can be longer than three, and requires all characters to face in the same direction. There's no overlap, sandwich position can never be train position since one participant is facing the wrong way.

As for bisexual_sandwich, I don't know why it exists. As you said, could just search for bisexual + position.

genjar said:
I don't see how those are related. Sandwich is a threesome position where two characters face the one in the middle. Train can be longer than three, and requires all characters to face in the same direction. There's no overlap, sandwich position can never be train position since one participant is facing the wrong way.

As for bisexual_sandwich, I don't know why it exists. As you said, could just search for bisexual + position.

My reason for thinking that bisexual_sandwich is a type of train_position is because there is a male sandwiched between a female and another male.

Having bisexual_sandwich be a type of sandwich_position would be extremely niche, requiring a female on the outside penetrating the middle character with a strapon (unless the sandwich_position is more generic than the wiki says).

genjar said:
Sandwich is a threesome position where two characters face the one in the middle.

It's more specific than that. For sandwich_position the outer characters must both be penetrating the centre character. It's not just about which way the characters are facing. There is no defined tag for a threesome position that's a train with the receiving end facing the middle, much like many other positions.
Altering the definition would be a solution, but I'd argue that 1->2<-3 and 1<-2<-3 are not the same position and should continue to be defined separately. Just about every recognised position tag cares about both character orientation and which character is penetrating. You wouldn't tag an amazon_position post as anvil_position just because the positioning is similar.

This whole issue is built around that misunderstanding.

idem said:
Having bisexual_sandwich be a type of sandwich_position would be extremely niche, requiring a female on the outside penetrating the middle character with a strapon (unless the sandwich_position is more generic than the wiki says).

Oh, I see what you mean. The wiki currently says that the middle partner must be penetrated by the other two. That's certainly the most common combo, but any combination where two partners are facing the middle one is generally considered sandwich in real life. Doesn't matter who's penetrating whom.

For instance, female > male 1 < male 2 with the male 1 penetrating the female (while being anally penetrated), would still normally be considered sandwich. Except not here, by the current wiki.

genjar said:
Oh, I see what you mean. The wiki currently says that the middle partner must be penetrated by the other two. But any combination where two partners are facing the middle one is generally considered sandwich in real life, doesn't matter who's penetrating whom.

For instance, female > male 1 < male 2 with the male 1 penetrating the female (while being anally penetrated), would still normally be considered sandwich. Except not here, by the current wiki. That bit might need to be rewritten.

I'm assuming my last post went up while you were writing that, but if sandwich_position doesn't care about penetration, should it cease being a sex _position tag, and become taggable for non-penetrative instances? (eg. alias to something along the lines of sandwiched)

genjar said:
(The above example is also featured in one of the oldest depictions of sandwich position, from a painting made by Paul Avril. Can be found in the Wikipedia sex positions article.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_position#Multiple_penetration:
Simultaneous penetration of the vagina and anus. If this is done using penises and/or strap-on dildos, this is sometimes called the sandwich or BigMac.[citation needed] The shocker (see above) accomplishes this using several fingers of one hand.

This is the only hit for sandwich on that entire page, by the way. ^{Apparently my Firefox ctrl+F bugged out, there are actually 3 hits for sandwich}

Edit: Oh, you edited that part back out faster than I could post

magnuseffect said:
This is the only hit for sandwich on that entire page, by the way.

Edit: Oh, you edited that part back out faster than I could post

Check next to the threesomes section in English wiki. I'd link it, but I'm not sure about the current rules regarding linking to explicit material.

magnuseffect said:
I'm assuming my last post went up while you were writing that, but if sandwich_position doesn't care about penetration, should it cease being a sex _position tag, and become taggable for non-penetrative instances?

Penetration in general shouldn't be a requirement for most sex position tags. After all, they should apply equally to female/female sex. Female > female < female is still a sandwich position even if there's no penetration at all.

genjar said:
Check next to the threesomes section in English wiki. I'd link it, but I'm not sure about the current rules regarding linking to explicit material.

Okay, found the other two
Not sure why my Firefox was giving me 1 of 1 matches..
Also found:

Three partners lie or stand in parallel, with one between the other two. Sometimes called a sandwich. This term may specifically refer to the double penetration of a woman, with one penis in her anus, and the other in her vagina or of a male, with two penises in his anus.

