PornBox.com

Me and my girlfriend play with toys sometimes end that my cock a dildo finish in her pussy and other toy in ass.we tryed 2 vibrators and me in pussy. What do you mean she wants to be gangbanged ? I m afraid that this can have affect on our relationship if we try this.What is your opinion or experience?

pretty normal to me, seems the feeling both holes filled good. mine and others I know never wanted to try gangbangs, it is totally different things;

(i can't believe i am writing serious answers now)

if your girl wants all her holes filled then get some guys together and give it to her

she will thank you for it

CanadianCouple wrote:if your girl wants all her holes filled then get some guys together and give it to her

she will thank you for it

exactly.if she realy wants to be filled,you should give her the chance to make this experience.she ll love you more than ever.....

CanadianCouple wrote:if your girl wants all her holes filled then get some guys together and give it to her

she will thank you for it

Man, it's your girl and it would be cucking. Just fill her holes with bigger dildos, bigger vibrators and make it more rough. If she still prefers to be gangbanged just leave her and let her achieve her whore dreams. Gangbanging sluts is really cool especially when you do it with friends but not your girlfriend.

You only live once. If she's up for it, you might as well try it. If it freaks you out, at least you tried. Maybe you'll get off on it as well?

analwithyourgirl wrote:

CanadianCouple wrote:if your girl wants all her holes filled then get some guys together and give it to her

she will thank you for it

Man, it's your girl and it would be cucking. Just fill her holes with bigger dildos, bigger vibrators and make it more rough. If she still prefers to be gangbanged just leave her and let her achieve her whore dreams. Gangbanging sluts is really cool especially when you do it with friends but not your girlfriend.

You don't understand what cucking is if you simply think gangbanging your girl, couple swapping, swinging, etc is being a cuck. Having other men join in fucking your women is not cucking. Its cucking if you are doing that specific fantasy of the husband/boyfriend being submissive to the other men, watching and not participating, and engaged in some sort of degradation.

Letting a bunch of dudes fuck your woman is about as degrading and spineless as you can get, unless of course you enjoy watching other guys fucking your woman, making her cum, and blowing loads inside of her. What if one of these dudes fucks her better than you ever have? I don't think she will respect you after you let her get gangbanged. Only one dick ever enters my woman, and I will have it no other way. I'd stick with the toys if i were you.

stevemcgee3 wrote:Letting a bunch of dudes fuck your woman is about as degrading and spineless as you can get, unless of course you enjoy watching other guys fucking your woman, making her cum, and blowing loads inside of her. What if one of these dudes fucks her better than you ever have? I don't think she will respect you after you let her get gangbanged. Only one dick ever enters my woman, and I will have it no other way. I'd stick with the toys if i were you.

That is the response of a very insecure man.

Telling the woman in your life she can "not" do what she fantasizes about (if that is her fantasy) is just controlling sutff.

No need to argue about it, but unfortunately there are still a lot of men who feel oppressing women is the only way to live.

CanadianCouple wrote:

stevemcgee3 wrote:Letting a bunch of dudes fuck your woman is about as degrading and spineless as you can get, unless of course you enjoy watching other guys fucking your woman, making her cum, and blowing loads inside of her. What if one of these dudes fucks her better than you ever have? I don't think she will respect you after you let her get gangbanged. Only one dick ever enters my woman, and I will have it no other way. I'd stick with the toys if i were you.

That is the response of a very insecure man.

Telling the woman in your life she can "not" do what she fantasizes about (if that is her fantasy) is just controlling sutff.

No need to argue about it, but unfortunately there are still a lot of men who feel oppressing women is the only way to live.

How is it oppressing women if the man doesn’t want his girl to get gangbanged by a bunch of horny dudes?? There are boundaries in relationships and if you’re fine with crossing that line then you’re not in a real relationship.

stevemcgee3 wrote:Letting a bunch of dudes fuck your woman is about as degrading and spineless as you can get, unless of course you enjoy watching other guys fucking your woman, making her cum, and blowing loads inside of her. What if one of these dudes fucks her better than you ever have? I don't think she will respect you after you let her get gangbanged. Only one dick ever enters my woman, and I will have it no other way. I would stick with the toys if i were you.

