They're in phucking denial.

So a gangbang bothers them? Maybe that's because they are forced to think about something they don't want to. That the gal actually has sex with other people. They don't want to think about the 4 other guys she banged and sucked that very day before they got there. They don't want to think that cooch has been stroked into more times than there are dollars in the megaball jackpot. All this is ok, but a gangbang?!? Oh heaven forbid!

They're too comatose with Freddie Jackson singing "You are my lady" in their phucking head, and convincing themselves that their encounter with the little angel is "special" and there's a "connection".
Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Reality check, "connection" boys, you're still paying for someone to phuck you,,,and so is the next guy, and the next, and the next, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on and,,,,

You can't make everyone happy. Play, get paid, and don't worry about what the double-standard pussies think. Just play Freddie Jackson on your next 'date' with them and they'll be fine.

she's fun girl who won't bore you into divorce.

Does that make you hesitate to see her? I know this is a hobby and men are in a fantasy when seeing us--- does it kill your fantasy when you see you ATF or potential next appt in an orgy or gang bang? Does it make you want to see her more?

Sorry for the alias, there are gals in my woods that do this and I don't want to offend cuz they are nice/cool gals. I was thinking of helping but not playing and wondered if it would Hurt MY business.

Thanks boys!

HBWT

Probably would refrain from calling.

Every one I have sexual relations with is sexually active with multiple partners, what difference does it make if she sees them one at a time or all at once? All sexually active people with multiple partners, or anyone having sex with someone who has multiple partners, are in a high risk group for a STD, gang bang or not. We are all in this high risk group. Unless people are not playing things safe seeing someone who particulates is in the gang bang is at no higher risk than someone who has sex with them one by one. Not my cup of tea but wouldn't bother me at all. Besides I have had sex with three ladies at once wouldn't it be hypocritical to hold it against a lady who has had multiple partners at once?

Think about it.  If you want to see women who do NOT see a lot of men, either sequentially or simultaneously, this is probably the wrong place to be looking.  Just saying...

I think it's a major turn on, and the possibility of being invited to one of the "sponsored" parties out there is a major fantasy of mine.  Hopefully, this year...schedule willing.

I have a very close friend that's a provider.  We speak/email pretty much daily.  Obviously I know how she makes a living, and since that's how we met it would be foolish to think badly of her for it.  Since we're pretty tight, it would make me uneasy if she partook in that activity.  Thinking it through, I'd say that it's mostly because she doesn't seem the type to enjoy it.  I do know other providers that have played in groups, and it doesn't bother me in the least.  I don't fool myself to think that either example is available to me exclusively.

I sure hope that nobody can figure out my alias, or I'd be pretty damn embarrassed.  

I wouldn't hesitate on bit about seeing her.

It probably means she's pretty horny and part of the reason she provides is that she just enjoys it.  As long as you play it safe and don't try to fall in love, I don't see a problem.  Like someone else said, I hope she invites me!

I'll see you, and raise you!
PS: I love providers because of what they do.  I know two around 30 who are married to former clients in their 60s.  I'd marry one, too, if she was right for me.  Girls who will gangbang, to me, deserve an even higher form of respect bordering on awe.  Anyone who's as big a man-whore as me has no right to judge. Besides, what's the difference between screwing 6 or 7 guys at once vs. 6 or 7 guys in separate sessions over the course of a day?  Answer: 6 or 7 showers. Who gives a shit?

I find the whole gang bang thing a giant turnoff. Sorry, that's just me. I find the mental image of a lady participating in same also a giant turnoff. However, theoretically, doing 20 guys at a time is no different in any substantial sense than doing 20 guys serially. Right?

I TRY to let reason prevail in such cases, because I really don't want to let my petty biases count against otherwise an great lady. And that's all it is -- a petty bias.

If it is someone I've already seen, then the bias is irrelevant. I'd see her again. That one is easy.
But if I haven't already seen her ... I admit it is a bit more difficult to set aside the bias. But I'll do it. As long as she doesn't put ME in a gang bang; what she does when I'm not around is none of my concern so long as it doesn't present a health threat.

Either way, the fact that a lady participates in gang bangs isn't -- for me anyway -- a positive selling point. Rather, it is something I have to actively overlook. But I WILL overlook it.

I assume ladies overlook similar biases in dealing with *me* -- so it's a two way street.

i ask purely out of curiosity, John, as i'm certain many men feel similarly, but perhaps unlike you they lack the inclination and self-awareness to be able to explain, or even fully understand, just why it bothers them so.

