Talk:Gang bang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Gangbanger" shouldn't redirect here[edit]

The term "gangbanger" has to do with gang membership, not sexual activity. From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gangbanger:

1. (slang) a member of a violent gang 2. (slang) a violent person

This would match the use of the term in modern media, etc. But, there isn't a separate Wikipedia entry for gangbanger itself, so I think it should redirect to "gangs", so I'm trying that. JK 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is particularly relevant given recent public statements by the president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.17.158 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Simultaneous intercouses required?[edit]

I thought a session where one person is having intercourses with multiple partners (perhaps in presence) in a row without having notable gaps betweed could be cuonted as gangbang. I believe the definition is not perfectly correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.75.107.170 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


Why Wikipedia Sucks[edit]

The fact that this article is ridiculously long and painstakingly detailed, while articles about important political figures and historical events rate a paragraph, illustrates why Wikipedia is such an abysmal failure.

Some of you know way, way, way too much about this topic.

Like swingers who participate in gang bangs, for example? The Internet isn't just for computer nerds any more. (TeamSoBe 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
Rather than edit, as anyone who wishes for quality in Wikipedia, the complaint "why x sucks", without ever attempting to improve the product, whether it is Wikipedia or anything else. Yet another burger flipper heard from!Wzrd1 (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On the plus side - whoever wrote this sentence deserves an award: "After 1999, the United States World's Biggest Gangbang series seemed to have petered out, and Europe started producing gangbang events."

PETERED out? Priceless. You have a future in comedy.

There are plenty of lengthy articles on may important things, the fact that some are incomplete (as there always will be in a never ending project) or that articles are widenned out into more trivial matters does not demonstrate failure. Dainamo 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartdily agree. Someday, it's likely we'll see an article on wikipedia listing all the different ways someone can clip their fingernails. Or clip pubic hair, or the "fun" of eating shit or farting fire. it's just sad...

Will someone check the recent edits? Near to the top of the article is blatant vandalism; unfortunately, I'm unsure what to put to replace it.


Gangbanging in history? You're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.25.227 (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia sucks because some articles are lacking in detail, why don't you add that detail? You whining about it in here won't help a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.226.168 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alley catting[edit]

alleycatting merged into gangbang, gangbang being a more popular term --ColinHunt 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreement. A Google search shows Wikipedia and copycat sites as more or less the only sources of the term "alley catting" (besides the article linked at the bottom of that article)--so it hardly seems that it's a widespread term (I'd certainly never heard it before). --86.196.72.177 20:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with ColinHunt, Gangbang is more used It can also be seen by, that Alley Catting has about 12.000 hits in google and Gangbang has around 10,300,000 Hits. --user: bannerzone 4:25 27 april 2006

I agree. Alley catting by the definition is a type of "gangbang". Thunk 04:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Regional Terms[edit]

'Alley catting'

I'm a 20-something male in the UK and have never heard that term before.
Well, that's the purpose of an encyclopedia, innit? To be educational.There are plenty more things you haven't heard of in the pornography categories, I can assure you...

More seriously, do you mean that you think it's a hoax, or not the correct term? AnonEMouse 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for "alley catting" in the context of sexual intercourse brought up very few hits, and nothing from reliable sources. This term may be used here and there, but nothing indicates it's more than just another slang term for "gang bang". I will be redirecting the article. — TheKMantalk 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

I'm willing to believe that "Gangbang" is an alternate accepted spelling, but not that it's the only one. Look at the DVD covers; clearly World's Biggest Gang Bang 2 uses "Gang bang"; also the Rotten.com link uses the space as well. Google gets 15M hits for the first, 13M hits for the second. I'm going to mention both possibilities. AnonEMouse 12:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

This is to discuss the use of the "Worlds Biggest Gangbang" and "Worlds Biggest Gang Bang II" covers on the page. They were removed by TheKMan June 26, 2006, with the comment on my talk page that "[they] can only be used in an article about the video[s]". (Thanks for the comment, by the way, I appreciate it.)

