Since I’m way behind in my reading I read this first via Echidne, but over at Pandagon Amanda Marcotte just answered a question that for some reason started bothering me almost as soon as I was out of WiFi range. See if you can guess what my question might be from the following snippet:
...from my perspective, the implicit argument —- that women who have a lot of sex, or with a lot of men are sluts who deserve humiliation —- is anti-sex. In other words, for all the sex in porn, much of it adheres to the “family values” narrative, where a sexual woman is used up and deserves nothing but abuse. Being truly pro-sex, in my view, means believing that women who have sex, a lot of sex, or a lot of partners do not forfeit a single ounce of their dignity or humanity.
And, because it’s a good post too, don’t forget to read Echidne’s take either.
Anyway, it’s an interesting point that a) women who have lots of sex are considered degraded and yet b) industrial porn is almost invariably about women who have lots of sex.
Straight porn is very rarely centered around the actual performance of the male performers and when it is the focus seems to be far more about how much he’s able to get his various partners to “take” than how much he’s willing to, um, er, I guess, “give.” (I’m sure there have to be exceptions but are there ever non-fetish assumptions in porn that the men’s limits are smaller than the women’s?)
Anyway the thought that drifted through my head, the one I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the one that I think complements Amanda’s post rather nicely, is why do you suppose there’s no “gang bang” porn where one man has sex with multiple partners? Heck, there’s not even a word for the comparable situation!
A few years ago there was a raft of stories about one or more videos of well-known or aspiring porn actresses having sex with up to 500 men. (I think it’s telling, by the way, that so many commenters at the time made much of the fact that the numbers were exaggerated… that it wasn’t “really” 500 different men, that organizers got some participants to go back around and get in line, etc.)
And yet, as far as I can tell, even though porn is allegedly about fantasies of male prowess and all that, as far as I can tell from Googling around, and dredging through more Fleshbot posts than I’d ordinarily do in a month year ok, ok, ever there just doesn’t seem to be that much interest in either producing or viewing one man “taking on” what viewers might see as a taxing number of partners. No male “gang bang” porn. No speculation about male “gang bang” porn. No requests for it either.
I think, at least in part, it’s because Amanda and Echidne have a point about the function of mainstream porn. I don’t exactly agree with them that the point of facials, say, or no-preliminaries anal intercourse, or “ass to mouth” exists only to degrade the women doing it in the sense of punishing them for having sex. Instead I still think it’s a “no-sex” class paradigm-driven fascination about what women can “take” either without saying “no” or before finally saying “no.” Which would, of course, finally satisfy the mythical Rule of Desire #1 — it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.
And meanwhile I think a circumstance showing multiple women sharing the same male partner would violate Rule of Desire #2 — it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.
You’d think a male viewer (and this is still assuming not all but a majority of consumers are male) interested in seeing any naked women having sex with a man would be interested in seeing lots of naked women having sex with a man. The grammar doesn’t seem to work that way. Instead to the extent there’s interest (and there does appear to be a lot of interest) it’s pretty much always one naked woman having sex with lots of men.
I’m guessing Rule #2 dominates here — the assumption is that a man with myriad partners is a fluke the average insecure man can’t identify with. Meanwhile I think the logic is that if there’s a woman who’d have sex with 10, 100, 500, or 620(!) men she might let him have sex with her too.
Anyway, I dunno. What’s your take? (And don’t say logistics. Especially if you’ve ever imagined the porn industry rakes in gazillions of dollars. If there was a market for it they’d find a way to do it.)
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-09-26 16:22.
I will say logistics! The porn industry may make zillions but it also produces a zillion DVDs/sites and with blockbusters very rare, the average one only pulls in a few thousand in profit. Gambling a big budget on a totally new idea is just too risky for an industry that's practically nothing but Long Tail.
The men in mega-gangbang videos are volunteers; they're fans doing it as a "labor of love," even paying for their own STD tests, and the only cost to the producers is lunch. 500 women would pretty much have to be paid. (This is of course an effect of the Two Rules of Desire, in the long run. Another effect is that women in porn have to look hyper-sexy but any man will do, which would further hurt your chances of assembling enough suitable volunteers.)
Also, a woman with enough lube and endurance can go for the twenty hours or however long it takes; even a well-trained porn man is going to lose wood loooong before that.
