Definitions

topic posted Sat, February 12, 2005 - 7:41 PM by  Unsubscribed
For the purposes of this tribe, I would define a gangbang as a situation in which one woman has sex with multiple men. One woman, multiple men. Beyond that, though, I lack clarity. Is a slight bit of degradation of the woman necessary for the situation to be considered a gangbang? What if the woman is 100% in charge and telling the men what to do? Is that a gangbang? Or is that something different?
posted by:
Unsubscribed
  • Re: Definitions

    Sun, February 13, 2005 - 3:58 AM
    While most pornographic movies and images tend to lean towards degradation of women (especially in group situations such as gang bangs and bukkake) I don't think it's essential for it to be part of the actual definition of 'gang bang'. I've known women who've particiapted in gang bangs and were very much in control of the situation, as they should be (at the *very least with a safe word*). People's attraction/disgust on the experience varies on many aspects - morals, conditioning, personal preference - as I've also known women who enjoy being a sub and serving large groups of men sexually. So degradation - necessary? no. Conditioned response among the majority of people? more than likely.
  • Re: Definitions

    Mon, February 14, 2005 - 12:19 PM
    I am curious as to why you wouldn't consider it a gangbang if a gang of girls gets on a dude or even on another girl. I think what makes something a gang bang is the intent that the focus is solely one person. For example.....

    4 women having sex together would be a lesbian foursome
    3 women having sex with one woman as the sole focus would be a gang bang.

    There also seems to be an element of 'taking turns' in gang bangs where at some point someone can't be involved and they are watching the show... Sometimes for the target of the gangbang it isn't neccecarily just about the sex it's also about putting on a good show.

    Sorry for the bad spelling.
    • Re: Definitions

      Mon, February 14, 2005 - 1:19 PM

      I concur with that expansion of the term. And would even add that a couple (hetero or otherwise) or even three friends together can be "gang banged" by a group of domineering others. Men like to be gang banged too, and that can be sadistically or not, by women, or men, or a combination of the two. Maybe the definition starts to unravel a bit though, after you get into things like three powerfully dominant people having their sexual way with five or six other meek and timid ones. And then there's the question of controlling the degradation, or having it dealt to you at the gang bangers whim. I think however that what the good Harriet is going for here (and correct me if I'm wrong), is the intent focus of entranced ganged together masculinity upon gratifying themselves blatantly with self serving disregard for the single object of their feminine lust; and whether she's delegating the game, acting out a role, or abandoning herself to the "rules" of the men, is probably irrelevant to the sensations that the woman herself is going for in the first place. All by herself like that, she must really feel extra-special indeed... Gives me shivers just writing about it. If I was a woman my panties would by soaked through right about now... Mmmmmmmmm... soaked panties...


      ;)
      • Re: Definitions

        Mon, February 14, 2005 - 2:57 PM
        Good Harriet might just be suggesting that an uber femme with no sexual hangups might just consume any number of men in her quest to feed her lusts.

        I'm still of the opinion that it might hurt after a while even with lots of lube.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Definitions

        Mon, February 14, 2005 - 6:23 PM
        > [W]hat the good Harriet is going for here (and correct me if I'm wrong), is the intent focus of entranced ganged together masculinity upon gratifying themselves blatantly with self serving disregard for the single object of their feminine lust

        Hmm, I guess this isn't how I would put it. I'm not sure what I'm going for. I do know that when you talk to women about gangbangs and their fantasies surrounding them, sometimes those fantasies involve submission and degradation, and sometimes they don't.

        Ultimately I'm interested in the tendency among some to find degrading sex to be somehow better or hotter than non-degrading sex. I guess I take issue with whether it's good to like or want sex that has a degrading overtone. Is it okay (that is, psychologically healthy) to like or want degrading sex (whether as a recipient or provider)?

        And somehow this all got mixed up in an idea for a screenplay, so that's where I'm at.

        > and whether she's delegating the game, acting out a role, or abandoning herself to the "rules" of the men, is probably irrelevant to the sensations that the woman herself is going for in the first place

        Not true, not true!! I read you to say that ultimately what the woman is going for is a set of physical sensations, and that the psyche is "probably irrelevant" to those sensations, and I can't believe you would try to argue that, so I must have misunderstood your point.
        • Re: Definitions

          Tue, February 15, 2005 - 2:07 AM
          The gang bangs I've been in 1 guy would be screwing her,while she was giving another guy a BJ.
  • Re: Definitions

    Tue, February 15, 2005 - 3:37 PM
    I don't think that any degradation is necessary, nor even that the multiples need to be men. Nor even, although it fits in your purpose, that the subject be a woman.

