As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Dear Women: What's Wrong with the Doggy-Style?

245678

Posts

  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ps:

    the movie was Knocked Up.

    it was shit

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    contribute or GTFO.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Explain the relevance of Knocked Up. I only saw it once, so I may have missed it.

    Or, as Cat says...GTFO.

    Dhalphir on
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    off to class i go then!

    I think it would only be demeaning if the man was going "OOHH YEAHHH" like hulk hogan or something.

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • Dulcius_ex_asperisDulcius_ex_asperis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Don't think it sounds demeaning. Never tried it, v. likely will in future. Am a woman.

    Dulcius_ex_asperis on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    I think it would only be demeaning if the man was going "OOHH YEAHHH" like hulk hogan or something.

    Yeah, that or my aforementioned "Yeeeee-hawwwww."

    But like I said, pretty much any position can be demeaning or degrading if a given partner decides to make it so...doggy style might be slightly more susceptible to this, but it's not like it's alone.

    I think part of it might be the hang-ups some women have with having sex for sex's sake...I've known a couple who tended to find any sex that was Luther-Vandross-style "sweet lovemaking" to be somewhat objectionable. Usually more of a "dirty" than "degrading" thing, but that's a fine line. And doggy style will almost always fall into this category.

    And I'm not just talking about fundies here...though they're probably a subset of this group. But society in general places some pretty fucked up expectations on sex (as has been discussed to death around here), and to somebody who thinks it's always supposed to be candles and satin sheets doggy style might freak them out.

    Though I'd like to hope that that would eventually fade with experience.

    mcdermott on
  • Dulcius_ex_asperisDulcius_ex_asperis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sex can't always be about reproduction. Personally, I think anyone who says they find other types of sex to be gross is probably not be entirely truthful with themselves. C'mon, it's supposed to be fun!

    Dulcius_ex_asperis on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited October 2007
    On the other hand it's not like there are extra points for doing craaaazy things and wild positions. This thread is silly, the inspiration for it was obviously Knocked Up, and the reasoning was stated in the film. The character doesn't like doggy style because she thinks it's demeaning to be fucked in the manner of the dog. I don't agree, but I can see the reasoning. Personally I hate it because it's ludicrously uncomfortable if you're taller than 5'4.

    Tube on
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sex can't always be about reproduction. Personally, I think anyone who says they find other types of sex to be gross is probably not be entirely truthful with themselves. C'mon, it's supposed to be fun!

    Limed for argument destructive power.

    If sex wasn't supposed to be fun then orgasms wouldn't be pleasurable.

    END OF THE FUCKING STORY.

    Take that, fundies.

    Dhalphir on
  • Dulcius_ex_asperisDulcius_ex_asperis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    i see what you did there.

    and i liked it.

    (even though it came from behind!)

    Dulcius_ex_asperis on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Some fundies hate it. Everyone else loves it. Moving on.

    Glyph on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Some fundies hate it. Everyone else loves it. Moving on.

    Except that you're wrong. Some people who are not fundies still have issues with it.

    EDIT: Mainly pointing this out because while this thread may have questionable merit, I don't really think we need another lolfundies thread.

    mcdermott on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    So we're going to pretend anyone else has a problem with it because you want to give the fundamentalists a breather?

    Glyph on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    So we're going to pretend anyone else has a problem with it because you want to give the fundamentalists a breather?
    Stop being a retard.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    So we're going to pretend anyone else has a problem with it because you want to give the fundamentalists a breather?
    What? Since when do fundies have the monopoly on hating sex?

    Hacksaw on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    So we're going to pretend anyone else has a problem with it because you want to give the fundamentalists a breather?
    Stop being a retard.

    Excuse me? All anyone has mentioned, including you Cat, is fundies hating the position/sex. We've ruled out feminists as being one of the primary haters, so who else is there? No, I'm serious.
    The Cat wrote:
    Its not a feminist position, but you'll see a lot of fundies getting pretty specific about what's okay and what's not wrt sexual conduct.