There are only four downsides to the hobby, from the perspective of this hobbyist:

1.  Its costly.
2.  Getting caught would cost a lot.
3.  There is a higher probability of getting caught if I contracted an STD while hobbying.
4.  The issues of dealing with the STD from a medical perspective.

I have never been involved with a gang bang and never will, but my hypothesis is that the provider who has been involved takes a higher risk of contracting an STD during such than even with the same number of untested partners, attempting to practice safe sex in the same manner in one-on-one couplings.

Ladies, you may correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you better able to control what goes on one-on-one than you are in a gang bang scenario?  Isn't it safer for you?

As I said, correct me if I am wrong, but I was asked how I felt.

And neither have I.  But what makes you think a gang-bang can't be a controlled situation where, despite multiple partners, proper precautions are taken? How is it different than multiple partners, one at a time, over a longer period? I guess that depends on the provider.  If she permits BBFS -- and many more do than will admit it -- then her next client is about to have sex with her previous one.  The only difference with a gang bang is, at least you know it.  Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

first off...John, is that you? i'm not familiar with this particular alias, so don't know if you are truly the person to whom i posed the question.

nonetheless, in response...a situation is either safe, or it is unsafe. as someone else stated, a gangbang need not be any riskier than a one-on-one encounter. i am not going to willingly engage in a sexual encounter with a man i feel may put my physical well-being at risk (STD wise or anything else), much less engage in a sexual encounter with a group of such men. in fact due to the sheer planning and care involved in a gangbang...personalities must mesh, sexual styles must be complementary, goals/desires for the experience must be shared, timing must be just right, etc...it is typically a far more controlled, cautious environment than the typical two strangers hooking up from the bar/club/grocery store, and especially more so than your typical vanilla husband and wife fulfilling their marital duties on a wednesday night.

i have participated in several gangbangs, all of which were planned long in advance and occurred in quite safe, strictly controlled environments as i described above. in two my Husband was in attendance, and i am never safer than with him. everyone was quite respectful and mindful with me, actually to my disappointment the first time as i had been expecting a much "rougher" experience. in the third there were two men who did not participate but served basically as monitors, keeping an eye on the tempo and tenor of things to ensure no one got out of hand. it was intense and wonderful, but quite safe, i assure you.
as far as the risk of STDs, in every case condoms were used for vaginal and anal, and frequently changed. if someone pulled out, even just for a minute or two, they had to don a fresh condom before they could penetrate again. we must have went through 30 condoms or more between 8 men, but no one minded and it didn't ruin the mood in the least.

Excellent questions, doneitall, and I agree with your concerns.  Seems to me a lady might have more trouble protecting her boundaries in a gang bang.

Naw, that isn't an alias of mine. You can't use your real handle and an alias in the same thread -- it's against the rules. Too bad, because otherwise I could start some real train wrecks debating with myself. (*grin*)

Well ... I have no particular STD concerns; as is evidenced by the fact that if we are talking about someone I have already seen (and therefore someone in whose judgment I have confidence), the fact that she has done gang-bangs wouldn't keep me from seeing her again.

I don't see many providers -- I much prefer to repeat. Those few that I do see, however, are women that I feel can be trusted in many ways; and I am quite certain they wouldn't do a gang bang if they didn't believe they could do so safely.

My reaction is not really reasoned and rational -- it is visceral. Like any other visceral reaction, we try to find ways of justifying it after the fact; but the justifications sound hollow -- at least to me. Which is why I call it a petty bias. There is no line of real rational argument I can point to that says I should feel a certain way about gang bangs.

But I feel the same way about many other sexual practices -- such as people with a fetish for having someone poop in their mouth and find it a giant turn-on. Of course, after the fact, I can give a bunch of rational reasons why this is an unsafe thing; but my immediate natural reaction is revulsion.

Breaking this down, though, I suspect my adverse reaction to gang bangs is probably based in evolutionary psychology; similar to automatic negative reactions that many people have to snakes (even non-poisonous ones), spiders (including innocuous ones) and rodents. At some point in our evolutionary past, snakes, spiders and rodents have been dangerous to us; and so many people have instantaneous fear reactions that are apparently instinctual rather than learned.

I believe my reaction to gang bangs may fall in this category.

Humans have evolved for millions of years since diverging from bonobos and chimpanzees. And for all but a few hundred of those millions of years, there has been no such thing as a latex condom. Thus, the consequences of sex in terms of not just pregnancy but disease transmission as well have been part of our evolution. Removing some of those consequences doesn't change the evolutionary adaptation.

