Talk:Group sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bukkake

OF COURSE bukkake exists outside of pornography. Catherine Millet, for example, has openly talked about her enjoyment of bukkake with strangers. Moreover, pornography is often made as much for fun as money. It is a FACT that many women in pornography get off on what they do. How can anyone be so ignorant to assume that no women are sexually aroused by humiliation? There are far more extreme forms of humiliation (such as degradation with feces and urine) by which some women experience arousal. For example: the amateur porn star Pretty Lisa gets defecated upon in her movies, and gets off on the degradation. She also does it outside of porn - in fact, she was into humiliation before she ever made a home porno. It's simply ABSURD to pretend that there aren't women into sexual humiliation. Semen on the face is actually very mild humiliation compared to what some women are into! And I also know lots of women who enjoy seeing other women get degraded - in some very extreme ways. Do you people live under a rock or what?

"Appears to be pornography-only, unless anyone here knows better. What's in it for the woman? Even if her motivation is masochistic, this does not feature in most reports of female fantasies."-Karada

Ridiculous! Even if it doesn't appear in "most" reports of female fantasies (a clumsy statement that I seriously question), it still does appear in some. How can you ignore these real female desires? --Angela

I don't see how bukkake gets its own heading under the topic of group sex. The page reads likes

  1. Group Sex
    1. Positions
    2. bukkake

WTF? How important is bukkake as a subtopic of group sex? I mean I serioudly doubt any significant proportion of group sex is actually "bukkake". And who is Catherine Millet? The veracity of commercial nonfiction is highly questionable. Especially when there are no ramifications to the publisher if the claims made are wrong.Motiggidy 23:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Bukkake is a verbal noun. The verb bukkakeru (to dash [water]) can be decomposed into two verbs: butsu (打つ) and kakeru (掛ける). Butsu literally means to hit, but as a native I think it is an intensive prefix as in buttamageru (ぶったまげる) or butchigiri (ぶっちぎり). Kakeru means to shower or pour. I guess bukkake itself refers to the act of dashing sperm on a woman's face. -- Nanshu 23:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if Bukkake should be here or have its own article is there any evidence that it's a common group sex practice or is it a genre in pornography ?

Ericd 12:23 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Appears to be pornography-only, unless anyone here knows better. What's in it for the woman? Even if her motivation is masochistic, this does not feature in most reports of female fantasies. -- Karada 12:33 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I just updated the definition to include the non-sexual meaning of the word bukkake. I know it isn't used at all in the west (and certainly won't be used now!), but bukkake much more commonly refers to a type of topping put on udon and soba in Japan. Really, no one will bat an eye in Japan if you say 'bukkake' unless you're being obviously sexual in its usage. Tlotoxl 22:25, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The phrase "(or man)" has been added in describing the practice of bukkake in this article. Is it accurate to say that men are the recipient of bukkake in some cases? I'm sure it's possible, but is it common enough to include here, or should the phrase "usually a women" be used?--Flockmeal 03:26, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Seriously, what's with all the sexist people writing "the woman" or "women"? 24.91.43.225 4 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

It is perfectly common practice, for Bukkake to include all males and no females.

Is bukkake necessarily a form of group sex? I was always under the impression that it would be bukkake if there were just two people involved, too. - Sekicho

Surely that's a facial (sexuality)? -- Karada 16:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My edit 02/22/04

I just edited the entry for bukkake. I removed a bit that insinuated bukkake was an ancient tradition, and added a paragraph about gokkun.

Regarding the "recent/ancient invention" discussion, I've been watching bukkake and gokkun movies for about eight years now, and have amassed a collection of over fivehundred films, all japanese, and most of them bukkake, so safe to say I've seen quite a bit. And in all my time watching bukkake, I've never, not once, seen anything pre-eighties. I've heard this theory before, that bukkake is some sort of ancient japanese tradition, but my opinion, as someone who's spent literally thousands of hours watching it, reading about it, chatting about it, and even participating in it, is that it's an urban legend (and a silly one at that).

80.62.162.172

You're the one being silly here. Are you really naive enough to believe that things like bukkake didn't exist in ancient times? Sexual humiliation has always existed - as long as humans have been around. -Angela

[edit] Sick, disgusting and depressing

This is just plain sick, disgusting and depressing. What next? Let's make a page portraiting incest, zoo sex, kiddy sex, cannibalism or rape with final death to the slut as common and healthy sexual practices.

What's wrong with you people, having fun watching goo squirting all over?! At least, the porn actors have a reason to cum, since they _actually_ have real sex acts before the final load.

TV, the root of all modern passive stupidity... 200.149.182.215, 26 Jun 2004

Don't be ridiculous. Bestiality, rape and peadophilia are non-consentual. Incest is dangerous and irresponsible because it can produce children with serious genetic defects. Cannibalism is offensive and disrespectful to the deceased person's family. Group sex is none of that. Neither is it any more disgusting than vanilla sex. How can you put group sex in the same category? If you find pleasure and affection between consenting adults sick, then you are the one who is depressing. True, group sex isn't everyone's cup of tea. If it's not your's that's fine, no one is forcing you to practice it or to look it up in the wikipedia. But please don't be judgemental and self-righteous about this article. People who do engage in group sex will find this article useful, just like those who prefer vanilla sex will find the article on vanilla sex useful. -- 137.222.40.132 00:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone needs to hit this guy over the head with a healthy dose o' NPOV. teh TK 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
NPOV isn't actually applicable to Talk pages. Which is fortunate, 'cause otherwise it'd be hard to discuss controversial topics... — Saxifrage ✎ 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When you said "Cannibalism is offensive and disrepectful to the deceased person's family," were you referring to necrophilia? As far as I know, cannibalism is not a sex act. -AMS

Even if many would think that it is, that's hardly reason enough to exclude it from an encyclopedic work. If one were to allow personal taste and values to dictate what gets included or not would lead to a rather crooked work; what next, remove references to nazism because of the crimes committed during WWII? -- X-G, July 21 2004 3:51 UTC (what was I smoking when I dated this in the FUTURE?)
Absolutely agree with you. --Rrjanbiah 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, if we start deleting the articles that are not liked by someone, there won't be any articles in Wikipedia. --Rrjanbiah 04:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Signing

Is this one edit or several? Who is it/are they by? Please sign your posts people. Exploding Boy 09:23, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, confusing! I have added headers and signatures.--Patrick 09:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

  • Triple penetration usually refers to either two penises in the vagina and one in the anus, or two in the anus and one in the vagina.

How is this anatomically possible? Cite please. -- The Anome 11:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the person who wrote it, I can explain it for you. There are probably many different ways to do it, (I don't know why anyone WOULD do it, but it can be done). Here's a visual example for you in words: A naked woman sits down on the floor with her legs in front of her, she bends over, nearly touching her toes in the process, and spreads each leg away from her, one next to each ear. Now, she can be placed in a swing, on a piece of furniture, or positioned by other people to rest upon their knees. Either way, she is raised off the ground with her back facing the ceiling, her legs in front of her. Now, one man enters her vagina from below, on his back, and another man enters her in the same way but opposite the first man, on his back. Finally, another man enters her from above. There are probably many variations on this theme, but indeed, it can be done. Just don't ask me to do it. --Viriditas 11:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Probably this might help [1] (Adult warning) --Rrjanbiah 13:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rr, you didn't even look at those. The third's in the mouth. lysdexia 09:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can see how the first two men might perform vaginal penetration: but where's the third one going to put his pelvis? I would have thought that were this possible (and pornography demonstrates that at least some women's anatomy is not the limiting factor here) that images of this would be well-known in pornography. Cite please. -- The Anome 23:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know it's possible because I've seen a document about Annabel Chong (she's an porn actress). I looked it up in the google and found this: (yes, it shows the triple penetration, don't click here kids!). Since the picture is quite small, I think in this case bigger really is better. You can't really see how the men are positioned in this one.
Well, watch Aurora Snow in Clusterfuck. Pulls it off. Be creative. -- unsigned by 216.165.112.57 07:45, December 17, 2005 (UTC)
Another well-documented example is Shyla Stylez in Gangbang Girl 34. Yes it is definitely possible. You can also search in Google Images for "triple penetration" and find photographs. (TeamSoBe 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Jennie Loveitt performs it as well in Extreme Penetrations 4 [2] (Adult warning) -- Bufflo 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I can recomend you to watch Gangbang girl 34 in which Shayla achieves what you state is impossible. --Carlos

[edit] Historical sources

There is a lot of data that can be added to this article regarding the cultural practice of group sex. History is replete with references to group sex by other cultures, although I suspect much of the evidence is anecdotal. Hopefully I'll have some time to add some info soon. --Viriditas 08:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Group sex in Stranger in a Strange Land

Yes, the book illustrates "group marriage", but also presents group sex in that context. Page 443 of the uncut ACE paperback edition describes group sex with four to five people. Then on page 445, Jubal describes the group sex as an expression of a form of group marriage, and on page 447 he defends the morality of group orgies. There are other examples as well, but the group sex is quite evident, regardless of whether or not it was done within a polyamorous relationship. --Viriditas 09:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My intent was not the nature of the relationship in which the group sex occurred, but whether it had occurred at all. I didn't remember anything happening with more than two people at a time. But if there is then I guess I retract my deletion. Sorry about the mixup. -Branddobbe 19:48, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
No problem. I don't think the original, uncut, 525 page version came out until after Heinlein died in 1988. Do you think you read a copy of the censored version? --Viriditas 21:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, I read the full version (it had an introduction from Heinlein's widow). I just have a bad memory. -Branddobbe 23:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] absurd statement

I removed an absurd statement from the article and got the following note on my talk page:

You have removed the words "There is no evidence that a DVDA has ever been accomplished as it is in all likelihood physically impossible.", adding the comment "Absurd. Ask Google." A quick Google search shows lots of speculation that it is possible, but no evidence. Cite, please? -- The Anome 18:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I feel that statement is absurd and that people are very creative; the burden of proof should be on whomever makes the absurd statement. I suggest you visit a video store (no, I can not suggest a specific title). — Davenbelle 19:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I invite comment on the appropriateness of the statement. The Anome restored it and also removed edits of mine related to the downsizing of the photo on the page (which I will be restoring in a moment) — Davenbelle 19:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can state as a fact that "there is no evidence"; there could very well be a bunch of evidence that whoever it is who wrote that section just wasn't aware of. Certainly such a position would be incredibly awkward, but I don't think we should say "there's no such thing" unless it's demonstratably so. -Branddobbe 02:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
No one will ever be able to prove that something doesn't exist (short of something being physically impossible). You have to prove it exists using the evidence.

[edit] What the hell?

I tried to clarify "Group sex involving a single female or male and multiple males is sometimes termed a gang bang." into "Group sex involving a single penetrated female or male and multiple penetrating males is sometimes termed a gang bang.", and it was reverted twice. These words are important clarification, especially as when you take out the female, you get "Group sex involving a single male and multiple males" which makes no grammatical or logical sense. Besides, you don't call it a gang bang when one male penetrates multiple other males (yes, this does happen, obviously not simultaneously, but then a gang bang doesn't necessarily mean simultaneous penetration either). I want to know on what grounds this clarification has been removed or I'm putting it back again. 24.91.43.225 5 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

I can't speak for whoever else removed it, but I took it out for reasons of style: it just doesn't read well and I don't think it really makes anything clearer. So then, if you don't call one male penetrating multiple other males...what do you call it? Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 01:45 (UTC)
OK, I was actually thinking it sounded poor myself. What if it read "Group sex involving a single female or male penetrated by multiple males is sometimes termed a gang bang."? I have never actually encountered a name for penetrating multiple males, though the gang bang article (should we merge that into this one?) calls penetration of multiple females by one male a "reverse gang bang". 24.91.43.225 5 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

[edit] Triple penetration

The article defined "triple penetration" as two penises in the vagina and one in the anus, or vice versa. I have removed this defintion, bacause I doubt whether this can be achieved, because of the geometry of the male performers' pelvises, and also because of the apparent lack of evidence for this act in pornography. (Consider double penetration, which is common in pornography: now consider how another male could be added to this configuration.) If anyone wants to re-add this to the article, please give a cite. -- Karada 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to get out more and live a little! It can too be done. Was even mentioned earlier on this very same talk page of exactly how it can be done. So here is a hint: in the future read a talk page before adding anything more to it! (aka rtfm) Mathmo 12:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Initialisms section cleanup

I've added the {{cleanup-section}} template to the Initialisms and Types of Group Sex Arrangements section. When it was first added by an anon I was hoping it would either get cleaned up for removed by consensus, but neither has happened so I'd like to start some discussion.

Right now it's just a laundry list of acronyms that, though possibly quite informative to someone who's looking to find out what FFM in a personal ad means, doesn't really add much to the article and isn't really directly relevant to the overall subject. I'm not sure that this information is strictly unencyclopedic, but in the current format, at least, it adds very little in a lot of space. To compare, it would be like seeing a long list of initialisms and acronyms for a dozen varieties of gender as appearing in personals ads in the Gender article, when it's really nearly inconsequential to the subject.

I have two suggestions right off the top of my head, though if someone has something better I'd be glad to hear it. First, if this information is really needed, it could be placed in its own article with a link from "See also" or somewhere else. This would preserve the data while giving it an amount of space in the article proportionate to its relevance to the overall subject. Second, it could be trimmed down to just the first paragraph of the section (possibly rewritten) which explains how to read or write these initialisms, without having to list them all exhaustively. This would bring it into more encyclopedic style by describing the system used in personal ads rather than giving a long list, and it would make it better related to the overall subject.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one has objected for four days, so I'm going to implement my second suggestion and just remove the list, leaving the descriptive paragraphs intact. If anyone objects after the fact, do come here and discuss it so we can find an agreeable solution. Thanks!  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] presenting gender as binary

There are a number of lines in this article that imply that "men" and "women" are the only possible options. When writing/editing articles of a sexual context please keep in mind the large number of people that don't fit within these categories. It is easy to say "people", or "people of all genders" when reference to a specific gender characteristic isn't being made.Quixote go 21:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A valid point. May I suggest you be bold and go ahead and make the changes where it makes sense? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. "the large number of people .. don't fit within ["men" and "women" categories]". What is that supposed to mean? Are you talking about hermaphrodites? I'm not being hostile, I just don't understand. (TeamSoBe 15:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC))
I'm guessing refering to trans. personally however i believe it to be fine it leave it with men and women. we must remember to not try and wreck this article for pc reasons, and to instead keep it highly readable Mathmo 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/o/Talk%7EGroup_sex_7771.html"