    I'm just summing up what everyone's said thus far.

    Glyph on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah, but accusing someone of coddling fundies by mentioning that other people dislike it for personal reasons is pretty stupid.

    I'd imagine the other main group with issues about sexual conduct would be assault survivors, a not-incosiderably sized group and one rather more difficult to poke fun at. Certainly not possible to do so without, you know, being a thorough ass.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If we're to include those who've become adverse to the notion sex or incapable of the act altogether, then yes, the range can be significantly broadened to include the mentally ill, paraplegics, those sworn to abstinence before marriage for whatever reason and so on and so forth.

    But then we're no longer referring specifically to the canine position of choice now are we?

    Glyph on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This thread is about to crash, get the parachutes.

    electricitylikesme on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    If we're to include those who've become adverse to the notion sex altogether or incapable of the act altogether, then yes, the range can be significantly broadened to include the mentally ill, paraplegics, those sworn to abstinence before marriage for whatever reason and so on and so forth.

    But then we're no longer referring specifically to the canine position of choice now are we?

    ...what

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    If we're to include those who've become adverse to the notion sex or incapable of the act altogether, then yes, the range can be significantly broadened to include the mentally ill, paraplegics, those sworn to abstinence before marriage for whatever reason and so on and so forth.

    But then we're no longer referring specifically to the canine position of choice now are we?

    ...what

    Alright, first clarify for me this: Are you suggesting that assault survivors are only against doggy style sex or does their experience make them uncomfortable with the notion of sex as a whole? Because of it's the latter, then I fail to see the relevance seeing as how their objection would run deeper than a specific sexual position.

    Glyph on
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    AI CANNAE HOLDE IT CAPPAN!!!

    uh. Some people are brought up to think that lots and lots of different types of sex is somehow dirty. Most people think at least some types of sex are dirty. Alot of culture teaches us that sex is supposed to be degrading for women.

    The line between hotness and goatse is transient, fleeting

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    If we're to include those who've become adverse to the notion sex or incapable of the act altogether, then yes, the range can be significantly broadened to include the mentally ill, paraplegics, those sworn to abstinence before marriage for whatever reason and so on and so forth.

    But then we're no longer referring specifically to the canine position of choice now are we?

    ...what

    Alright, first clarify for me this: Are you suggesting that assault survivors are only against doggy style sex or does their experience make them uncomfortable with the notion of sex as a whole? Because of it's the latter, then I fail to see the relevance seeing as how their objection would run deeper than a specific sexual position.

    His point makes sense.

    Although he did initially obscure it, so I think our collective confusion was warranted until this post.

    Dhalphir on
  • SolandraSolandra Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Werdna wrote: »
    No this isn't about what I've experienced or what everyone has experienced. I think it is worth discussion how some positions are considered gender oppressive and hyper-masculine-heteronormative-sexuality and some are not. I've heard too many of my friends and acquaintances (and once from myself) taking too much grief over the simple pleasure of having sex from behind.

    I'm willing to bet that's more about failure to reach-around than anything else.

    Bingo. I've been trying to figure out how doggy style could be demeaning, when it has the advantages of both people having a great deal of access to all of the woman's anterior erogenous zones, plus a very nice expanse of back and neck to be touched. The impression that it's "all about his pleasure" is a statement not about her experience, sexually, but his experience and creativity. Missionary variations, on the other hand, have many of the really interesting anatomical bits smooshed between you, even if they have the advantage of facial intimacy.

    Guys, c'mon - there's so much for you to work with! If - if - she's flexible, she can maybe reach your leg or scrotum, and that puts her at a disadvantage in the reciprocity department.

    As a note, if you're not aiming for vaginal intercourse, that is absolutely a conversation to have before the heat of the moment, since that can hurt like hell even when it's not a surprise. If you don't think she's worthy of having that conversation before hand, or if you think it would be cool to surprise her with other acts that are beyond the pale of "normal" then THAT could be considered demeaning - not because of the position, but because you don't respect her enough to actually talk to her.