If you remove the condom from the equation ... how would you feel about sex with 20 strange men that you knew to be highly promiscuous and didn't use condoms with the past 100 women they saw either?

I'm not sure how you or others would react; but there would be no way in hell you'd get me to engage in sex with 20 women, using no condom, with me full well knowing that they had each had 100 other condomless sex partners.

So my theory, is that I am reacting to the behavior as though the behavior were taking place sans condoms. That is, as though it presented the same level of risk that it did for 99.9% of human evolution. This, I surmise is much the same as someone screaming when they see a snake, even though they may rationally know that the snake is non-poisonous.

It's worthwhile to keep in mind that though non-monogamy existed in various forms throughout our evolution, the high cost of sex to females (i.e. there was no birth control to speak of -- and certainly no *safe* birth control) would tend to make massive non-monogamy for any purpose OTHER than conception the exception rather than the rule. There DO exist some cultures in which all the men share as being "fathers" because they all had sex with the woman; but I have seen no evidence that this has been historically widespread; especially as the differences in upper body strength between males and females of our species argues quite definitively that the predominant form of polygamy throughout our evolution has been one man for many women rather than the other way around.

Further, as you know, sperm competition has been thoroughly researched, indicating that non-monogamy has been fairly standard for women in our evolutionary past; although, as noted above, it has been on nowhere near the scale as male non-monogamy as even our physical manifestations reflect the predominance of male non-monogamy.

Even though this is a hobby, it is no less real than sex with a civie in terms of potential consequences, including fatherhood.

Because fatherhood entails time, effort and resources; men in individualistic cultures (as opposed to communitarian cultures) are typically averse to devoting these to raising the offspring of other males. You could see vestiges of this in pre-Christian Iceland, where fathers had a right to dispose of newborns by exposure if they bore a resemblance to their next door neighbor rather than themselves.

Though one-on-one encounters with women are an illusion -- because even in an era of pervasively available cheap birth control, 10% of births to married couples are not the genetic offspring of the husband -- I believe particularly in individualistic cultures where responsibility is assigned individually; it is an important illusion.

Just as the continued existence of female orgasm -- even though it is unnecessary for conception -- is surmised to be for purposes of assurance of the male of the female's fidelity (i.e. that the offspring he will be supporting will be his own genetic offspring), there are, I believe, a lot of evolutionary psychological issues tied into this.

Notice, for example, how nastily you often see hobbyists react to the idea that providers pervasively fake orgasms. Why should this bother them when it is a service? It bothers them because putting money (a recent human invention) into an equation millions of years old (sex) and even using a consciously-known-infertile female in the act; doesn't change the value of the feedback (female orgasm) from an evolutionary perspective in the male mind. He might rationally understand that female orgasm in a p4p setting is unimportant; but feels better if he believes it has occurred.

And this female orgasm is tied, psychologically, to his understanding that offspring he will support will be biologically his. Even though he is dealing with an infertile female.

Though I haven't self-examined this in any great depth; I strongly suspect my adverse reactions are largely a result of putting a creature (myself) that is the result of millions of years of evolution in which gang-bangs would be seriously contrary to either his immediate (health) or long term (expenditure of resources on non-genetic offspring) best interests in a scenario in which all of the females are -- for all practical purposes -- infertile, the odds of disease transmission are substantively reduced, etc.

In essence, from a purely evolutionary perspective, paying (resources) for sex with a provider (infertile female with many sex partners) is maladaptive to start with; but perhaps okay if it further enables other investments in biological offspring. But expanding that to include a gang-bang likely moves it far enough beyond my evolutionary adaptations as to simply not compute. To me, it seems insane.

Hence, I react to it unfavorably.

But I AM aware that modern situations are vastly different from those of our evolution; hence I'm aware that my aversion is a petty bias.

I can overcome it pretty readily with ladies with whom I am already familiar because that introduces other, more positive, biases. It's harder with ladies with whom I am less familiar.

The image of a lady involved in a gang bang (or me being involved in one) is about as erotic to me as the image of being consumed by a wolverine.

(*shrug*)

This is the best explanation I can come up with at the moment; understanding my disclaimer at the beginning.

Does it make any sense?