EXACTLY

CanadianCouple wrote:

analwithyourgirl wrote:

CanadianCouple wrote:if your girl wants all her holes filled then get some guys together and give it to her

she will thank you for it

Man, it's your girl and it would be cucking. Just fill her holes with bigger dildos, bigger vibrators and make it more rough. If she still prefers to be gangbanged just leave her and let her achieve her whore dreams. Gangbanging sluts is really cool especially when you do it with friends but not your girlfriend.

You don't understand what cucking is if you simply think gangbanging your girl, couple swapping, swinging, etc is being a cuck. Having other men join in fucking your women is not cucking. Its cucking if you are doing that specific fantasy of the husband/boyfriend being submissive to the other men, watching and not participating, and engaged in some sort of degradation.

If you let other men fuck your women it is no longer your women, just their fucktoy. It's not hard to understand. Just absolute beta male behaviour. If I were a woman and my man let his friends fuck me I would no longer respect him.

Jack_Jackal43 wrote:

CanadianCouple wrote:

stevemcgee3 wrote:Letting a bunch of dudes fuck your woman is about as degrading and spineless as you can get, unless of course you enjoy watching other guys fucking your woman, making her cum, and blowing loads inside of her. What if one of these dudes fucks her better than you ever have? I don't think she will respect you after you let her get gangbanged. Only one dick ever enters my woman, and I will have it no other way. I would stick with the toys if i were you.

That is the response of a very insecure man.

Telling the woman in your life she can "not" do what she fantasizes about (if that is her fantasy) is just controlling sutff.

No need to argue about it, but unfortunately there are still a lot of men who feel oppressing women is the only way to live.

How is it oppressing women if the man doesn’t want his girl to get gangbanged by a bunch of horny dudes?? There are boundaries in relationships and if you’re fine with crossing that line then you’re not in a real relationship.

this

strange how members of this forum judging of girls with sexual fantasies in a very moralistic way...
While watching every day porn where exactly is shown what this girl seems to want to try.multiple cocks in her holes!!

As long as everybody is healthy - why the hell not???i tried a lot with my married wife....for her and my pleasure.Sth was good,sth less.But we tried, and do not stay within the puritan borders in real life,while fantacy runs limitless in orgy phantasies

the problem is that there are stds

so she may catch a stds in a gangbang

Jack_Jackal43 wrote:

CanadianCouple wrote:

stevemcgee3 wrote:Letting a bunch of dudes fuck your woman is about as degrading and spineless as you can get, unless of course you enjoy watching other guys fucking your woman, making her cum, and blowing loads inside of her. What if one of these dudes fucks her better than you ever have? I don't think she will respect you after you let her get gangbanged. Only one dick ever enters my woman, and I will have it no other way. I'd stick with the toys if i were you.

That is the response of a very insecure man.

Telling the woman in your life she can "not" do what she fantasizes about (if that is her fantasy) is just controlling sutff.

No need to argue about it, but unfortunately there are still a lot of men who feel oppressing women is the only way to live.

How is it oppressing women if the man doesn’t want his girl to get gangbanged by a bunch of horny dudes?? There are boundaries in relationships and if you’re fine with crossing that line then you’re not in a real relationship.

because if she truly wants to try a DP, then saying "you cant do it because i said so" is oppressing her sexuality. That is not really in question.

Also, lets be honest, most men are comfortable getting 3 somes with another girl and their partner but somehow having a guy help with a DP is a bad thing. It boils down to insecurity.

I find it fascinating people are on a website dedicated to women having their DP and DAP fantasies fulfilled and yet they could never do that in their personal life.

swinging and sexual fantasies are not for everyone; but don't hide behind some false sense of "I am alpha you are beta" . People who actually are alpha males don't have to tell anyone that, they just are who they are. People who have to proclaim it generally are putting on a front and are insecure as fuck.

Just my opinion having spent a long time exploring sexuality, womens desires and mens desires, and seeing how everyone handles it.

you have got a big problem in your hands if you love and are in love with her. if she told you that she is tire of dildos and she wants gangban. you are not her friend so she did not confide this to you she literally told you that what you are doing to her is not amusing anymore. if you don't tuneup to her desires she will cheat on you till she dump you. if you don't have the guts to allow her to gangbang just keep on doing what you are doing till it ends. if you want to be her fuck friend then make arrangements fo make it happen, talk to her about it make her confide in you by bifriendingher making and showing that you are 100% into it [ when you guys are together go online and talk to strangers about participating in her first gangbang, showing picture of her and asking for cock pictures od the strangers and all the questions that goes along with it] you will be amazed at all the things she will confide to you and probably learn that all the guys are just around the corner......i feel sorry for you it is a hurt hurt situation, leave her now and save yourself al the misery that is coming down your way. i see that all her holes are available but your mind and soul is not....will you do us the honor of showing a picture of this adorable babe. keep us posted......my advice to you is gangbang her and see where it will lead cause she certainly might feel secure with you. and no matter what don't get mad and let your feelings dominate reality.

Ugh, reading the comments was just ugh. That's why I will probably never will do gangbang or threesome, cause the majority of people are a bunch of judgmental blockheads, I can't imagine to participate in a group sexual activity with such people.

Tokadoka_Dokatoka wrote:Ugh, reading the comments was just ugh. That's why I will probably never will do gangbang or threesome, cause the majority of people are a bunch of judgmental blockheads, I can't imagine to participate in a group sexual activity with such people.

The foolishness on display here is captivating in it's own way. In that it perfectly illustrates what's wrong with most liberal thinking these days. In that - people have to make themselves purposefully retarded in order to think within it's confines.

At no point were the people who were against the guy going through with the gangbang against the activity itself. They were going against it in that particular situation.

What situation is that, you may ask? Seeing as you obviously didn't before replying in such a manner.

The situation of a relationship.

For the uninitiated (re: liberal whores who've never actually been in a serious relationship because their worldview of people is so broken that the most a partner, or anyone, can be properly trusted with is in providing immediate sexual gratification) - a relationship is a process through which both parties share the most intimate parts of themselves (not their private parts - but their souls) - and through this process, grow closer together in a bond that, when ultimately successful, has both people transform into a singular soul that lives through both of them.

Now - a part of that process is the sharing of body parts. That exchange, outside of what the liberal worldview has poisoned people with, is a sacred trust with one another, a giving of the "key" to the other person's door.

Now, when you bring in outside partners into a "relationship," the bounds of what makes that relationship an actual relationship start to get hacked apart. There are roles people fill in that partnership, and those roles are usually what the person is looking for in the other person. The woman wants a man who can take care of her (sexually and otherwise), and the man wants a woman with whom he can share a sacred and mutual trust with.

When the man openly admits that he cannot provide his role in the relationship - and the woman, likewise, feels the same - everything is going to go to shit.

Like, in a future scenario, when they're making love again, and the woman obviously isn't enjoying herself in the same way as when one of her friends was fucking her, you know, in front of her boyfriend, that's going to register with him.

And what at first is subtle - obviously comes to the surface pretty quickly. He will make an inquiry as to what's the matter, and the girl will most likely make a request or reference the other guy. Well ... in this instance ... the sacred bond that is supposed to be shared between them is broken. And she will forever remind him of it.

The minute the friend comes around again - she will talk to him in a different tone than that of the boyfriend - and the boyfriend will pick up on it. He will essentially have transformed from the "boyfriend" into the "beta cuck" - and, hey! Who knows. Maybe that's what he really wants.

But if it isn't - and even if he just goes along with it - whatever this new arrangement is ... isn't a relationship.

You know - based on the actual definition of the word.

If we were talking about a non-involved girl that wanted to go out and get gangbanged - then - sure! That's her choice.

But - within this specific scenario - there are obvious ramifications.

The people here raising objections to the boyfriend allowing this aren't doing so because they have something against the act in and of itself - but are just bringing up the damage the act will do to the relationship the boyfriend currently has - and how it will morph it (in not good ways) going forward.

You see - that requires holding two separate pieces of information at the same time - and being able to see where they intersect and where they don't.

In short, you can't be a fucking moron in order to understand that the people in here don't have anything against the act, but how it applies to this particular situation.

hyapet wrote:Like, in a future scenario, when they're making love again, and the woman obviously isn't enjoying herself in the same way as when one of her friends was fucking her, you know, in front of her boyfriend, that's going to register with him.