    Basically you have a focus, and you have people who are there to focus on that person.

    I've definitely been involved in "focus-controlled" GBs, but don't recall seeing any movies depicting them.
    • Re: Definitions

      Tue, February 15, 2005 - 6:30 PM

      Oh my Harriet, that is indeed a misunderstanding... my apologies for not being more clear. The "irrelevancy" I spoke of was in regards to the scenarios and types of situations that might be engaged in (i.e.. with her in a position of power, or in total submission to the act, or whatever), with the feelings and sensations which the woman might want to receive from these experiences being the main point. Also most assuredly the physical aspect of the thing is definitely secondary to the psychological desires one would strive to feel when they are seeking to be gang banged, this has to be obvious. One cock, two cocks, ten cocks, it's all the same when taken physically, and you only have so many orifices anyway, but in a fantasizing mind, the act of performing for such an eager audience (whether you're commanding them, or letting yourself be manipulated), can drive you to the mentally ecstatic place you so earnestly want - if you know what I mean.


      <> - <> - <>


      My take on the thing, since you are asking generally, is that any fantasy or desire born within a person is directly related to everything they have ever been exposed to throughout their whole lives, by every role model, every one of their popular cultural understandings, and all societies bombardments of input which went into that persons psyche. Now I would have to write a short book here in order to get into all of the aspects I see in this, and I'm sure I would only get disagreement and flack from it anyway, so let me just get into my own personal understandings of these things in relation to your last few questions, and this most intriguing topic you've opened up for us all.


      I have within myself discovered a certain riveting titillation towards anything and everything that has been designed by popular societal culture as being immoral, and wrong. I don't know where this came from in myself, whether as a rebellious expression at discovering common mankind to be a hypocritical race of unthinking idiots who throw different brands of morality around like they had halos up their ass's, and god's own intentions clearly understood, or if it was from self exploration in the art of my own privately thinking mind which lead me to be exited by all things tabu. Either way the general theme to my deeply seeded extreme turn-ons seems to me to be rooted in the secretive partaking of pleasure from the very same things I have been taught all of my life that I am most definitely NOT supposed to take pleasure from. The act of doing something "wrong" to me has become a fascination for my being of the most ultimately provocative kind. I've always been a staunch heterosexual for instance - though some people would definitely disagree with me there - and so it has always been wrong in my mind to have any sexual interest in men whatsoever, and even though the idea of having a boyfriend, or even of kissing a man romantically still repulses my sensibilities homophobically, I still find myself being completely entranced with the epitome of all wrongful acts which any strait-man can ever indulge in: giving another man a vigorously righteous, and eager to please blow job!


      I find the very "unnaturalness" of the deed to be absolutely hypnotizing, and all the stigma that's attached to the thing only drives my desires more. Likewise if I imagine that the man is forcing me to do it, that he has threatened my life in some way, and I have no choice but to please him to the best of my abilities, then this drives the tabu factor of the thing even higher for me, and my ecstasy is exponentially increased. This enchantment of mine grows even more towards the outer limits of sexual rapture when I am in a position to be violently defiled by many men at once, and if they mock and abuse me while I franticly strive to please them all in every available way which I possibly can, as eagerly and devotedly as they will allow me to be, well... I become giddy just thinking about it... [sigh] And because I have also been at the other end of this game, with one special woman friend who begs us all (men and women) to be as brutal and degrading as we dare - without causing any actual harm of course - I know very well the opposite side of forbidden pleasures when committing such diabolical deeds in brazenly selfish sexual greed. So in this way I can imagine exactly what is lurking in the minds of the men who are gang-banging me, and that too intensifies the sensations for me, to understand how they are all pervertedly enjoying themselves, and that I am in fact the sole focus of their orchestrated lust, is the final delicious factor in this whole delightful scenario which just drives me absolutely wild. (Torture, and degradation by a single dominatrix, or a couple of vicious lesbian-sluts can also bring me such joys, but that is a side topic to the issues being presented here).


      The only thing I feel I should add to this last, is that with the dominant position of being one of the gang bangers, there is sometimes a slight guilt attached to slapping her maybe a little too hard, or in fucking her raw, reddened love holes just a wee bit too long, so that she always has to at some point reassure me, and all of us, that she's really having the time of her life, and that she's not yet ready to stop with the game. In this way there is not nearly as much abandonment to lust, though just as entrancing to the actively erotic mind, and so I would say that the position of receiving all of that mad focus and exited attention, is far more liberating to your inner most soul.