It's more likely the quality of the film and how you look in it that would make a difference.  I haven't hobbied in a while but I learned after a couple of visits to a favorite, now retired, that she had made a couple of 2 or 3 on one sex films.  She looked terrible in them -- greasy hair, blemishes not covered in make up, bad lighting and and just generally skanky.  And the guys were slobs, too.  It was a bit shocking, actually.

John,

while i very much appreciate your taking the time to analyze and come up with an answer, i must confess...no, that did not make much sense, lol. there is clearly something missing...some factor, perhaps even minute, that is the real trigger here. it may be that you are unaware yourself just what this could be, or it may be that you wish not to seemingly make a negative character judgment about women you may like and respect who do engage in gangbangs.

it would have made more sense to me if your response had been something along the lines of: "ew, it's just icky!"...much like an irrational fear of harmless rodents, spiders and such (or my own totally irrational yet near-paralyzing fear of slugs *shivers*), it's a primal, visceral response that just can't be rationalized.

from an evolutionary procreative perspective, direct competition for "the hole" is as old as time. throughout nearly all of humanity males who are unusually adverse to such competition tend to fail to mate at all. unfortunately in our modern era with its skewed priorities and utterly backward ideologies, even the wuss can spread his seed. but i digress, lol. sex between multiple males and one female is quite prevalent in the animal kingdom, from the mating balls of snakes with a lone strong female at its center, to the isolated wolf packs where two dominant males take turns penetrating the sole fertile female. in humans sex between one woman and many men has been most commonly used as a method of punishment (rape, humiliation, plunder, genocide, etc.), but it has also always had its place as a natural expression of total sexual inhibition and ecstasy. sex with absolutely no procreative purpose, absolutely  no political purpose, but for the pure perverse pleasure and delight of it. this too goes back to the beginnings of human culture.

i think one productive way to analyze the sexual activities which repel us is to consider the appeal that others, differently wired, find in those activities. for example, it is well known that i am quite repulsed by the act of cunnilingus. the reasons why are quite simple...think of why most people enjoy the act: it involves focused attention on, and a desire for, female sexual pleasure. as a submissive female i find it unnatural and highly uncomfortable to be with a partner who has such a focus or desire. it is a sure sign that we are sexually incompatible. in other words, i dislike the act for the very reasons many enjoy the act.

so as far as yourself and your aversion to gangbangs, we can look at why the act is so appealing to others. of course gangbangs may have various different tenors or moods, but i personally would only participate in the sort which centers on male pleasure. so what do i enjoy about gangbangs? i enjoy the objectification, of being a tool for the sexual use and pleasure of many men at once. i enjoy being a source of pride for my Husband, as he quietly boasts about the precious gem he was fortunate enough to find as well as the fact that he has been able to train me so well. i enjoy the camaraderie and bond between the men, who connect with each other far more than they connect with me. in the gangbangs i've participated in it has always been a sort of social event for men...they share stories and tips, laugh and tease, compete yet encourage each other. and i am the tool over which they are bonding...so not only do i get the pleasure of being objectified as i already mentioned, but i get the privilege of being in the presence of men at their most raw and honest. it is a world which is forever alien to most women, so yes this environment captivates me. and finally, i immensely enjoy the challenge involve in SUCCESSFULLY pleasing a group of men. this entails quite a bit of focus and concentration, mental and emotional centering, and old-fashioned physical exertion...and the result should be each and every man feeling completely drained, and completely worshiped.

so there you have several reasons why a man may have a distaste for gangbangs...perhaps his sexuality centers around service to his partner, perhaps he is most comfortable in a position of worship himself. perhaps his nature is such that he does not bond well with other men. perhaps he takes no pride in sharing those things he values most. perhaps he is turned off by the idea of a woman exhausting herself in order to please him. or perhaps he considers it a virtue to fight/stifle his most primal masculine instincts, particularly in the sexual realm...perhaps he finds the Beast within something worthless and pointless which should go the way of the dinosaurs. just a few possible explanations.

real difference than 2 on 1 (FMF), 3 on 1 (FFMF), etc. just with roles reversed.  Play safe and enjoy life.

Hi lilli!

There could be lots of possibilities -- but like I said, my reaction is visceral -- it's just yucky to me, just like DATO is yucky to me. Who knows why?

I think, to an extent, your submissive nature colors your interpretations -- and my own experiences color mine.

Keep in mind that, within the hobby, I am typically dealing with a woman who *trusts me so little* that she is ANONYMOUS. She is so afraid that I will stalk her, hurt her or who knows what, that she is afraid of me /even knowing her name/.