Interesting, you write so much about relationship, but seem to deny that making love isnt only sex, but giving body and soul.
Therefore she still can enjoy her boyfriend the same as before, as making love isnt just sex. But gangbangs are just sex and noting more, nothing attached, neither love nor soul.

This is one of those things where I can’t help being of two minds.

I can imagine a relationship with a woman where I could never deny a sexual her a sexual experience, no matter how uncommon/extreme, especially if the desire was purely sexual and not actually a negative expression about some part of our relationship. I can imagine if we were able to keep it private, so it was something only we knew about, or cared to know about, meaning other participants were essentially anonymous before and afterward, I could see myself enjoying the hell out of it.

But let me say this, that level of trust in a relationship is hard to come by. And I use the word “trust” advisedly. Fuck “love” and “making love” and “my woman” and all that bullshit. (That stuff comes and goes, and if you see a woman as your property, forget it.) That kind of trust comes from standing with a person for a long time, having them sacrifice much of themselves your behalf and vice versa, being willing to suffer on their behalf. Experiences such as long illnesses; either their own or a family member, financial stresses, living and dying with each other’s successes and failures etc.

Honestly, if you are still calling this person, my girl,” I doubt you and she have a long enough path behind you. Just sayin’.

dap-addict wrote:Interesting, you write so much about relationship, but seem to deny that making love isnt only sex, but giving body and soul.
Therefore she still can enjoy her boyfriend the same as before, as making love isnt just sex. But gangbangs are just sex and noting more, nothing attached, neither love nor soul.

Well, if a guy and a girl allow third party member(s) to come and be part of their sexual experiences, then it isn't really a relationship by the traditional standard. And yes, that does matter.

Then it becomes more of a "fuck-buddy" or "friends with benefits" situation. Why?

Because both people will always have certain ideas about what they want a relationship to be and what they consider one to be. It isn't about anybody being right or wrong - it's about two people who are compatible finding each other.

What almost always has to occur, though, is for the two people to be "exclusive" sexually. Else, it isn't a relationship. As much as we would like to believe that things such as marriages and relationships are just "social constructs" that can be as easily taken apart as they are put together, there's a reason these particular constructs have lasted as long as they have through the course of history.

Regardless of what LetaHobeaHo said above me, it's not so much as viewing the other person as "your property," as it is in sharing an understanding with one another that [B}only you two can share.[/B] That extends to the physical as much as to the spiritual as much as to the social. It's not so much that the girl is "his girl" like she's a piece of property, just as it isn't that he's "her man" in so much that he's a piece of property. It's that both people have entered an agreement that they will be exclusive.

That's what a relationship is.

If you don't have the physical bond, that only you two share, then whatever other bonds you have with each other, be they social or spiritual, could better be defined as "friends."

Or else, at some point in the "fuck-buddy-ship" that's pretending to be a relationship, there will come a moment in which people that are actually in a committed relationship would share, but which will cause division between the two.

Maybe the roof needs fixing on the girl's house. And she asks one of the guys plowing her (pick any one of them) who isn't you to do the job. You ask why. "Well," she'll respond, "He's stronger and has actual job experience doing roof-work." A completely valid argument. But a complete side-lining of the traditional role the man would have in the relationship.

And these kind of things can only happen so many times until one side has to be chosen or the other.

Either the man or the woman will get upset that "the relationship" isn't adhering to the "traditional rules" (you know, the ones they would actually expect in a traditional relationship), at which point, they'll have to either acknowledge that they weren't following the traditional rules from the start (thus - it's not a relationship), or they'll have to make changes that address the core root of the problem (those typically being exclusivity).

And when the physical isn't exclusive like everything else is - these problems will keep getting run into. Women can be very conniving. If she thinks she can get the upper hand in a situation by pitting one of the men she's openly screwing against the other - she'll most likely do it. Is it because she's a naturally evil person? Not really. It's because while the traditional roles aren't being followed as in "a relationship" - then she won't naturally respect her partner like she would someone she's seeing exclusively. She wouldn't be pulling for that person, or expecting from that person, or helping that person, like she would with someone she's actively sharing her journey with.