Anyway, I believe these images are being used correctly, since this article is, to a large part, about these videos. If you note, by far the largest section of this article is about "Gangbang records in the pornographic industry", which is a record that this series of videos started. The specific series is described in a subsection with 5 paragraphs. Each specific video is described in a reasonably long paragraph, giving very specific details about the actors, the actual content, and the critical reception of each. Three more subsections of about 10 more paragraphs describe videos and series that specifically claim to carry the tradition and break the records set in this "Worlds Biggest Gangbang" series of videos. I believe that makes these appropriate and fair use.

Let's compare to some examples of fair use images in recent Wikipedia: Featured articles, since these have all been carefully reviewed by a large group of experienced Wikipedians, and judged to meet the highest standards of the Wikipedia at the time of their featuring, which wasn't so long ago.

  • Hopkins_School, featured article May 30, 2006. Uses Image:Hopkins stuco prez.jpg under the rationale that it illustrates the "Student Council" section. Note that section is two paragraphs long, and only mentioned in one other section, the "Student Priveleges" section. It can not be said that the specific picture of the 2004 president handing off the office to the 2005 president pictures a particularly crucial event in the history of the Student Council, since it happens every year for many, possibly three hundred years. Nothing in the article says either the 2004 or the 2005 student councils were particularly notable. This is to contrast with this article, where the covers are the iconic images of the first video in the series that started a notable pornography gang bang trend, and the second video, that made it an actual series. Clearly the use in Gang bang is at least as important to the article as the use of the fair use photo in Hopkins School.
  • Tenebrae (film), featured article May 27, 2006. Uses Image:TenebraeCD.jpg under the rationale that it assists in critical commentary/discussion of the Tenebrae film and music soundtrack. The soundtrack gets its own section in the article, 3 paragraphs, but the article is not "about" the soundtrack, the article is about the film. There is a separate article about the soundtrack, Tenebrae (soundtrack). The soundtrack has been said to be crucial to the film, "fused to the fabric of the picture", but surely no less than the videos in Gang bang are to the "Gangbang records in the pornographic industry" section that occupies most of the Gang bang article; far more than the soundtrack section occupies in the Tenebrae (film) article.

I can probably find similar examples if I look in the past few Featured Articles. I believe they also will back up the belief that the use of these images in this article conforms to the current understanding of Wikipedia:Fair Use. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you make some great points. In most cases, images of copyrighted works cannot be used in articles about the subject because they lack sufficient critical commentary on the images or what the images illustrate. Copyrighted images in this context are often misused since they are used for identification, but lack any analysis of the objects depicted. However in this case, the two images represent iconic videos that are worth noting in the article about the subject, with a sufficient amount of text discussing the videos. After looking at this article closer, I feel the images are fairly used, and I'll admit that I didn't see the text about the videos when I removed the images (whoops!). Thanks for expanding on the fair use rationale on the images, and thanks for your patience! — TheKMantalk 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for your kind words, and, actually, thank you for prodding me to finish adding the Wikipedia: Fair Use rationale requirements to the images and article. I added the images early in my Wikipedia "career", and didn't know I needed to do that as well. When I learned, I vaguely remembered that I probably should go back and add them somewhere, but didn't, until your notice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the famous gang bang[edit]

I see no information about the enormous gangbang om the banks of the kalka river where Djengis Khan and his men had there wicked way with 6000 pow's.

That would be appropriate in the rape article, not in the gangbang article.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

gangbangs are not just a girl being fucked by many guys, but can also the other way round[edit]

little mention seems to be made of this, i do have a film which shows one guy being fucked by a hundred different women. unfortunately can't remember the name of the top of my head. Mathmo 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see it has now been added, a title of "world's luckiest man" does kinda make sense! Mathmo Talk 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis placed wrong[edit]

I think the general public refers to gangbanging as a gang beating on different individuals. This article is definitely blinded by this. Look in the dictionary--gangbanging in this sense is a slang compared to the actual meaning. Does anybody object to changing the article around to stress gangs and beatings and place the "sexual" meaning to the backseat?--71.200.61.10 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I object. I believe there are many appropriate possible titles for articles about gangs and beating, while this is the best title for the sexual meaning. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "the dictionary", but Merriam-Webster defines "gangbang" as:
  1. to participate in a gang bang
  2. to participate in especially violent gang activity
transitive verb : to subject to a gang bang
And "gang bang" as:
  1. copulation by several persons in succession with the same passive partner
  2. often vulgar : GANG RAPE
Dictionary.com gives both meanings to both spellings (with and without a space)
American Heritage gives both meanings for "gangbang" or "gang-bang".
In summary, I don't think it's at all clear which spelling goes with which meaning or which meaning is more commonly accepted. If there is an interest in fleshing out the section on the violent gang activity, I would vote for splitting this page into gang bang (sex) and gang bang (violence) and making this a disambiguation page. --Strait 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd oppose, am sure there are pages already existing about gang violence. And gangbanging meaning sex with many is by far the more common use of this term I'm sure. Mathmo Talk 09:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment about college dormitories[edit]