I'm unable to find a source other than the picture caption for the 1<-2<-3 definition though (the linked source has no such caption that I can find, nor do I get any results for paul avril sandwich through Google, which does show several sites his art appears on.)

Edit: Found a single German blog using that definition,
contrasted with a German wiki that also attributes it to double penetration, and features the Paul Avril image in a separate context.

Dropping a new post, as this seems like an edit made after my last.

genjar said:
After all, they should apply equally to female/female sex. Female > female < female is still a sandwich position even if there's no penetration at all.

There would still have to be, from both outer partners directed toward the middle partner, an act that would qualify as a sex act for female->female<-female to be considered sandwich_position though. I will concede that technically it doesn't have to be penetration but it's still not wholly based on body positioning; the specifics of genital interaction are still relevant.

An all-female non-penetrative sandwich_position could probably be debatable in the same way as you could argue whether anvil_position or amazon_position is more relevant for female/female tribadism in the specific positioning involved there, but once you swap the tribadism for phallic penetration in that example it inherently becomes one or the other or arguably both at the same time if it's a double dildo
I keep bringing up anvil vs amazon because it's an existing case where one pose set has different _position tags based on the specifics of the sexual interaction.

While writing this post I have discovered that the train_position wiki used to qualify posts where the receiving end character was facing the rest of the train, but this was removed after the last admin edit

A quick summary

• bisexual_sandwich implies sandwich_position to
• Posts wiki-defined as sandwich_position
• Posts wiki-defined as exclusively train_position
• Posts wiki-defined as not sandwich_position

• Current wiki-defined sandwich_position
• Both outer partners facing centre partner
• The centre partner is the receiving partner for both outer partners

• Current wiki-defined train_position
• Participants form a line, front-to-back, where penetrating partners penetrate the partner directly in front of them
• The last admin-level versions included a statement that the receiving-end partner could be in any position. sandwich_position retains this line while referencing train_position and was written by an admin who contributed to both wikis.
• The receiving-end partner may be penetrated orally and still qualify for the position

I would argue that reinstating the train_position wiki passage allowing the receiving-end partner to be "in any position" would resolve the train_position versus sandwich_position argument.

To reiterate, just so I understand, these would be the updated definitions:

• sandwich_position
• Composed of three participants
• Outer participants are facing the center participant
• The center participant is receiving both outer participants

• train_position
• Composed of, at minimum, three participants
• Participants are arranged in a line facing the same direction
• Participants, with the exception of those at the start and end of the line, are receiving from the participant from behind them and giving to the participant in front of them
• The participant at the end of the line (the one only receiving) can be in any position, facing any direction

• bisexual_sandwich
• Composed of three participants
• Participants facing like they are in a sandwich_position
• Participants are giving/receiving like they are in a train_position
• Participant at the end of the line must be female and all others male
• Implies updated train_position and not sandwich_position

It is difficult to use Genjar's suggestion of not requiring penetration for sex-positions; without it, it is hard to describe who is receiving. It would be impossible to tell the difference between an all-female train_position and an all-female sandwich_position.

Also, the terminology I have chosen can get confusing. I would hardly say someone forcing themselves on a male has the male giving. But, requiring penetration would discount an all-female train_position, sans strapons.

idem said:

MagnusEffect said:

A quick summary

• bisexual_sandwich implies sandwich_position to
• Posts wiki-defined as sandwich_position
• Posts wiki-defined as exclusively train_position
• Posts wiki-defined as not sandwich_position

• Current wiki-defined sandwich_position
• Both outer partners facing centre partner
• The centre partner is the receiving partner for both outer partners

• Current wiki-defined train_position
• Participants form a line, front-to-back, where penetrating partners penetrate the partner directly in front of them
• The last admin-level versions included a statement that the receiving-end partner could be in any position. sandwich_position retains this line while referencing train_position and was written by an admin who contributed to both wikis.
• The receiving-end partner may be penetrated orally and still qualify for the position

I would argue that reinstating the train_position wiki passage allowing the receiving-end partner to be "in any position" would resolve the train_position versus sandwich_position argument.

