• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

A Question for Straight Guys

Go to CruxDreams.com
I have a bit of a different take about this.

I love seeing a woman being used by several men, but I don't see myself participating. The reason I think is that I wouldn't want to have to share the attention, but at the same time the sight of a woman being dominated in such a way is very erotic to me.

So in short, it's a nice show but I wouldn't care to be in it.
 
I will agree that it is a "human" problem.

There is an argument against the development of sex robots that goes something like this. A strong component of human relations is based on the biological drive to reproduce (we are taking out of the equation the desire for sex that can not cause reproduction). That biological drive is what makes us "risk" the pitfalls of interacting\developing a relationship with someone who can help us reproduce. By fulfilling the biological need for sex but without the risks of a relationship we are setting up the species for it's own destruction.

In effect the sexual use of slaves alleviates the "relationship" factor but in reality the owing of slaves was a relative luxury and for the vast percentage of the species to quench their biological lust they had to risk relationships so it was never a danger to the species.

Hey, I'm a capitalist, if you can make some money fulfilling a need go for it. It is the "need" itself that sometimes causes me problems.

kisses

willowfall
Speaking from a psychological point of view there is a theory out there called theory of needs by Abraham Maslow. There are three needs I think that relate to what you are saying: physical, safety, and relationship. The physical need is obvious because every person has a need to fulfill their sexual desire on the physical level but that level can vary person to person. Having sex with another person could create a feeling of safety because it could produce a feeling that the person they had sex with is a person they trust and can go to in times of danger. The relationship need I think is also easy to explain itself because human begins feel the need to interact with other people and the level of that interaction could be an intimate one if both agree to it and how they choose to do it .
 
I love seeing a woman being used by several men, but I don't see myself participating. The reason I think is that I wouldn't want to have to share the attention, but at the same time the sight of a woman being dominated in such a way is very erotic to me.

So in short, it's a nice show but I wouldn't care to be in it.
On an analogous note, two guys and a girl are among my primary wetdaydreams, in these configurations.

4946F91B-C1FE-4757-A4AC-54B9AC17CB35.gifAE343E61-6621-4E14-B7E5-A037BFFA86DD.gif

But thinking back on my circle of twenty-and-thirty something friends, including boyhood buddies, I simply would not have had the nerve to get naked in front of any of them. :rolleyes:
 
Any kind of sexual desire or fantasy is by definition out of whack. Only people respecting strict celibacy are not out of whack, and even that is debatable, since their stance that they deprive themselves from it, is a kind of whackiness either.
Especially when they pray for strength for persevering their abstination, kneeled under a representation of a naked crucified man.

Sadly some whackers think their 'out of whack' is the 'normal' out of whack, and they want to impose it to all, even by law.
The term "out of whack" is another version of perverse/perverted/perversion, and those are 3 words I hate, because they are subjective and relative to whatever one considers to be 'normal', and infers something 'wrong' or 'evil'. Having a fetish is neither one.
 
Non-reproductive sex? What a shocking idea!!!
Sex is always and exclusively about reproduction. Otherwise you would get people using contraceptions, doing it oral or anal, doing it with partners of the same sex, doing it alone or even (what a ridiculous idea!) on the internet. No, no! Every sperm is sacred! (Sarcasm off).

'The drive for reproduction' is just a relic of prissy 19th and 20th century bigotry in science.
It is repeated over and over (in it's more modern variant 'the desire to spread one's genes) by biologists who still feel they cannot dare to use the words 'sex' and 'enjoyment' in scientific papers.
Watch a BBC documentary and you will inevitably hear "The alpha male lion wants to spread his genes ...yakayka..."
.No! He doesn't He doesn't even know or care that genes exist. He just wants to put his lion's dick into a yummie loin's cunny. And that's it.
A classic (and most probably intentional and ideology driven) confusion of cause and effect.

Your example with all those non-reproductive driven variants of sex is spot on.

Humanities are quite a step further there, than natural sciences, but still far behind art and advertising ...
 
And before anybody gets upset you'll see in a moment why only straight guys can really answer the question.

There is an awful lot of porn out there which depicts multiple guys doing one girl (gang rape, double penetration. etc.) yet when I was dating men not one of them ever suggested the 3some with another guy. And in SL, despite most furniture being able to handle it, I've never encountered guys who wanted to do the 'many-on-one-girl' thing. In fact I've had perspective partners get upset when the it is suggested by another guy so they can share the prisoner\slave girl instead of waiting.

So then why is this type of porn so popular?

And before you suggest it is a “woman's” fantasy, better than 95% of porn is produced for a male audience and this type of porn constitutes way over 5% of all existing porn.

And before I am asked, YES I have gang rape fantasies but remember that I am a sub who has a high tolerance for and enjoys pain, most of my fantasies are set in a ancient\medieval context and I get off on them because of the feeling of helplessness, the humiliation and the pain I imagine it would cause not out of 'normal' sexual desires.

And while all are welcome to chime in I don't feel bi-sexual guys can truly answer this question because they do find other men sexually attractive and gay guys, well let's face you aren't after pussy.

So fire away kids.

kisses

willowfall
What an interesting question. I’m basically heterosexual yet my sub/slave fantasy overrides gender preference. Does that make me bi? I dunno, I’ve been married to my Mistress/wife for 30 years (and our relationship is mostly vanilla) yet Master says I’m not gay, even when I suck cock…

Getting back to your question- I tend to enjoy such porn by imagining myself in the woman’s position. For my kink it is intensely erotic to think of being raped by multiple men, even though I have no great love for cock, especially not being penetrated. It is the degradation/dominated theme that gets me off…

The two times Mistress wife and I tried a threesome with another man, it just felt like the other man getting his rocks off on her and to me didn’t fit what I thought a threesome might be, just 2 on 1. She never wanted to do it again, I don’t think either one was interested in really giving her pleasure, so seemed pointless.