[I agree, of course, that there really *isn't* much profit in porn. And nice point about the double standard of body image. Which, outlier examples notwithstanding, I still don't see much evidence for. As for woodiness I understand than even when Viagra fails there's always Caverject. But I still don't think that would be an obstacle if there was consumer interest. Which for the reasons I give in my post, I think doesn't exist. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-09-26 18:48.
And yet, as far as I can tell, even though porn is allegedly about fantasies of male prowess and all that, as far as I can tell from Googling around, and dredging through more Fleshbot posts than I'd ordinarily do in a month year ok, ok, ever there just doesn't seem to be that much interest in either producing or viewing one man "taking on" what viewers might see as a taxing number of partners. No male "gang bang" porn. No speculation about male "gang bang" porn. No requests for it either.
It appears that you have been searching in the wrong places. On "Vidshop.com" (which I have bookmarked for their range of BDSM DVDs) I find that Rocco Siffredi has made lots of "Reverse Gangbang" DVDs (Reverse Gangbang 3 features him plus 22 women, several of his other series go up to numebrs like #20 and feature the same description of "reverse gangbang). There is also a DVD called "Strap-on My Man" which appears to be several girls (with strap-ons) fucking one guy anally (it's labelled gangbang, and I see only one man but several women in each of the screenshots featured on the site). There seem to be a few other titles available with variations on the theme, all listed under the "gangbang" genre tag.
As Holly points out, male sexual stamina just doesn't match up against that of women - sooner or later, the guy gets worn out, loses hardness, etc. so number in the 100s seem implausible.
However, I suppose if one were interested in making a mega-reverse-gangbang then one way to do it would be to focus on cunnilingus - the bang-ee licks cunt and clit for each woman in turn. Depending on target audience this could be performed in different ways: A) Women arranged lying on their backs, he goes from one to the next in turn all the way along the line; B) Him kneeling, women take turns to present their vaginas for him to lick; C) Him on his back, women take tuns to squat over him and lower their vaginas onto his face for him to lick them.
I'm pretty sure there's at least a niche market for that last one, and I can imagine that there would be a web market to see the feat performed (after all, the camera following the licker around the room would get to focus on the presented "naughty bits" of each woman in turn, and run lasciviously over her body and boobs as it does so).
[Thanks for the tip on Rocco, SE. I wonder what the sales figures are for those particular videos compared to his (allegedly 1,500) other productions. Also thanks for the keyword "reverse gangbang." Not sure why I hadn't thought of that one. --fl]
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-09-26 19:41.
Now you have me looking at porn. After checking around awhile, it seems that if you can imagine it and have some idea how to look for it, then you'll find it somewhere. Gangbangs, reverse gangbangs, all-male gangbangs, transsexual ganagbangs, at least one series of all-female gangbangs... hell, even reverse bukkake. That's when one guy gets ejaculate from multiple women squirted into the face. And that's just staying on subject, I found a lot of other unconventional stuff in other categories too. I think that whatever degradation elements in commercial porn which used to apply almost entirely to women are slowly becoming more of an equal-opportunity thing.
Since I don't normally look at porn and I'm not sure of how safe some the sites that I checked are, please excuse me while I go run a virus scan to make sure my computer didn't pick up any STDs. ;-)
reCaptcha: youthful satisfaction
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-09-26 23:39.
I was going to mention Rocco Siffredi series, as well. He also did a more mainstream (i.e. porn with a scenario) "Rocco: the man who loved women" vid back in the late 90's, which may have been the precursor to his reverse-gb vid series.
(My opinion of the first one, btw - haven't seen the others - was "well, that's another fantasy ruined.")
I chalk it up to the times. Gershon Legman made an offhand observation (think it was somewhere in _The Horn Book_ but I can't find the reference) once about how periods of relative advancement for women were accompanied by male fantasies of harems and the like, periods of relative male dominance involved multiple men sharing a woman as a surrogate for gay sex (how else to explain the whole ubiquitous DP thang? And don't get me going on the two-penises-in-one-vagina/ass phenomenon in gonzo porn?)
IOW, the gang-bang phenomenon is part of backlash, and the dark-side of bromance.
That, and real male-focussed reverse-gb porn requires a male performer capable of multiple pops, demonstrably within the same session. And not just an everlasting hard-on.
And now I've thought about this too much.
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-09-27 01:33.
"That, and real male-focussed reverse-gb porn requires a male performer capable of multiple pops, demonstrably within the same session. And not just an everlasting hard-on."