The "boyfriend" (biggest quotes ever there) essentially just becomes another guy who's plugging her.

And somewhere along the line - the "boyfriend" (mega quotes) will either come to the understanding that his innate, survival-instinct, feels-it-in-his-bones needs aren't being met (you know - actual survival still being important to most people on an intrinsic genetic level, no matter how much they might try to fool themselves psychologically), or else he'll willingly become the cuck.

At which point - he isn't in a relationship.

Fucking five different dudes and saying you're in a relationship is the same as saying "I'm building a house" and then going home to play with legos.

You can maybe fool yourself for a bit - but the minute actual reality comes a knocking - the whole charade falls over.

Which is why everyone in here was advising the OP to be incredibly careful. Because if he actually considers her "his girlfriend" - and his entire being (survival instinct and all) is on board with that definition - then he's going to be in for one rude fucking awakening if he starts letting other dudes plough his "girlfriend."

All that "oh, that's what she really wants," bullshit either being a cover for knowing he cannot satisfy her sexually and that the relationship is on faulty ground anyways, or that he's realizing she's always been a gigantic ho now, and is wondering if giving into some of his own sexual fantasies before the thing falls apart would be that bad of an idea.

Either way - the minute some other guy starts fucking his "girlfriend" - no matter how else you wanna cut it - that relationship is over.

Slomak88 wrote:Me and my girlfriend play with toys sometimes end that my cock a dildo finish in her pussy and other toy in ass.we tryed 2 vibrators and me in pussy. What do you mean she wants to be gangbanged ? I m afraid that this can have affect on our relationship if we try this.What is your opinion or experience?

If you have a high energy, sexual, and open relationship...it is no problem. Can actually spice things up.

hyapet wrote:

dap-addict wrote:Interesting, you write so much about relationship, but seem to deny that making love isnt only sex, but giving body and soul.
Therefore she still can enjoy her boyfriend the same as before, as making love isnt just sex. But gangbangs are just sex and noting more, nothing attached, neither love nor soul.

Well, if a guy and a girl allow third party member(s) to come and be part of their sexual experiences, then it isn't really a relationship by the traditional standard. (...) It isn't about anybody being right or wrong - it's about two people who are compatible finding each other.

What almost always has to occur, though, is for the two people to be "exclusive" sexually. Else, it isn't a relationship.

Well, it's really fascinating read a porn user adhering to such traditional values like you have hyapet!
This said I completely dont agree with your definition of relationship. It sounds so old fashioned to me, and also suppressive for both partners needs and sexual dreams.

Slomak88 wrote:Me and my girlfriend play with toys sometimes end that my cock a dildo finish in her pussy and other toy in ass.we tryed 2 vibrators and me in pussy. What do you mean she wants to be gangbanged ? I m afraid that this can have affect on our relationship if we try this.What is your opinion or experience?

be carefull bro with the stds BRO

this married girl wanted gangbangs with strangerz and she got aids hahah

BE CAREFULL WITH AIDS BRO

Fill Dem Fackin holes

dap-addict wrote:

hyapet wrote:Well, it's really fascinating read a porn user adhering to such traditional values like you have hyapet!
This said I completely dont agree with your definition of relationship. It sounds so old fashioned to me, and also suppressive for both partners needs and sexual dreams.

Apologies for not having responded to this sooner. I somehow missed it. My bad.

You might be confusing condoning the act with naming it properly.

It seems to be an overtly liberal fetish to destroy conservative things. It's like, you want to have an "everything goes fuck buddy" partnership with anyone? Sure. Go for it. But using the word "relationship" in such a context just cheapens the main word itself.

It's kind of like why white people don't go up to black people and be like, "Hey! I'm black too!" It's like ... no. You're not.

A relationship has a certain implication to it. It means more than "the Universe decided to randomly put these two people in close proximity to one another."

Rather, it implies, that despite everything the Universe might try to do, these two people will ride it out together no ifs, ands, or secondary butts on the side. The "structure" of a relationship has certain identifiers to it. Like, the word "cheating" can be implied during a relationship. What is cheating? It's when one partner goes and has sexual relations with someone other than the person they're in a relationship with. If that shit's allowed - then - it isn't a relationship anymore. One of the key identifiers of qualifying it as such has disappeared, and so, therefore, the definition must not be used.

