Conclusion
In the preceding chapters, we have been allowed to venture into the strange, and sometimes unfamiliar world of gang sex. And if we were to draw any preliminary conclusion from the variety of cases reported upon, it would be this: that although it may indeed be an unfamiliar world, it is not, like "the dark side of the moon," a barren and uninhabited world. Instead, it is inhabited by a population that is increasing daily. It is a world that is being ventured into enthusiastically by peoples of all types, and from the entire socio-economic spectrum.
As a matter-of-fact, the term "gang sex" is no longer accurate because that term falsely implies multiple sex activity limited to youthful street gangs. And, while we have seen that the deprivations of the underprivileged often serve as a triggering mechanism for release sought in sex with the gang, it has also been made more than clear in some of the foregoing case histories that the same activity-call it group sex, plural sex, multiple sex, or what you will-is now occurring in places where a gang as such would never before have been tolerated.
Must we coin a more refined phrase for gang bang because the banging has moved out of the dark streets and alleys that were the gang's domain? Does the gang bang become group sex when it moves into respectable suburbs, into elegant, high-priced apartment buildings catering entirely to swinging singles who desire sex with several partners simultaneously? Has the gang bang achieved a respectability of its own, sufficient for us to call it plural sex?
In any case, multiple-choice sex is so much a part of today's sexual scene that sociologists, marriage counselors, religious leaders and psychiatrists offer opinions-either constructive or critical-on this growing phenomenon. Many of the reasons for this proliferation of "Let's-all-get-in-the-act" sex have been reflected in the case histories we have examined. Boredom in an age of affluence; close contact among those of the same ethnic background, especially the underprivileged; an escape valve opened after several generations of Victorian sex taboos; providing the teen-ager with an automobile for mobility and privacy, and money in his pocket for liquor and drugs; and, finally, the rejection of the "establishment" by the hippies in favor of communal living and loving; all of these have contributed to the overall condition.
There are also some who use plural sex as a means to an end; such as the bullfighter and the young actor whose sexual activities were recounted in the book. Similarly, the drug addict who participated in plural sex as a means to finance her habit.
Then, of course, there are those who desire plural sex merely as an end in itself. In such cases, it provides an escalation of pleasure to those husband and wives who, having tired of each other, turn to another person, and to several persons, in order to be sexually satisfied. The indications are that more and more of these friendly-couples-next-door are indulging in collective sex as a welcome change from a mate who may be an ideal husband or wife in every area except sex.
In the opinion of some sexologists, plural sex is-directly or indirectly-related to many recognized perversions. The satyr and the nymphomaniac, both of whom are examples of an extreme sexual drive which can never be completely satisfied, may become convinced that by multiplying their sources of stimulation they may eventually achieve sexual gratification. The sadists and mas-ochists also have intricate and complex means of stimulation which may frequently require several participants.
The connection between plural sex and perversion is, by those standards, so closely drawn that one begins to wonder whether multiple sex activity is, in itself, a perversion. Perhaps Dr. Benjamin Morse's definition of perversion indicates the answer. "The most adequate definition is," he states, "that a perversion is a preferred form of sexual activity in which sexual tensions are resolved in a manner other than heterosexual coitus."
This, then, raises an interesting question. If we have concluded that an increasingly large segment of our population is engaging in plural sex activities out of preference; and if we accept Dr. Morse's definition of perversion, then does this mean that a growing portion of our so-called normal society is, indeed, perverted?
Perversion must be looked upon as a degree of sexuality rather than as a kind of sexuality. The line which separates the normal from the abnormal is very finely drawn. And while there has never been a really adequate definition of "normal," it must be presumed that any activity engaged in by the majority eventually becomes a part of the "norm." And today, millions of people prefer the increased stimulation of group sex. Those who are not already engaging in this activity, are at the very least, mindful and curious about it. And the next step beyond curiosity, often is involvement.