By definition, a woman THAT fearful of me and what I may do is NOT a candidate for hyper-aggressive expressions of primal masculinity. Sorry -- that's just the way it is. Unlike civie sex partners, then, providers typically get a somewhat curtailed version of my sexuality that is tailored to the environment.

In civie life, it is not at all unusual for me to tie women up, dominate them, and even strap them into zero-G sex harnesses so that I can literally turn them into spinners. But these are not anonymous women who might possibly be with me only because they need to keep the electricity on so their kid won't freeze.

For you, this is part of a lifestyle that you and your husband enjoy. And that is wonderful! But if you have read this board very long, you know there are TONS of providers out there who absolutely do not enjoy the work. And you also know they are good enough actresses to fool men.

So in order to avoid harming innocent people, until I know more about someone, I have to work from the initial assumption that she might not be with me entirely of her own free will; and that if she has participated in a gang bang, that might have been quite similar.

This may account for the difference in my reaction to this with women I know (and who I am therefore confident are willing, etc.) and women I don't know.

But let me point out some alternative thoughts.

"perhaps his sexuality centers around service to his partner, perhaps he is most comfortable in a position of worship himself"

This isn't an either/or thing. The man need not be either self-centric or partner-centric. If you add You and Me, you get We. Some people approach sex as a form of sharing moreso than a personal indulgence; and I think this is a viable alternate view that is also incompatible with a gang bang.

"perhaps his nature is such that he does not bond well with other men"

As former military, I can assure you I am perfectly capable of bonding with other men. However, I can also tell you that sharing sex with the same woman, at the same time, in sight of each other, is by no means needed to consolidate such bonds -- bonds that last a lifetime. If anything, a man who has bonded with other men will often refrain from having sex with a woman known to "belong" to one of his cohorts as a matter of respect.

"perhaps he takes no pride in sharing those things he values most"

Perhaps some guys are rather jealous in guarding those things they value most; and their pride is in the exclusive possession rather than the sharing.  This is also incompatible with gang bangs.

"perhaps he is turned off by the idea of a woman exhausting herself in order to please him"

This probably isn't germane to the topic because it also applies one-on-one. I certainly see nothing wrong with a woman working hard to please me so long as she doesn't whine about it afterwards. LOL

"or perhaps he considers it a virtue to fight/stifle his most primal masculine instincts,"

As a man who formerly specialized in hostage rescue in developing nations where I was a law unto myself and could literally get away with murder; I am intimately familiar with and have fully exercised my "primal masculine instincts."

And, yes, I'm sorry -- but I believe it IS virtuous for me to fully control and suppress the urge to beat that jerk who cut me off in traffic into a bloody pulp just for the elation and joy of having killed some useless piece of formerly human debris.

"particularly in the sexual realm"

I see no relation between my primal urge for sex generally, and sex in a group setting. Can a man ONLY unleash his sexuality in the presence of other males? Or is he just as capable of doing that one-on-one?

"perhaps he finds the Beast within something worthless and pointless which should go the way of the dinosaurs."

Or, perhaps he knows that the Beast Within is appropriate in SOME times and places, but not others. And as he has a visceral "yuck" response to having a woman kiss him who just had her mouth full of some other man's semen; he instead chooses to reserve use of that Beast Within for circumstances that are a bit more exclusive and its exercise doesn't require him to swap spit with other men.

(*grin*)

the explanations i posted were a mere sampling of possible reasons behind why a particular male may be averse to a particular sexual act (or by extension, a woman who participates in such an act). nowhere did i state or imply that my list made up the sum total of such reasons, or that each factor listed does not apply in other life scenarios. but as this is a topic about gangbangs, i was pretty focused on gangbangs.

as for the "hobby" v. "civie" world, i would gather that for you personally the idea of a woman you like and to whom you're attracted participating in gangbang would be equally repulsive. as i stated, i do think the "yucky" response is more than adequate, i just find it fascinating to dig a bit deeper whenever possible.

as for swapping spit with other men...i can't say i've ever had a multiple partner sexual experience where kissing was involved at all, much less the experience of a man kissing me as another man's fluids lingered on my tongue. it's supposed to a be an exhibition of perversity, man, not a prom date! lol.

... but I am sure that someday some enterprising woman will undertake that education.

(*grin*)

I know your list wasn't supposed to be exhaustive; but I thought it interesting in seeing the submissive interpretations. and simply decided to offer some alternates.

You are a sharp lady, and someone well worth knowing. I love the different perspectives and insights you bring.