So yeah, I don’t like it as a male perspective group fucking a single female, I have zero interest in watching a man doing that either. But I can enjoy it imagining myself as the woman in particular.

In fact I watch a lot of kinky porn where the victim is a woman and absolutely love it - I can imagine myself as the slave girl OR a male slave being similarly punished.

If it’s a group sex thing that involves bondage and whips/canes/devices with several men penetrating a woman (or man, but women are more aesthetically pleasing even when I’m imagining myself in there place) Then I’ll probably love it.

But just vanilla consensual group sex with several men- yeah not interested.

I’m unsure if I fit the standard definition of heterosexual, @willowfall but as you see my answer is slightly complex, but it only really works if my kink as a sub/slave gets triggered. Otherwise both in Real Life, and as porn, I’m not interested…
 
Non-reproductive sex? What a shocking idea!!!
Sex is always and exclusively about reproduction. Otherwise you would get people using contraceptions, doing it oral or anal, doing it with partners of the same sex, doing it alone or even (what a ridiculous idea!) on the internet. No, no! Every sperm is sacred! (Sarcasm off).

'The drive for reproduction' is just a relic of prissy 19th and 20th century bigotry in science.
It is repeated over and over (in it's more modern variant 'the desire to spread one's genes) by biologists who still feel they cannot dare to use the words 'sex' and 'enjoyment' in scientific papers.
Watch a BBC documentary and you will inevitably hear "The alpha male lion wants to spread his genes ...yakayka..."
.No! He doesn't He doesn't even know or care that genes exist. He just wants to put his lion's dick into a yummie loin's cunny. And that's it.
A classic (and most probably intentional and ideology driven) confusion of cause and effect.

Your example with all those non-reproductive driven variants of sex is spot on.

Humanities are quite a step further there, than natural sciences, but still far behind art and advertising ...

Boy you are sooooo off base here. And is is based on the modern (and not so modern) hubris that somehow humans are 'above' (created in the image of God) nature.

We are animals with brains. Thank evolution for that one because without tools as predators we suck and as prey animals we'd be wiped out.

kisses

willowfall
 
Boy you are sooooo off base here. And is is based on the modern (and not so modern) hubris that somehow humans are 'above' (created in the image of God) nature.

We are animals with brains. Thank evolution for that one because without tools as predators we suck and as prey animals we'd be wiped out.

kisses

willowfall
Did you read more than the first three lines?
 
Non-reproductive sex? What a shocking idea!!!
Sex is always and exclusively about reproduction. Otherwise you would get people using contraceptions, doing it oral or anal, doing it with partners of the same sex, doing it alone or even (what a ridiculous idea!) on the internet. No, no! Every sperm is sacred! (Sarcasm off).

'The drive for reproduction' is just a relic of prissy 19th and 20th century bigotry in science.
It is repeated over and over (in it's more modern variant 'the desire to spread one's genes) by biologists who still feel they cannot dare to use the words 'sex' and 'enjoyment' in scientific papers.
Watch a BBC documentary and you will inevitably hear "The alpha male lion wants to spread his genes ...yakayka..."
.No! He doesn't He doesn't even know or care that genes exist. He just wants to put his lion's dick into a yummie loin's cunny. And that's it.
A classic (and most probably intentional and ideology driven) confusion of cause and effect.

Your example with all those non-reproductive driven variants of sex is spot on.

Humanities are quite a step further there, than natural sciences, but still far behind art and advertising ...

Why is reproduction (or at least its opening stages) so much fun? Perhaps because many species that had the biggest drive to reproduce ultimately outperformed others in the region. The lion doesn't understand the specifics of his digestive system, either, but he still eats, and it has a purpose.
 
There are a lot of things that are enjoyable in a fantasy that are a sticky, off-putting logistical mess in reality, even with a director and staff running interference.

I can certainly see the appeal of multiple men sexually engaging with a woman, and either (depending on one's inclinations) overwhelming her with sexual sensations or pushing her past her ability to endure the onslaught. The engagement of multiple people furthers the sense of a sexual experience becoming a rising thing with momentum that's beyond any single person's ability to stop or contain (whatever the reality might be... Safe words, folk!)

Realistically speaking, I really don't want to engage with another man's parts or fluids. Or the increased possibility of accidentally disengaging because of out-of-sync rhythms. Or deal with one more person's judgment, or opinion of how things "should" go.

As a friend once commented, "Two women? Sure. Two men...? I would have to really be into the woman."

If I was partnered with someone who it was their fondest sexual fantasy, I would consider it, after a lot of careful negotiation. Fortunately, if it's among my partner's fantasies, she's never chosen to share it.
 
Agree with many comments made here about the domination implied in this scene

Going a bit more to the extreme side, I would say that this kind of scenes could resemble a pack of hunters sharing their prey... she is defenseless, she´s only there to satisfy their lust... they play with her, she is more a thing than a human being, something to use, to enjoy... no matter if she is enjoying it or not, better if not ...and when they saciate their lust, she is discarded, useless... her face covered in cum from them, her Masters...
 
Last edited:
I've had an experience with "roasting a pig". It was.... well... stressful for three of us. Not the best experience in my life, but it was about 10 years ago. Now.... well, lets try it again ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom