Is it truly a "gangbang", when. . . . ?

[supsim96]

the porn actress is not given a DP?

In my opinion, 5 men (or more) per woman is the requirement for a true GB . . . .

A maximum of only 2 or 3 cocks could get simultaneously served adequately by the mouth I'd say. If there's only one in the pussy, then that would leave at least 1-3 cocks "available" with one spare hole on display. If the actress does not take one up the old bung hole as well, then she's refusing to serve all the dicks made available to her, no?

A non-anal "gangbang" should be renamed a "multiple suck-off" in my view . . . . .

Any thoughts folks?

Cheers,

Si

[Floydoid]

I don't think it matters whether the girl gets it up the bunghole or not. As long as there at least 5 guys and each one gives her vaginal and probably oral as well then it's a gangbang. Anal is just a bonus.

[one eyed jack]

I would think the minimum of three guys on a girl could be considered a gang bang

[Jonone]

There's a 'gang' in attendance. I don't know what constitutes a gang legally or what legislation would pin it down. If you have a gang ( let's say it's a minimum of two people), wearing a large one, with a bird willing to be connected to the large one individually or simultaneously (providing that if it's individually the wearer of the second large one strokes it and grimaces in a lascivious manner) then you have a 'gang-bang' on your hands !

[planeterotica]

I always considered a gang bang to be 3 or more guys doing a girl, with the girls permission of course !wink!