Aliasing reverse_ganbang -> reverse_gangbang.

Reason: ganbang seems to be typo of gangbang

Do we really need this tag? I say alias both to gangbang.
Another thing, who would support a gangbang -> sex implication?

There are two completely different but related topics, actually. A gangbang is multiple males on one female. A reverse gangbang is multiple females on one male. The visual difference and the mental perception of each scenario is generally much, much different. As such, I say no to reverse_gangbang aliased to gangbang. I could see an implication for it if you want to use gangbang as both the metatag for it (as they are both technically gangbangs) and as the many-males-on-one-female description.

That said, go for the implication of gangbang > sex and reverse_gangbang > sex.

Maybe we could use group_sex as the metatag? Implicate orgy/gangbang/whatever to it and implicate group_sex to sex.

And yeah, implicate reverse_gangbang -> gangbang.

123easy said:
A reverse gangbang is multiple females on one male.
[...]

(as they are both technically gangbangs)

But...that's just a gangbang. "Gangbang" doesn't have anything in its definition that says it's only when a chick is getting boned by a dozen guys. A male can get gangbanged, too. And it's just "gangbanging," nothing reverse about it. To me, "reverse gangbang" sounds like it's one fucking a dozen, rather than a dozen fucking the one. I think it needs to be aliased to "gangbang."

And yes, imply sex.

RedOctober said: To me, "reverse gangbang" sounds like it's one fucking a dozen, rather than a dozen fucking the one.

And that's exactly it. One man fucking a dozen women is a reverse gangbang, rather than a dozen men fucking one woman which is just a regular gangbang. It's because (imo) of the primarily male-centric viewpoint involved.

Riversyde said:
Maybe we could use group_sex as the metatag?

A group sex metatag would be very nice to have, and I see nothing wrong with group_sex as the metatag.

123easy said:
And that's exactly it. One man fucking a dozen women is a reverse gangbang, rather than a dozen men fucking one woman which is just a regular gangbang. It's because (imo) of the primarily male-centric viewpoint involved.

And the male-centric view is exactly what I'm talking about. When I said one fucking a dozen, I mean like they're all lined up and the one is going at them. The images I see in "reverse_gangbang" look to me like a bunch of women fucking one man. Not one man fucking a bunch of women. It would be male-centric to assume that men fuck women, women get fucked. If the man has a dozen women on him, he's getting fucked by them in a gangbang. It's all about who is the top and who is the bottom. And when I say "top" and "bottom," I mean who is performing the action, and who is having the action performed on them. If you have multiple tops and one bottom, that's a gangbang.

post #54389: one male, a dozen women. But he's sitting there, they're the ones doing, he's receiving the action. It's a regular gangbang.

post #110941: same thing

post #97259: dude getting fucked by dudes. Regular gangbang. One bottom, multiple tops.

post #83573: ...poorly tagged, that's not even a threesome, as no one's doing anything.

post #31484: Now this is what I'd call a reverse gangbang. One top, multiple bottoms.

post #69262: Same.

I'm not arguing that the only time it's a reverse gangbang is if the top has several dicks, or several vaginae. Those are just the only ones I could find just now that fit the bill.

Aliased: reverse_ganbang -> reverse_gangbang.
Currently in the implication approval list:
gangbang -> group_sex
group_sex -> sex
orgy -> group_sex
reverse_gangbang -> gangbang

Another thing I wanted to ask before I make these, how about implying threesomes and the like to group sex?

threesomes and other group sex images under other names imply group_sex? Sounds smart.

RedOctober: No, here's the thing. If you look at the images where the guy isn't being a slut for other men (the dude getting fucked by other dudes where he's in the woman's position for a gangbang) and compare them, you'll see that the focus changes. During a reverse gangbang, the focus is to pleasure that one male. it an be a female, but that is much more rare. The woman aren't doing it for themselves, but for him. In the case of a regular gangbang, it's all about multiple people getting off by using one person, male or female. The cumdumpster might be satisfied by being used, but that's not the focus of it. The focus is on all the others getting off, and features women in the gangbanger's position far less than the gangbangee.

123easy said:
RedOctober: No, here's the thing. If you look at the images where the guy isn't being a slut for other men (the dude getting fucked by other dudes where he's in the woman's position for a gangbang) and compare them, you'll see that the focus changes. During a reverse gangbang, the focus is to pleasure that one male. it an be a female, but that is much more rare. The woman aren't doing it for themselves, but for him. In the case of a regular gangbang, it's all about multiple people getting off by using one person, male or female. The cumdumpster might be satisfied by being used, but that's not the focus of it. The focus is on all the others getting off, and features women in the gangbanger's position far less than the gangbangee.