To reiterate, just so I understand, these would be the updated definitions:

• sandwich_position
• Composed of three participants
• Outer participants are facing the center participant
• The center participant is receiving both outer participants

Yes

• train_position
• Composed of, at minimum, three participants
• Participants are arranged in a line facing the same direction
• Participants, with the exception of those at the start and end of the line, are receiving from the participant from behind them and giving to the participant in front of them
• The participant at the end of the line (the one only receiving) can be in any position, facing any direction

swap Participants are arranged in a line to penetrating participants are arranged in a line

• bisexual_sandwich
• Would fall into train_position under these new rules and its current definition

Under the current wiki-definition, yes, BUT in my belief it should either

• Be altered to include bisexual instances of both train_position and sandwich_position
• Invalidated to avoid confusion

I just don't see the point in excluding valid sandwich_position posts, and overall the bisexual_sandwich tag seems to bring more confusion than utility.

I would go with:

• sandwich_position
• Composed of three participants
• Outer participants are facing the center participant
• All three are interacting sexually (penetration is not necessary, as long as it qualifies for sex)

• train_position
• Composed of, at minimum, three participants
• Participants are arranged in a line facing the same direction
• Participants are interacting sexually (anything that qualifies for the sex tag)

• bisexual_sandwich
• A sandwich_position in which one of the participants is sexually interacting with both sexes in the sandwich (a character external to the sandwich would not be considered, e.g. m->f<-m where one of the males is interacting with another male not in the sandwich; that would be bisexual, but not bisexual_sandwich)
• Alternatively, just invalidate it as bisexual+sandwich_position is close enough

Consequently, assuming sex is going on between adjacent characters, a facing direction of 1->2<-3 is sandwich, and 1->2->3 is train. 1->2->3<-4 is both train (1->2->3) and sandwich (2->3<-4).

idem said:

• bisexual_sandwich
• Composed of three participants
• Participants facing like they are in a sandwich_position
• Participants are giving/receiving like they are in a train_position
• Participant at the end of the line must be female and all others male
• Implies updated train_position and not sandwich_position

Updated response, that got edited in right before I posted.
The two male requirement is a no-no, because that's just not the only means of bisexuality. The bisexual_sandwich wiki is the least grounded of the three we're discussing, and likely needs a rework either way.

watsit said:
I would go with:

• sandwich_position
• Composed of three participants
• Outer participants are facing the center participant
• All three are interacting sexually (penetration is not necessary, as long as it qualifies for sex)

• train_position
• Composed of, at minimum, three participants
• Participants are arranged in a line facing the same direction
• Participants are interacting sexually (anything that qualifies for the sex tag)

• bisexual_sandwich
• A sandwich_position in which one of the participants is sexually interacting with both sexes in the sandwich (a character external to the sandwich would not be considered, e.g. m->f<-m where one of the males is interacting with another male not in the sandwich; that would be bisexual, but not bisexual_sandwich)
• Alternatively, just invalidate it as bisexual+sandwich_position is close enough

Consequently, assuming sex is going on between adjacent characters, a facing direction of 1->2<-3 is sandwich, and 1->2->3 is train. 1->2->3<-4 is both train (1->2->3) and sandwich (2->3<-4).

This would be a solution, but I'm generally against altering established site definitions, and I would consider bisexual_sandwich to be less well-established than either sandwich_position or train_position, given that the sandwich and train wikis were both at some point organised in tandem by one admin (edits to both wikis on the 1st and 3rd of October 2013 by FurryPickle) while bisexual_sandwich wasn't touched by admins until 2015, when its existing user-submitted wording was cleaned up but with little regard to the position tags.

magnuseffect said:
This would be a solution, but I'm generally against altering established site definitions

Except the definition is different from the established usage (given that bisexual_sandwich implies sandwich_position, despite the current wiki definition saying it should be train_position). So even if the implications were fixed to match the wiki definition, almost all existing uses would be tagged wrong due to existing usage. On top of that, the wiki definition isn't intuitive, so people will continue to tag it wrong in the future. IMO, in this particular case, changing the definition would be a far more sensible option than changing implications, fixing posts, and have people unwittingly continue to tag it wrong in the future.

The sandwich_position and train_position are similarly at issue. It's unintuitive that sandwich_position require both ends to penetrate the center. It's unintuitive that two characters facing a center character would qualify for train_position, despite the center character being sandwiched from both ends. This is especially an issue since TWYS means penetration may not be visible for tagging purposes, despite a clear inference of sexual activity.

watsit said:
Except the definition is different from the established usage (given that bisexual_sandwich implies sandwich_position, despite the current wiki definition saying it should be train_position).