      Now, I can't tell you if this is actually healthy behavior or not, though it's not as uncommon as some might assume, I can however say how I feel about it... Degradation of this type in a consensual game, where the people involved are all trusted participants, if not outright friends, brings to my experience a sense of fulfillment to everyone involved; at least to me no one seems to have any problem with it, for those that do would not come back to play again next time. As for my part, I am always elated beyond reasonable expectation, I revel afterwords in the act, letting it buoy me along as I float through the rest of my supper jolly day. I giggle a lot, and the secret knowledge I love to hold in my heart lifts me above all the rest of normal humanity as I walk down the streets. I always like to say that it's akin to recharging your batteries, to zap you with a kind of energy that you'd think you could only get out of drugs. Sometimes I never even have an ejaculation, my penis becomes totally unnecessary for the event, it's not even a part of the experience, though at other times being forced to spew my load for people can be just as intoxicating, however not for the orgasm itself, but for the act of pleasing another in this regard. Days later sometimes I'm so damn animated about the whole beautiful thing that I can actually irritate any "normies" around me with the over abundance in mirth I exude, which always seems to regular people so out of place [wink]. To me it's the ultimate in abandoning yourself, the excitement of transcending all the perceived rules and ideas about what's good, the leaping up over all of the stiflement that law tossing society has rammed down my throat, to brake free of the boundaries and constraints which life in a moralistic population demands of us all. And regardless of what others might think, it's actually an empowering experience to me, for I feel so much more confident afterwards in such a basic way; it heightens my senses in all things human, and brings me the same erotic achievement to my mind as any romantic love affair ever has, (and to be perfectly clear here, I'm not by any means knocking my other addiction for heterosexual one on one sex - it's just that I can easily compare the warmth I get inside my heart after a good solid raping, as being equivalent to the satisfactory sensations I get when making passionate love with my wonderful wife).


      If this is unhealthy for me, then so be it, but I would like to think that I've explored my own mind on the matter with extensive attentiveness, and the only thing I can see in myself that is slightly disturbing to me, is my own slowly evolving tendency to push the envelope ever further and further on these little sadomasochistic games of secret pleasures I play. But I'm not too worried about it, as I'm not some kind of no-minded bestial sex-maniac who's life revolves around these things, for I rarely partake in such intensified sessions with all full-out rape, only practicing this total abandonment of self about three special times in every two years. Otherwise I enjoy respect from others during sex, and gentle loving intimacy with women just as much as the next guy, or at least so I believe; "everything in moderation, including moderation itself".



      In any event, to me, these are entertainments that need to remain TABU in order to keep their allure. Not that if this was suddenly normalized by everyone, I wouldn't have a good time with it anyway, because for me it's already too late, my ideas of degradation and morally wrong behavior have already been pre-set, and thus so has my inner reaction at being self-exposed to these situations; but if one is to beget a further generation of people who enjoy all the sensations that "bad" behavior causes in us, by going against everyone else's claimed ideas of what some god might think about it, or in facing the perceived disgusted revulsion that society would have (would HAVE to have indeed, or else ALL bubbles would pop), then we are, every one of us, going along merrily on the right track. The more we teach our children those things which are by all means completely off limits for fear of eternal damnation in a wicked land of hell, that much more our children's minds will evolve to take "sadistic" pleasures in doing exactly those same things that they were taught to fear so much with the ultimate pain of parental disownment and shame. We all have a little trembling flutter of trepidation in us the very first time we cross certain boundaries of moralistically rigged values and rules, the first time we fucked out of wed lock, the first time we performed oral sex, the first time we let ourselves go enough to lick someones ass-hole, all of these things and many more have been subconsciously implanted in our minds as being dirty and wrong to various degrees, and the tremor's of delight we feel when we do them are a delirious release of the constricting chains that were wrapped around us from birth; an ultimately private (for who amongst the chained can we possibly tell) freedom from the ingrained lingering feelings we were given that committing these morally evil deeds was against everything holy and "good", and a welcomed balancing on the fine edge of those very sensations that brought such instinctual terror, when going against god, into our lives back when we were young. I merely kicked it up a notch, as they say, and in no way dose my practice of total degradation differ fundamentally from the feelings everyone got during their very first kiss. Anyone who has explored themselves to the fullest extent of there beings can attest the very same things.