Are there any facts, figures or research to back up the statements regarding college dormitories, or is it the author's own contention? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.208.183 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Removing Unreferenced and Original Research tags, as article seems to have been cleaned up. 69.143.208.183 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In turn or at the same time?[edit]

A friend and I are discussing: According to me, the gang bang happens sequentially, with the gang bangers taking turns: Based on his porn movies, he says that is at the same time, what is the correct way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.4.132 (talkcontribs) 01:19, June 16, 2007

  • I doubt you'll find a definition in any reliable source, but the general usage seems to include either one... Valrith 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, normal usage include either one... There is a reliable source, the [merriam webster dictionary]:

Main Entry: gang bang Function: noun Date: 1945 1often vulgar : copulation by several persons in succession with the same passive partner 2often vulgar : gang rape

And it talks about in succession...

By the way, my friend doesn't agree and he plans on change it to "the same time" whenever somebody corrects it to "in turn" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.4.132 (talkcontribs) 00:38, June 22, 2007

Gangbang is either sex related or gang related, in both cases, it is at the same time, just take a look to the porn industry, it's at the same time, personally, I asked many guys in my office, and everybody agrees that it is at the same time. And everybody agrees that when it is one by one it is often called "pull the train" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.52.48 (talkcontribs) 23:39, July 10, 2007

Well, see, here's the problem. A Webster's dictionary is considered a more reliable reference than the guys in your office, or than porn movies. Unless new references show up, the dictionary definition is what we've got. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A Webster's dictionary doesn't know anything about street language, you can go to the Urban Dictionary and take a look. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gang+bang

Urban Dictionary is not considered a suitable reference on any of a number of different grounds. I guess the most obvious one would be that we don't consider all persons who can type to be equally authoritative, as they do. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think that a gang bang is when the girl is in bed with only one guy and the rest of the guys are outside waiting for their turn? if you think so, you are completely wrong, you've never been in a gang bang, a gang bang is when many guys are with a girl in the same room participating in sex, Webster's dictionary is wrong. When a girl has sex with several guys ONE BY ONE is often called "pull the train". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.52.48 (talkcontribs) 16:26, July 17, 2007

The real issue here is simply whether an unsourced, or unreliably-sourced definition of an English-language term trumps what's in a Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's really just as simple as that, and Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on the matter. If it's any consolation, though, you can look at groups like | Ace Gang Bang Crew, who seem to have over a hundred members and participate in such activities monthly, and see that they use the term in the same way as Webster's. Presumably they would refer to what you're talking about as Group sex. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2 ct: Gang bang =

  • several guys at the same time in the bed or room - yes
  • several guys at the same time in the girl - maybe, but not necessarily
  • only one with the girl, the others waiting outside - "pullig the train"

88.65.254.214 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pornographic records" section[edit]