"Established usage" already involves a hell of a lot of bisexual_sandwich taggings on posts that are train_position now, and will still be train_position under your proposed definition changes. Do you think people are going to stop those taggings just because the wiki changed? There's enough trouble already trying to keep missionary_position tagged properly.

So even if the implications were fixed to match the wiki definition, almost all existing uses would be tagged wrong due to existing usage.

Hey it's your old pal, the strawman!
I've literally stated I'd rather invalidate bisexual_sandwich entirely than move its implication over to train_position.

On top of that, the wiki definition isn't intuitive, so people will continue to tag it wrong in the future. IMO, in this particular case, changing the definition would be a far more sensible option than changing implications, fixing posts, and have people unwittingly continue to tag it wrong in the future.

Have you looked at the bisexual_sandwich posts listing? facing-the-centre posts and facing-same-direction posts are roughly even with each other, with a sprinkling of spitroast images that shouldn't be there under any definition we've discussed.
If we just nuke the tag we need to fix mistags once, then it's smooth sailing.
If we change the bisexual_sandwich definition to allow for both train and sandwich positions as long as it's bisexual, we just have to fix mis-applied sandwich_position taggings.
If we change all the definitions around and people keep tagging bisexual_sandwich for bisexual train_position posts we may need to fix a near 50% mistag rate for the lifetime of the tag.

I'm glad you're on-board with the possibility of invalidating the tag, I just want to point out that if the sandwich and train definitions shift, it doesn't make keeping bisexual_sandwich implied to anything a better idea.

The sandwich_position and train_position are similarly at issue. It's unintuitive that sandwich_position require both ends to penetrate the center. It's unintuitive that two characters facing a center character would qualify for train_position, despite the center character being sandwiched from both ends.

Team Penetration vs Team Orientation (there's no line break in my text here..)
It may be worth noting that the redefinition of train_position would push the posts where the train ends in oral out of having an applicable tag, unless sandwich_position is further altered to accommodate those regardless of body positioning.

This is especially an issue since TWYS means penetration may not be visible for tagging purposes, despite a clear inference of sexual activity.

This may be a better argument, but it sounds like a rare scenario. There's usually some indicator of who is penetrating whom for face-to-face sex; if the posing isn't right for the outer characters to be both penetrating the middle character, or for the middle character to be penetrating an outer character, TWYS shouldn't say that's what it looks like in the first place.

The bulk update request #1010 is pending approval.

remove implication bisexual_sandwich (878) -> sandwich_position (3538)

Reason: See thread

The wiki is largely fixed now, so this should only go through if a followup BUR

category bisexual_sandwich -> invalid

is to be made. Just to clarify for those who skim the thread.

watsit said:
The wiki is largely fixed now, so this should only go through if a followup BUR

category bisexual_sandwich -> invalid

is to be made. Just to clarify for those who skim the thread.

As is it still contains frequent taggings of spitroasts, trains, and other positions.
All of which become auto-tagged with sandwich_position. (Notably post #2673301 has sex added via the implication chain!)

This ultimately wasn't about what counts as a bisexual_sandwich as per the sandwich_position definitions, it was about this implication, through the tag's common usage, adding sandwich_position to many posts which aren't under any definition.
Keeping this implication intact is more harmful than axing it and then going no further. This has not changed with editing the wiki to define sandwich_position as facing-based.

I feel like I need to reiterate that the train_position versus sandwich_position penetration versus facing debate was secondary,
and that the question of invalidating bisexual_sandwich entirely was an alternative end to that secondary argument.

magnuseffect said:
All of which become auto-tagged with sandwich_position. (Notably post #2673301 has sex added via the implication chain!)

Well, that's a clear mistag. There's no sex going on, so it shouldn't have been tagged bisexual_sandwich regardless of how the characters are facing or penetrating. Incidentally, the post is also tagged with threesome, which implicates group_sex->sex, so it'd still have gotten the sex tag from poor tagging even if bisexual_sandwich was gone.

Thinking about it, perhaps aliasing bisexual_sandwich to bisexual would be better than making it Invalid. Still not sure it should go away, rather people should be told when they're seen using it wrong, but if it does, I think that would be the better way to remove it.