      I'm not saying that if we were spared being fed such dribble about what's write and wrong, good and evil, acceptable and not, that we wouldn't be doing these things anyway, but only that we wouldn't do them with such secretive abandon, and crazy lustful desire, because we would then feel free to explore them with true kindness and Love. If it's not "bad", then it can't bring such criminal feelings of pleasure unspoken - there wouldn't be any such thing as "degradation" at all! Degradation is just a form of expressing yourself outside of the box, and whether another would see this as healthy or not, is dependent solely upon their level of immersment into the depths of those feelings. It's all relative to the amount of inner digging of the soul that you do, for the ultimate magnificence in empowering delights one can possibly arrive at, which any one who has ever been close to it, or pondered these things diligently, must know is waiting for them in there.

      ;)


      <> - <> - <>


      PUBLIC DISCLAIMER: I am in no way stating anything remotely relative to anyone else's life here but my very own! I'm expostulating gibberish to myself, rambling nonsensical disjointed ideas, expressing my own mind on things, and thinking out loud, but beyond that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything at all!
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Definitions

        Tue, February 15, 2005 - 7:16 PM
        Okay, I'm going to have to pick at what you've written bit by bit, Glum, but let me start with this:

        > I find the very "unnaturalness" of the deed to be absolutely hypnotizing,
        > and all the stigma that's attached to the thing only drives my desires more.

        It seems like you're saying that there's no way for sex to be as good if it's clean and happy and up-and-up sex, that maybe a certain fierceness and, as you say, taboo, is inextricable from good sex, and that you'd probably be a bit bored if sex lost its nastiness.

        So you speak highly of the ilicitness of sex, you suggest that's part of the allure. But I think the taboo-ness and degradation ultimately undermine us psychologically and culturally.

        The problem is, we're all in pursuit of the optimal orgasm (or should be), and what are you supposed to do if your best sexual experiences involve degradation of some kind?

        I can't figure it all out. But for some reason, it seems to me that it would just be intrinsically healthier for us as species if we could get rid of the shame around sex. Why does there have to be shame involved?

        Saying that the best sex is shameful sex seems so 20th century to me : )
        • Re: Definitions

          Tue, February 15, 2005 - 9:34 PM

          I agree, shame SHOULD-NOT govern the intensity, or enjoyability of a sexual experience, but unfortunately we have all partaken in the tasting of the apple of knowledge (metaphorically speaking of course), and have been taught about the many things we really SHOULD feel ashamed of. This is only my theory on how braking away from the shame (even though we really can't because it's been hard wired in our brain's from the very beginning since our circuits were formed) is a cause for both elated freedom in the act, and inner knowledge that what we're doing is wrong. Thus the shame becomes part of the experience, though I never feel ashamed afterwards, but during the act I revel in it. If it feels so wrong, it must be what's right... But this is only a simplification...


          I only practice these things as a side hobby anyway, with the earnest gaols of freeing myself completely, of ridding myself entirely of any lingering shame (as well as getting base gratification from it), but society keeps bombarding my subconsciousness with fresh images of what must embarrass and ashame me, and make me feel bad, and so constantly adds to the messy goulash of moralistic trappings that my parents first started to simmer in me way back when from the day I was born.


          Normal sex Boring? No, not at all. Many things that were once unmentionable acts have become mainstream and normalized, even some things that have not, but really have nevertheless become normalized within our own group of personal close friends, and my wife and I can take true pleasure with each other in a purely loving way in all of the forms we would ever need to imagine - though always with that intimate fascination we have for the animalistic nature of the deeds we preform. It's only when we go to that special zone outside of normal "respectable" sex-box that we start delving into the nasty and "unclean", and we don't really go there that often. Sort of like taking a vacation from ourselves, and one that leaves a lasting aura of freedom around us for at least a little time - well, for me more then her, because I like to take things to the ultimate extreme.