    So: my ruling as a healthy female - doggy, missionary, sex in general = good. Lack of respect and communication = not worth my time.

    Solandra on
  • EriosErios Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    furiousNU wrote: »
    This isn't a troll thread is it? As a female, I have never heard this being a problem at all with the normal women I talk with. Also, most traditional hard ass feminists are far more concerned about "extreme" sexual acts like rape, gang bangs and some of the less tasteful porn that's out there rather then common sexual positions.

    Maybe the women you talked with don't have a lot of experience with the position or something. Or they're really young and don't have much sexual experience. I seriously can't think of why else they would have an issue with it.

    h5!

    Plus, you like it!

    Erios on
    Steam: erios23, Live: Coconut Flavor, Origin: erios2386.
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I have no problem with doggy style. It's not my favorite, as I am short and thus trying this position requires the creative (and somewhat precarious) use of pillows. But I can see how a woman in a less healthy relationship than mine might not like it - especially someone with trust issues? Or someone with similar anatomy to mine whose partner is less forthcoming with help getting off (via fingers/vibrator/whatever) - it's not an excessively comfortable position, especially if you're not getting anything out of it yourself.

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MeizMeiz Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I never considered it demeaning personally. As for the women I've been with, they've offered said position on more then one occasion. I mean, if it was demeaning, you'd think they'd avoid propping themselves in such a fashion in the first place.

    I'm still waiting for this topic to branch off into the territory of ATM

    Meiz on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Alright, first clarify for me this: Are you suggesting that assault survivors are only against doggy style sex or does their experience make them uncomfortable with the notion of sex as a whole? Because of it's the latter, then I fail to see the relevance seeing as how their objection would run deeper than a specific sexual position.

    okay: your questions really make no sense to anyone remotely familiar with the psychology of assault and abuse victims. I'm really not sure I can even have this conversation with you when you're making implied claims such as all assault victims react the same, or that assault victims can't/won't have sex again, or even that they're irreparably damaged, and I fail to see why their particular objections should be dismissed. What's your problem with the existence of people who might actually have a good reason to avoid this position? You're being very unneccessarily defensive of the act, as a lot of people in here are, and I don't think any of you are sitting back and taking the time to realise that just because you like it, doesn't mean anyone who doesn't is a lunatic. We manage to keep that sentiment out of every other thread about preference here, from food to books, why not the sex threads?

    The original post's ending question has a relatively simple answer: sex becomes demeaning when one of the participants acts to make it so.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Wandering StarWandering Star Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    One other thing I can think of that might disturb some women is the whole caveman dragging a woman off to his cave kind of connotation- since it's the way animals have sex, it could be seen as a more primitive thing. In other words, not an act where he cares about your pleasure or feelings or even whether you want to be doing it at all. I don't think I've ever met anyone who feels this way though, but I HAVE met guys who were afraid of women feeling this way.

    Also, if the guy only wants to do it this way and never face to face, it can be taken as more than just the lack of intimacy- the woman might start to worry that he never wants to see her face because he's always pretending she's someone else, or not even thinking of her as a person at all.

    Finally, I think there are still some people (probably mostly very young and inexperienced) who think that doggy style automatically = anal. Which is another issue entirely.

    Wandering Star on
    We can't play math rock in 4/4, dude.
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Speaking as a guy who has trouble getting off in other positions, alot of women do have trust issues in regards to doggy style. They also have insecurity regarding how they look from behind while in all their naked glory. Missionary obscures this as you only really see each others faces and to a lesser extent upper body. When the relationship matures and there is a level of trust, doggy style really isnt an issue.

    To quote an ex "I really dont usually like doggy style, but I trust you and do enjoy it with you."

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Finally, I think there are still some people (probably mostly very young and inexperienced) who think that doggy style automatically = anal. Which is another issue entirely.
    I have seen this. Holy Christ is that frustrating.