I'm not sure I follow. "In the woman's position." There's that male-centric thing again.

Wait. Ok, I think I see what you're saying. It might be just a touch subjective, trying to work out whether the point is the dozen girls getting the guy off, or the dozen girls using the guy for their own pleasure. Even if they're not being physically stimulated. I'd say like post #110941, he looks sort of beset, like he's being used. Even though he came, the facial expressions to me look like the girls are using him.

I honestly don't care how that picture is tagged, I just bring that up to show how I mean it's a little subjective.

I look at that picture and don't see it as being beset; the multiple teardrops thing is a common manga-style... emoticon thingy... where it shows embarassment or fear. While the look on his face isn't exactly full on blush et al, I think we can safely say he's not afraid. If anything, I'd say he looks embarassed to be in that situation/have cum as much as he did.

Also, in this case all three girls are focussing their attention on giving him a threeway footjob. again, while they may derive pleasure from giving him a footjob- either vicariously through his moans, squeals, gasps, and other reactions, or through the physical contact- their pleasure isn't the focus here. His pleasure is.

you could switch this around and have three guys eating a girl out and I'd still call it a reverse gangbang, as the pelasure isn't on the men eating her out, but on the woman getting eaten out. It's just finding a female-centric reverse gangbang is very rare.

I do agree with Red in that the idea is rather sexist...

But that's what people look for. I can definitely understand why someone would want to see lots of guys doing one girl (or vice versa), so I think there should be some kind of distinction between the two scenarios.

It gets a little iffy with homo/bisexuality, though. So how does an image with one girl (very evidently) being dominated by a bunch of other girls get tagged? Or what if it's a bunch of guys on one guy? Or what if it's one guy being gangbanged by guys and girls? What if you have both a guy and a girl getting gangbanged by just men? Or what about them and just women? What about...

You see my point. Personally I lean towards aliasing reverse_gangbang to gangbang, then using the various gender and sexual orientation tags to refine searches. A straight guy might prefer seeing multiple girls on one guy, but I'm guessing it's not going to bug him too much if he clicks on the reciprocal situation by accident. Most users only get disgruntled when they accidentally run into one of the more extreme fetishes (scat, hyper, gore, etc.) that they actively try to avoid.

Bunch of guys on one guy: Is the guy getting gangbanged the focus- as in, are they all focussing on pleasuring him, by licking/touching/being fucked by him? Reverse_gangbang. Are they using him as a cumdumpster sort of gangbang? Just plain ol' gangbang.

One guy being gangbanged by guys and girls: Again, is the focus on the guys and girls getting pleasure by using the solo guy, or is it focused on the solo guy being pleasured by multiple partners? Former, gangbang. Laterr, reverse_gangbang.

Guy/girl comboo getting gangbanged- Orientation doesn't matter. Is the guy/girl combo getting pleasured by the guys,or are they being used to pleasure the guys? Former, reverse_gangbang. latter, gangbang. Same applies if it's women that are with the guy/girl combo.

Sexuality/orientation and gender have nothing to do with if it's a gangbang or a reverse gangbang. A gangbang is where a group use one for their pleasure, thus being group-centric pleasure. A reverse gangbang is where a group focuses on giving pleasure to one- singular-centric pleasure. Neither means that the other can't obtain pleasure from it, but it's not the -focus- of the image.

Using post #159980 as an example: The focus is on the king being pleasured by his slaves/servants, female and male alike. Because the focus is on him (the singular), even though the blushing and overall ambiance of the image looks like the three slaves/servants are enjoying themselves, it's a reverse gangbang.

Using post #157642 as an example, there is no focus- Everyone is participating with different members of the group, and as such there is no focus on a single individual, either for pleasuring that one or for being pleasured by that one. As such, it's a simple orgy, as there is no focus.

Using post #154424 as an example, the one male horse is being gangbanged by a group of male horses. As the focus is here not on him receiving pleasure but on giving it to all the others (the group) it is a gangbang.

Hope I've clarified this enough?

In the future, we really don't need "typo fix" aliases, unless they're really common typos or misspellings, like dachsund -> dachshund. If there's only one or two posts with a misspelling, you can just fix it.