          The "undermining" of our souls "psychologically and culturally" has begun from the very first time we were told the word no, there is no getting around it, and there is no such thing as a truly pure heart, for that would mean growing up on the moon in a bubble under a rock inside a hole. Once the concept of "degradation" is born in us, we immediately know it for what it is, an Innocent mind would never even know that they were being degraded, if such a thing were possible, and so the act would remain pure - at least for them. Am I making sense here? I speak of a deeper underlying illusion we have about the fundamental thoughts within our own brains - but not to get too metaphysical here, suffice it to say, everything that we think, is all that we really ever are. If we are taught the definition of pain, then we no longer experience it in the purely physical, non emotional way, like a plant or an animal would. Once the idea is implanted in our heads that something hurts, then we attach many complicated patterns of thought to it which are really unnecessary in nature. All that should be required for us is to react in such a way as to put a stop to that pain, but unfortunately the conscious mind invents all sots of drama around it, which then becomes the new reality of feeling this pain, and one we would be hard pressed to ever get away from. Degradation exists in exactly the same way, solely in the minds of those that invented the concept - or were taught its meaning - in the very first place. You can't get away from feeling at least slightly degraded when you get cum on your face, or when bent over a chair, but there's nothing wrong or unclean about it. Your enjoying the act with honest good will, but your poor brain has to interpret everything for you in understood terms, and proper definitions, and referencing points from past sensations of pleasure and pain, including all of the many other filtered thoughts that you get from the whole world in general every single second of every single day. Then the degradation is rooted to your very being because that's the way society thinks, but there is a definite duality here (or triality, or quadrality), in that societies thoughts only represent what the most opinionated and energetic amongst us feel that they would WANT themselves, and everyone else to think like, and not really a representation of any true mind whatsoever; thus you have moralistic dilemma. Whether your stepping on an ant, or getting gang rapped in the gutter, there is always the play of invented illusions in your mind. So degradation in this way seeps through to the animal acts of taking pleasure in a thing, and unintentionally becomes the catalyst for enjoyment in many "bizarre" behavioral traits.


          I could ramble on for pages without ever being sure if I was making sense about all this, so I'll stop here now and let you pick at it some more.


          To get more on topic: degradation is only a part of the thing, though for me a big part for it is a deep rooted "wrong" that I love to dig out. But you can narrow in on any of the other aspects of the deed. Like the the attention you get from so many intent participants, all hinged upon your every gesture and move. Or you could grab hold of the power in being in control of so many enthralled men all at the same time, (or conversely of being under the control of so many men, while leaving the facet of degradation totally behind). Or you can focus on just the giving of pleasure, on being wanted and lusted, and servicing them all like a sexual mother Teresa on a mission of good. There are so many ways one might get into the gang-bang, and on so many levels, and with all manner of combinations available to them all. Like I said before, it's a fine peace of pie you've cut for yourself here, and it'll be darn hard to get everyone to take a bite of it in any one way. But you probably don't want it to be a single flavoured pie anyway, do you?

          ;)
        • Re: Definitions

          Wed, February 16, 2005 - 7:57 AM
          Hariet, if sex wasn't shameful where would our outlet for shame be? I think there are a lot of people who feel shame that hide it that carefully lock it away in the back of their braine, and then their are other people who put themselves in situations where there shame is right out there are on the line and people still want, need, and accept them. Gang-bangs are a fucked up version of this. maybe the focus get some degradation (wanted or not) but it is an equal exchange of shame. The dirty slut who is so beautiful they can't resist her even in a rather unsexy scene. The men who most likely this woman would NEVER sleep with because they are too poor, unfeeling, or ugly getting their goods.

          I'm not saying the best sex is shameful sex, I'm just saying for most people their relationships haven't evolved far enough to assign another appropriate outlet for their own shame or need for acceptance.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Definitions

            Wed, February 16, 2005 - 8:42 AM
            > Hariet, if sex wasn't shameful where would our outlet for shame be?

            Why do we have to have shame in our lives?

            I know I'm naive, but still...

            I really appreciate all this dialogue!
            • Re: Definitions

              Wed, February 16, 2005 - 7:38 PM
              >Why do we have to have shame in our lives?
              I don't know. I'm still trying to get there myself. Here are some of the ideas I throw around my brain on occasion ...

              Maybe it's because a lot of people don't know how to love unconditionally

              Maybe it's because people tell you self love is selfish

              Maybe it's because people with large happy egos make other people hate them because those people think they think they are better than everyone else.

              Maybe it's because 'shameless' as a word means something far different than what it should
          • Re: Definitions

            Fri, February 18, 2005 - 12:59 AM
            >if sex wasn't shameful where would our outlet for shame be?

            Do you mean, "What would we do to make ourselves feel ashamed?"

            There's diet. There's how we treat others. There's music - or art in general.

            There are lots of outlets for shame out there. There's no reason sex can't be a celebratory experience, nor why it can't be celebrated with many people.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Definitions

              Fri, February 18, 2005 - 1:34 PM
              > Do you mean, "What would we do to make ourselves feel ashamed?"

              Right, and the followup question, couldn't the human race get along okay without the shame?

              This whole shame thing is so biblical in an Adam-and-Eve sense that I'm disappointed so many modern-like thinkers find it to be persuasive.

              I see shame as a thing of the past. My feeling is that if a human can do it, then it's not humanly shameful. I guess I'm going for the idea that there is no such thing as shameful human behavior (though there is certainly a lot of misguided and hurtful human behavior out there, just not shameful...)
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Definitions

                Sun, February 20, 2005 - 4:18 PM
                Harriet:

                I'm not sure where to insert these thoughts so am placing them here.

                I guess the question I have is: is any act, in and of itself, degrading and/or shameful, or are there other characteristics that make it so? I also think sexual practices tend to bring these sorts of questions into starker relief so I think a movie as you're describing would be very compelling. Questions like:

                -If the woman consents to or seeks out the gb for healthy (non-psychically-damaging) reasons, is she degraded?

                -If the woman consents based on shameful/humiliating personal history, is she degraded? (kind of the Looking for Mr Goodbar question)

                -Is it the person acted upon or the actor that is degraded? I'm thinking of torture or rape here: isn't it the perpetrator that we consider degraded or debased by his/her act, not the victim?

                -What if a healthy woman seeks this sort of experience out, yet one of the participants is a sadist, or seeks to humiliate? Does the nature of the act change based on the intent of one of the participants, or is it solely the intent and perspective of the "receiver" that assigns the moral value?

                Re your comment on shame:

                I'm not sure how Biblical or Western the shame thing is. There's lot of eastern literature around loss of honor and similar types of concepts, and the Koran seems to have quite a bit of codification in this area as well. Dissatisfaction with my self is a common cultural thread.

                I personally think, of all cultures, the West is emerging more from these sorts of things than others, but who knows? But I don't think I can go with you all the way to thinking there's no such thing as "shameful human behavior". It's the human that introduces this concept (see: Nietzsche): the average animal just *does* with no value attached. But human's aren't the average animal, they have a reflective consciousness that evaluates (for better or worse). Shame is one of many consequences that can flutter out of such a make-up.

                *Should* I be ashamed of things I freely choose to do that harm no one? There's the cultural question, and the answer is "no". I think the conforming influence of culture could be an interesting addition to the work your building with your screenplay.

                ergo
                • Re: Definitions

                  Sun, January 28, 2007 - 10:44 PM
                  I think it was Woody Allen who had the best answer to the issue of sex being shameful or degrading or what...

                  Q: Do you think sex is dirty?

                  A: It is if you are doing it right!

                  slutty lisa
              • Re: Definitions

                Sat, March 12, 2005 - 2:56 PM
                I would be ashamed if I killed a good person for no reason, for instance, not that I have, or would, I hope.

                I suppose personal regret is different from shame, which would involve others' perceptions. Sometimes they will coincide. Some things are inhuman in unnecessary cruelty (apartheid, genocide, slavery, murder, even just harming others unnecessarily etc...)and thus shameful. "Society" and our parents and media etc... try to make to make us ashamed of far too many things, it's true, but some things are shameful for good reason.

                Any consensual play is fine. No shame in that.
  • Re: Definitions

    Fri, February 18, 2005 - 11:23 AM
    Sexual encounters take many different forms, and the participants partake for a wide variety of reasons and motivations. I'd suggest that you write your play to show many different styles of gangbangs.

    Sure, some women like to indulge in degradation, others revel in celebration, some like to be the Queen and direct the whole scene, others want to be swept away...
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Definitions

      Mon, February 21, 2005 - 4:35 PM
      Why don't we all just shut up and meet somehwere in real life and FUCK?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Definitions

        Mon, February 21, 2005 - 4:35 PM
        Harriet, what is the most men you have fucked at one time?
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Definitions

          Tue, February 22, 2005 - 7:50 AM
          > Harriet, what is the most men you have fucked at one time?

          Please read the commentary in "Personal Experiences" before sallying forth with questions that have been answered elsewhere.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Definitions

            Tue, February 22, 2005 - 10:29 PM
            "Please read the commentary in "Personal Experiences" before sallying forth with questions that have been answered elsewhere. "

            Please dont' be such a tightass hostess, honey, it ain't becoming to the hostess of a gangbang-themed tribe.
          • Re: Definitions

            Sat, March 12, 2005 - 3:13 PM
            I read the personal experiences, but I didn't see you recount your own? I may have missed it. I do think that you are being a little "tight-assed" to quote Sybil's typically undiplomatic and irreverent term, though I would have put it more nicely. Sybil is rather cutting. You seem afraid of vulgarity in your opening post, so concerned with remaining in some way proper and scientific in discussing gang-bangs. Perhaps the tribe should be named something like: "A purely scientific, objective, proper and non-vulgar discussion of multiple-participant focused sexual attention and objectification of a female."

            If I had actually found an account of your personal experiences in that thread, then I wouldn't object to your referring her there. But that in tandem with the warnings and caveats makes me say you are a bit too serious and limiting the conversation.
            • Re: Definitions

              Sat, March 12, 2005 - 3:29 PM
              Richard, are you talking to Harriet? Did you not read the other posts in this thread? If you look around this group more you will find out why she wants to moderate this tribe in this way. She is interested in information and experiences from others, but is not interested in providing a form for organizing gang-bangs or soliciting sex.
              And Sybil is a altbitch anyhow!
              • Re: Definitions

                Sat, March 12, 2005 - 3:41 PM
                right, right. once again I have annoyed protocols and missed some previously agreed-upon rules and accepted practices of the tribe.

                You have gallantly come to the defense of the studious maiden in distress.

                OK Sybil is a disruptive bitch (which differs from "altbitch" how - if she is the alt of someone, that person is still a bitch, right?.

                Thanks for the short review. Some of us are less studious or remember less, so we might need a little refresher, a sentence or two is fine, and helps understanding.

                But why be so sensitive? limiting of discussion? Don't our personal experiences have a lot to do with what we can contribute to the discussion, or is it all about ego? Do you quash subversive currents on your tribe? Don't worry if that's the case, I prefer open forums and I would not further trouble your closed intellectual society.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Definitions

                  Sat, March 12, 2005 - 4:51 PM
                  > Don't worry if that's the case, I prefer open forums and
                  > I would not further trouble your closed intellectual society.

                  Wow, how funny to be accused of limiting and quashing discussion after setting up a completely unmoderated forum in which to discuss gangbangs.

                  Richard, thanks for sharing your impressions. Say what you want, please don't stifle yourself on my account. If I don't like what you write, I'll ignore it, but someone else might like it.

                  If you start writing about jerking off and squirting on your screen as you read the comments here in this tribe, yeah that might make me uncomfortable. But if that's what you need to do, go for it and I guess we'll see what happens.

                  By the way, last time I checked, there were at least two other gangbang tribes, so if this one doesn't suit you, as I suggested to Sybil, please feel free to explore the others; no need to limit yourself to this particular forum.

                  harriet

                  ps. I keep my ass sphincter exactly as tight as suits me.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Definitions

                    Sat, March 12, 2005 - 6:28 PM
                    ok, and thanks for referring to the other tribes - there is actually a lot of discussion there as well.

                    Aren't you the moderator?

                    Good you're not squeamish.

                    Your own sphincter is yours, it is true. Abandoning that is part of gang-bang participation, which you are studying, though not participating in - your choice.

                    I think that xaooui or whatever was the one who was quashing discussion there, interjecting on your behalf.

                    But I do lack in tact and appropriateness sometimes, just spouting off (though not by "squirting on the screen", which would be messy and unnecessary.).
                    • Re: Definitions

                      Sun, March 13, 2005 - 1:23 PM
                      Rich, how did I Quash the discussion? You were not talking about Gang Bangs, you were making comments that had nothing to do with the thread in response to Sybil (who is not one person but an ‘alt’ or member that is not a real person but an amalgam of several people, thus the name) and attacking H. You made some good comments, but then made a statement that seemed as if you did not bother to read any of what was posted after Sybils interjection, even though you posted to comments made after them.
                      WTF? Do you feel shame for, what you have done? Attacking someone with out reason or need? Hijacking this thread because you do not pay attention?
                      • Re: Definitions

                        Sun, March 13, 2005 - 1:42 PM
                        oy vay! just ignore me and continue your discussion please, if it bothers you so much. It's not a hijack here unless you let it be. Shame? I take it you don't agree with Harriet that there is no shame.

                        By accusing me of "hijacking the thread", you are limiting (read "quashing" discussion from me). I may not be diplomatic, but as you recognized I do have a couple of things to contribute. It is limiting discussion if you insist that someone has to read every single previous post and understand them all before posting. That's your prerogative but it is limiting.

                        ok I didn't follow the thread. Maybe my comments about too much structure limiting contributions belonged in the first thread, to which no one responded, maybe because it was so limiting.

                        Anyway, I don't want to disrupt your party. Sorry for the inappropriate interjection - I often fail at complying with all of people's rules on niceties and manners.

                        I actually didn't say what I have done. Actually, I may feel some shame about things that I have done, but it's nothing earth-shattering or monstrous, just little things where I could have been more considerate of people. I'm trying to think of something (there must be something, since I do not attest to be perfect), but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

                        Interesting that Sybil is an amalgam of several people. I didn't know about that kind of alt. Then they are a bitch, eh?

                        So when I lack protocol in a tribe, members are going to jump on me. I live and learn, but I will try not to let it intimidate me when I put down my thoughts. We all want an open forum, so I would like to keep self-censorship down to a minimum.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: Definitions

                          Sun, March 13, 2005 - 5:58 PM
                          > It is limiting discussion if you insist that someone has to read every
                          > single previous post and understand them all before posting.

                          I agree with you here, Richard. I agree that you should be able to take nearly every post out of its context and evaluate it on its merits, without regard for the history or background of the writer.

                          I don't expect that someone will come in here and read every post before contributing. And I appreciate your comments and am trying to figure out why they bug me so much : )

                          > We all want an open forum, so I would like to keep self-censorship
                          > down to a minimum.

                          Yes, I agree!

                          Look, lots of us may be uptight when we're talking about gangbangs. I was a bit incensed by Sybil's question to me, earlier, because it felt a bit lewd. I am trying to avoid lewd behavior here. Whether or not that represents a personal hangup I should try to work on, I can't say.
                          • Re: Definitions

                            Sun, March 13, 2005 - 6:13 PM
                            not to drag on and "hijack the thread", I can respect trying to avoid lewdness (though I may often enjoy lewdness myself), though that may be difficult when discussing gang-bangs, hence my earlier tongue-in-cheek suggestion that you name the tribe and discussion "A purely scientific, objective, proper and non-vulgar discussion of multiple-participant focused sexual attention and objectification of a female." It is a rather lewd activity to begin with, very improper. That doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically, but it may difficult to remain entirely within the bounds of socially acceptable speech. Still there's no necessity to scream "LET'S FUCK". That is just disruptive. No one needs such non-constructive participation in a serious discussion. It's just not apparent from the title "Gang-Bang Girls" (which is not in quotation marks in the tribe name), that you are having a more scientific, objective discussion.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Definitions

                              Sun, March 13, 2005 - 6:37 PM
                              > It is a rather lewd activity to begin with, very improper.

                              Well, people here might disagree with you that the gangbang is inherently lewd and improper. Yes, the Lewd and Improper Gangbang is definitely one type, but there are others.

                              Is the "lewd and improper" gangbang better than, say, a prim, proper, and respectful gangbang?

                              I agree with your comment that I could name the tribe in a way to discourage idle gangbang-seekers&devotees from wandering in, but on the other hand, maybe idle gangbang-devotees will have something to offer to the dialog.
                              • Re: Definitions

                                Sun, March 13, 2005 - 6:44 PM
                                for sure practitioners would have a lot to say about the activity (but they may be "lewd")

                                > Is the "lewd and improper" gangbang better than, say, a prim, proper, and respectful gangbang?

                                That sounds like a new thread to me.
                                • Re: Definitions

                                  Fri, March 18, 2005 - 2:44 PM
                                  Back to the original question concerning definitions...I think Glumfish touched on an important point: that a gangbang differs from group sex because the motivation of the "bangers" has nothing to do with the enjoyment of the "bangee". It's to get off. With that comes objectification, and yes perhaps degradation, of the recipient. This doesn't mean that the "bangee" doesn't enjoy him or herself, but that enjoyment is unlikely to come in the form of being brought to orgasm by attentive partners. I'm certain that there are women who would enjoy, even get off, on facilitating many men getting off, and that may be the motivation, but in my definition, a gangbang doesn't require it.

                                  In contrast, and in my experience, group sex can have similar qualities, including objectification, simply getting off, etc., but there usually is an effort to attend to everybody's needs and interests more equally. I'll agree that the line between them can be pretty wavy.