I notice about a week ago most of this section, and half the article with it, was removed in this edit, with the comment rm advertising. If we consider that was the start of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, that was the bold, I'm reverting, let's discuss. This section was among my first contributions to the Wikipedia, and I still have a soft spot for it. I've learned a bit since then, so I'm willing to accept that it could be improved, but I'm strongly against removing the section, or most of it, wholesale. It describes a notable series, as can be seen by the number of unrelated sources discussing it, the fact that it spawned imitators, etc. I've improved some of the references a bit and shortened the section title. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • One problem, imo, is that there is nothing notable about the gangbang pornographic videos. I've re-removed that section. Valrith 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • They're a notable trend, and they've had significant coverage by unrelated sources. For example, Sex: The Annabel Chong Story is a Sundance film festival documentary, released in 50 countries, and was mostly about Annabel Chong's gang bang film. The Houston gangbang was covered by Salon magazine (cited in the article), and won the AVN Award for Best Selling Title of the Year in 2000. Village Voice # World's Biggest Gang Bang II tied for Best Selling Title of the Year in 1997. I need to add more about the awards to the article, I see, but the series clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Gang_bang Tony says that his objections were that the section was overbalancing the article, which is really about a "cultural phenomenon" yeah, but I can't think of a better way to say it either, and in that he has a point; it was over half the article. Tony also says he has no objections to breaking the series of porn films out into a separate article, so that's what I plan to do, probably with a short section and a see main article link from here. Any objections or comments? Valrith? Anyone else? Bueller? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, basically I come to this article and I see Wikipedia representing a bunch of pornography as more than it really is. Pornography is entertainment, it's supposed to get you off. If some people make a pornographic film in which a woman is supposed to have sex with a very large number of men, that's sort of interesting but it doesn't really have much relevance to gang bangs except for the title, and it shouldn't occupy a large part of this article. Which by the way really needs to be sorted out with some proper references. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
True, true. Take a look at the split, see if it's reasonably OK. The section in this article is mostly done (do you want citations for these sentences here, or is the main article link good enough?) but I'll do some more expansion in the new article. On the references topic, that one reference there by a couple of PhDs seems as legit as could be given the subject matter. They've been published quite a bit on similar sexuality topics in more scientific contexts. Here they are alongside Albert Ellis and Betty Dodson for example. Just mentioning because it was deleted earlier, and I recommend keeping it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the wording of the new paragraph. This looks right in the article. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Next on my list is to make you friends with Geogre... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my 2c, I feel it was wrong to remove that entire section on the basis of it being "advertising". It isn't. However I like the resolution that has been arrived at by splitting it off into another sub-article. Good work! Mathmo Talk 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Roman Empire was known for Gangbangs?[edit]

This is by far one of the most uneducated statements in this absurd article. I think that the author say Caligula one too many times. Can the author site sources and or references that state that this was Imperial policy? Can the author further distinguish where the "Gangbang" came to the height of use, was it the early Republican period, the Mid to late Republic, the Augustan age, the reign of the 12 Caesars, the mid to late Empire, or was it the Byzantine to early middle ages. The author needs to be more specific, naming one person in the 2,000 plus year history does not qualify for being "known for". By comparison there is more information about American or Europeans having gangbangs. Americans have been a political power for a fraction of what the Roman Republic or Empire was, yet there is more media on gangbangs, I think that the author’s statement should more realistically read, the United States of America is known for gangbangs. All the author knows is what is popular media, or what was found on an quick internet search. Really sad, get up and do some real research offline like a real student then repost your silly article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavivs (talkcontribs) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pic?[edit]

The pic directly contradicts the text in the paragraph. According to this article itself, there needs to be another guy somewhere... soldierx40k (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason for that gratuitous nudity. it is not encyclopedic. -24.98.65.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

pic should be removed: shows threesome, not GB. In any case, even a pic of a gb would not assist explanation. The article defines what a gb is; there's no need to illustrate it. 60.241.24.12 (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

-I would like to add to the chorus wanting to get rid of the picture. It is not instructive, and its only purpose seems to be to titillate. There is no shortage of places on the internet with exactly that purpose in mind, and Wikipedia is not one of them. I have nothing against nudity on Wikipedia's images, but the motivation for illustrating this particular article seems very questionable.81.170.146.176 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the image is a compromise. Many people would prefer an image of real people, rather than an illustration. Also, the image looks more like a threesome, rather than a gang-bang. Also, the concept of showing a gang-bang -- with no nudity -- is rather odd. Atom (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the two images are appropriate at all and take away from any scholastic value this article has. The imigaes turn this article into a lame pornography website. I'll be removing the two drawings as the greek vase at least has historical value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.78.133 (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

New picture[edit]

I think we need new/more pictures, the ones we have just are not doing it for me anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Boybang[edit]

I removed the text "One option is that man can give a woman oral sex, give to another woman the vaginal sex and accept oral sex in the coition of a third woman, all at the same time. With this, may the boy have space he may engage in finger f*****g 2 or more females whilst foot f*****g another female." as it was unsourced and the f******g is not encyclopedic.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)