Or else, what could consist of a relationship? What could consist of a marriage for that point? I could say, "I met someone in a hotel bar one night for some drinks, we found out we're not compatible with one another, decided to go our own ways, and never met again. She's my wife."

Someone would then naturally ask, "But ... you said you went your own ways ... did you meet up later and get married?"

"No," I would reply, "I never saw her again."

"But then ... how is she your wife?"

"Well," I would say, "I consider her as such. I call her my wife. That's all that matters."

"But ..." the person would respond, "You don't really know each other, you only met once, you ... never even got married! How can she be your wife?!"

"As I said," I would reply, "I consider her as such. Why would your definition of the term matter? I have a different idea of what a wife is - and you can't tell me that I'm wrong."

Just that ...

You can tell me that I'm wrong. Why?

Because for words themselves to have any meaning - they have to, get this, actually mean something!

So ... no.

This openly fucking a whole bunch of different people are not relationships.

Relationships have weight, and stakes, and have people prohibiting their actions they might otherwise take because they care for somebody other than just themselves (oh shit, eh?). That's why, as I just said, relationships have weight. The term itself has weight. It implies that a rather difficult and tricky undertaking has occurred, and that trickiness and difficulty is what gives both the act, and the word representing it, actual meaning.

Even though I am conservative in nature - my conservatism isn't hard-lined into everything I am or do. I am ... talking to you on a porn forum where the pornography being produced, at one point, had a girl take six cocks up her ass at the same time.

That being said - I am a stickler for representing reality as it actually is.

There's a million words to describe what liberal "we have sex with everyone" people do. Situationships. Fuck-buddies. Hooker-diving. You name it - there are a million terms for it.

Just let the conservatives have their one fucking word that describes the thing they like to do. Don't rob it. Don't shit over it. Don't redefine. Just leave it alone.

Because doing otherwise doesn't portray some kind of "open-mindedness" that "everything can be anything if we want it to be." Rather, it portrays nothing but regret.

It's like, "This is honestly the situation I would rather be in, but I'm not there. So I'm going to pretend that I am, and then ask that everyone else to act like I'm there as well. And then, maybe by some miracle, if everyone is pretending that I'm doing the thing I'm not actually doing, I'll somehow trick myself into believing I am, and not be as miserable with the choices I made as this current vain attempt to escape said reality seems to be proving I am."

So - no.

People fucking other people aren't in a relationship.

They might try to fool themselves into thinking that, but that's either the side-effects of weakness or stupidity.

You want to go around fucking a whole bunch of randoms - or form some kind of kink club? Go nuts. Seriously. Go for it. You do you.

Just don't pretend with everyone that's there that you're all thinking about getting married with one another in some massive group wedding. Shit doesn't work like that. Reality doesn't work like that.

And the words we use ... should reflect reality.

I can only speak for myself. I cannot imagine being romantically involved with more than one partner at a time, but at the same time I can very well imagine being open towards a multitude of sexual encounters with others while being in that relationship that are, on an emotional level, meaningless.

Obviously this requires a level of trust and emotional stability and none of the involved partners should be prone to jealousy, but it can work. This is very distinct from anything along the lines of the post-modern incarnation of polyamory, which if I am not mistaken, no one in this thread has advocated for.

You seem to assume everyone is either liberal or conservative, when many and I count myself amongst them resolutely reject both of these ideologies, which in the end share more in common than each of them would like to admit.

Namely in so far as in the end, both conservatives and liberals in spite of having somewhat different visions on how to go about this, are merely competing over who is best qualified to run the bourgeois democratic state and thusly can't even begin to address the problems humanity is facing at large, either within their borders or on a global scale. The inane culture wars just obfuscate that fact and are an unnessary distraction from said impotence to really change things on a fundamental level within this framework.

hyapet & Anselm_Weinberg + two serious intellectual heavyweights here.

Total respect to both, mind you having lived most of my life in the 'free' west, I settle more in the formers camp.

Nonetheless. full respect to both.

Some extremely well written, and well thought out posts there.

I think you can have sex with more than one partner at any one time, but you can only really focus on having a real relationship with one female partner at a time.