I think that it's a good question, Grim.

Given that you're all anonymous here, how about some of you guys who so vigorously defend the male participants in the Christchurch gang bang/circle jerk "bun" answer it? Unlike the cowardly Sharks who haven't owned up, you can do so without threat to your reputations, marriages, jobs etc.

Is it the kind of thing you'd actually do (or have done), or is it something you think is OK for other guys to do - i.e. a fantasy?

I'm genuinely interested.

*So they have been paying her money to keep quiet. Hush money?*

Sharkfin, you should have read Belly's thread, we covered all this
at the time. No, it is the NZ Compensation Commission or whatever
they call it. If you can show that you are suffering, they will
pay you up to 80% of your wages. Sounds like she is still cashing
in.

*I checked it carefully and I’m pretty sure that it was a different woman. *

Not so, according to the links. I'd have to go back through Belly's
thread to find them. If the story really interests you, read that
thread, but its pretty long and went on for days and days.

*And if your mate was having private sex in there with a girl would you also not have apologised and backed out of the room unless you knew your mate had previously agreed to your participation.*

What, with two of them going with one girl? You don't seem to
know much about young blokes, for that kind of situation brings
out the larrikan in along of guys and anything can happen. These
were young guys, full of energy, away from home, away together as
a touring group. Blokes cut loose in that kind of situation.
They are there to have fun after all.

Grim I'll take your question seriously.

I don't like the descriptions of the incident that I've heard. It all seems very grubby and as CJ pointed out on another thread the circle jerk has tones of homoerotic behaviour to it.

I'd not want to take part in one. I've also got no interest in anal sex but I accept that if consenting adults choose to do it it's not my business. I don't much like abortion but I accept that adults should have control over what they do with their own bodies.

I don't see what consistant framework can let me condem what appears to be a consentual gang bang and at the same time stand up for the rights of gays and the right of women to abortion. It took a long time and a lot of risk and effort by many people to get the wowsers out of other peoples bedrooms and womb's and it's very concerning to see to surrender that freedom again.

Humans with freedom will make choices which may not be in their best interests. They will make choices which I find distastefull and or damaging. They will make choices which they regret later. That's all part of being human. The alternative where those "who know what's best for us" having control is a far more frightening prospect.

R0bert

Sharkfin, it was assuredly the same girl with the two footballers in the toilet cubicle earlier. The manager of the pub made the point that she had been told that as a staff member she was forbidden from fraternising with customers, which she apparently chose to ignore.

Have you read Dr Cannold's piece on "regret" yet, or are you too busy trying to confuse the issue to think about it?

Grim, I've nevertaken part in group sex, but not necessarily because I didn't want to, more for lack of willing partners...

I've also had one g/f who wanted anal sex which I couldn't quite bring myself to indulge in and another who told me in no uncertain terms before we ever went to bed that anal sex was not on the menu. Who was "right"? ditto with sex during menstruation: I've known women who loved a "raspberry dip" and others who couldn't stand being touched. Most women I've bedded never mentioned the subject of "deviant" sex and nor did I.

I have a 12 year old daughter who will have different attitudes to sexuality than I do and she will have to learn to negotiate her own sexual boundaries with her partners. All I can do is advise her as to what I believe is appropriately self-protective behaviour and leave the rest to her. Ditto for my son.

The thing is that the sexual urges or appetites of one person are no guide to what may work for another. Most specifically, the repressed sexuality of the New Wowsers like Fractelle, CJMorgan, pynchme and others should not determine the right of others to behave differently.

The rise of Feminism has seen a concomitant increase in authoritarian, prescriptive legislation. The more I see of it, the more I think Orwell should have referred to "Big Nanna".

Grim here is a link to a survey

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/women-embrace-group-sex-survey-20090526-blpi.html

Anti, I love that Big Nana bit. It is humorous.

"It took a long time and a lot of risk and effort by many people to get the wowsers out of other peoples bedrooms and womb's and it's very concerning to see to surrender that freedom again.

Humans with freedom will make choices which may not be in their best interests...."

I wonder whether, down the track, those that participated in activities like abortion and gang bangs will think that the wowsers were right after all? I think it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

These questions of individual freedom are, of course, important to humans in terms of their ability to learn and grow as individuals. But I believe freedoms ahould be limited to doing things that don't hurt others. Abortions do truncate another's life and gang-bangs sometimes do humiliate people. For instance, did the Third Reich have the right to try and mould Europe into its own image? Up to a point, until they crossed the Polish border with military force. If we believe you Yabby (from the NRL thread), their righteous enthusiasm all came from their Aryan genes. But did that make the activity acceptable? Certainly not. If it's not acceptable, then something surely has to be done about it, because it could be anyone else that is the next victim. By doing nothing after becoming aware of such problems, society is effectively condoning them.