Hang on, why? Because sex only ends when the man comes? I'd see the gang-bang working better if each respective woman had to come first. You could do a burlesque-style moment where the man's exhausted and the woman thinks a bit, then attaches a strap-on dildo to him....
Now I've thought about this too much, haven't I? But I rather like the idea. Pushing the man beyond desire into endurance something I enjoy in my sex life but don't really see anywhere in a satisfing form. I don't like the idea of it being cunnilingus exclusively because that buys into the women don't want intercourse/fucking=male power concept that dogs femdom porn.
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-09-27 05:46.
I was thinking along the lines of the massive numbers events, where as I understand it, setting records for "woman having sex with most number of men", all that is required is a single "in-and-out". I don't see that as being about anything to do with male pleasure, either.
As I understand it, the "mega-gangbang" genre just isn't about pleasure at all, it's just about a ridiculous feat, so the whole "women don't want..." thing is less relevant. Also, I was looking at the positive of "redefining 'sex' to be more than PiV'". I agree that on the smaller-gang style that it makes as much or more sense to make it about when the woman comes.
I LOVE the idea of the man having to wear a stap-on to keep going and keep all the women happy! That would be a brilliant scene to see.
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-09-27 11:35.
On the technical side, Caverject has its own limits - an erection that won't subside after 4 hours can result in permanent damage to the penis - though the 4-hour mark is really just the time when the man should seek medical help, actual damage takes longer to occur.
I don't think degradation or humiliation is the *only* thing going on in such porn, but it's a big part of how it's framed. And the humiliation/degradation is tied *precisely* to the idea that the female actors are violating your first law of the no-sex class. The idea is that these "sluts" wants cock so bad, they'll do anything to get it.
I just googled "ass to mouth" (not something I do every day!) and the first non-Wikipedia site comes with the slogan "The best site on the net if you want dirty, horny ass to mouth sluts!!!" Also in the top 10 hits: "She looks innocent and cute but she's the biggest ass 2 mouth slut." Google "gangbang" and you quickly see "Gangbang Lessons was created for all those filthy sluts who can\'t just have one cock." Or at the site Real Moms Get Gang Banged: "She dreams of three or four young dicks gangbang her in all holes. And the respectable lady turns into a hungry yound dick hunter." (typos in the original)
So it's way more complicated than just pushing women past "no," although I agree that that's one element.
Don't you think your rules of desire apply to "respectable" women only? And women who violate them are sluts, or "hungry young dick hunters"?
Submitted by 3216 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-04 22:41.
I think the appeal of the gang bang scenario may be in the idea that a woman has such a wonderfully rambunctious appetite for sex and a huge love of men that more will make her merrier. Maybe she's so powerfully sexual that it takes so many men to satisfy her? At a site that I frequent the mostly members are in genuine awe of the capacity of women to seek pleasure, the admiration isn't necessarily the college boy "look at that stupid slut" variety.
I think it pays to ignore most of what is written on the covers of DVDs and on the crappiest of websites - copywriting, like filmmaking is not the strongest in the porn industry.
I run a gangbang party and
Submitted by Stu (not verified) on Wed, 2009-11-04 18:25.I run a gangbang party and typical numbers are 30 or so guys and 5 or 6 women, although we have had bigger nights. It’s a hardcore party for women who want lots of cocks…....I don’t allow women who just want to watch or come to play with one or two guys. The orgy room is all open….you can see everyone in it…....huge….....and my rule to women is this…....if you go in there and lay on the mattresses….......do not expect to pick and choose…..if you want that your in the wrong place. I’m very hard hitting in the ads for the party….....and require every women to have read the webiste though…....and rang to talk….....I reject women who give me the slightest hint that they are not fully up to what this is about….....and guess what…..........I can’t even fit all the women in that want to come….....I nearly always have to knock back women to keep the numbers within the ratio…...which is at least 5 guys and max 8 guys to every women.
I also don’t allow women under 30s….....or guys under that either for that matter because younger people…....especially women…..just do not have the inhibitions to cut it. Women at my parties will commonly have sex with 20 guys each….....most take it in all holes….....often all at once.
If you ask me…....being a gangbang girl is as close to a womens natural sexuality as you can get. So far…....in over 4 years of parties…...I have not once seen a women come and get gangbanged who did not totally enjoy it….....and nearly all of them come again and make it an occassional naughty night out. Many come with their husbands and boyfriends…...the lucky ones that can find a guy for a relationship that isn’t full of negative opinions about sex and women.