    And in regards to the OP I've been around a minority of people who thought it was dirty for no real good reason other than that's what they were brought up to believe. Though in all fairness most of those people were still pretty young.

    Quid on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This is all irrelevant. Sex isn't meant to be enjoyable anyhow. It's just for making babies. One man, one women, in the missionary. In fact, now that we can procreate without intercourse, we should stop having sex altogether. It's dirty and wrong. And no touching yourself either. Oh God don't let me find you touching yourself!

    I am kidding

    JamesKeenan on
  • DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    w t f

    Dynagrip on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Although there was mention made once about being insecure about how her ass looked -- which is pretty understandable.

    If her ass looks good enough for a bloke to want to stare at it while he's fucking her - shouldn't she be more concerned about how her face looks?

    Gorak on
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If a man or woman hates doggy style (because it's demeaning in their eyes, because the angle of entry is uncomfortable for them due to height difference or the way one or the other is built, because they fear that it leaves them vulnerable, whatever), they should discuss it.

    If their sex lives are otherwise open and satisfactory, are people really willing to break up due to a lack of doggy-style in their sex lives? While speaking from what we've seen in this thread, teenage - middle aged PA'ers seem to be all for it, I think we can agree that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone might feel uncomfortable, if they are they should say so.

    I couldn't point you to a site, but I've heard people state that they didn't like that position for whatever reason, and I have no problem with that. I consider it a regular part of a sexual relationship, and a vast majority of those I've spoken to are either equally satisified with it as a viable position, or prefer it for previously mentioned reasons.

    I have no statistics to back up my anecdotal experience, but after our last sexuality thread, can't we just agree that people need to communicate their wants and needs and let them work things out? Broaching the subject isn't always easy, but as far as 'things other than missionary' go, doggy-style is pretty tame.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • SpecularitySpecularity Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I have heard that some women find the position "demeaning," but I've also heard just as many women (or more) who loved it. However, I would definitely say the joy of that particular position depends a lot on the partner. It is NOT, actually, going to be riotously pleasurable for every woman -- it may be for some, but certainly not all (I'm not going to try and guess at numbers here), and so doggy style shouldn't be thought of as some sort of gift.

    I myself found it a bit difficult to enjoy, for a variety of reasons. There was certainly the concern about not being face-to-face with my partner, but all of those insecurities are surely because of other insecurities with that partner as well; that is, no one sexual position can have a profound impact on my life. In addition, the position just made me feel a bit helpless. If I'm trying to support myself on my arms I can't very well reach up and give -myself- a reach around if my partner isn't doing it for me! Also it made me feel a lot less in control about the speed and intensity of the thrusting, if you will, which can be very frightening for a girl who has experienced any pain there. Any of this discomfort can certainly lead to some level of feeling demeaned.

    But again, all of those insecurities rely heavily on the partner involved. Far be it from me to define all the sexual experiences one of those vocal women has had, but I am reasonably sure this opinion stems from many factors, rather than just the imagined effect of a sexual position.

    Specularity on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It's sex. whether it's demeaning or not depends on the participants, not the position.

    Fencingsax on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    What's your problem with the existence of people who might actually have a good reason to avoid this position?

    None whatsoever. But if you're going to talk psychology, I'd like to know what aspects of the position can become offensive and to what mindset. You say you're not sure you can even have this conversation with me when I'm making implied claims such as all assault victims react the same, or that assault victims can't/won't have sex again.

    I make no such claims. I merely inquire about the ones you claim have a problem with said sexual position. Don't mistaken my curiosity for incredulity. If you think my questions are unfairly phrased or assume a false premise, tell me and I'll change it. But I never implied that all assault victims react the same because not all assault victims are relevant to the topic.

    Glyph on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    But if you're going to talk psychology, I'd like to know what aspects of the position can become offensive and to what mindset.

    I think I've already mentioned some. The man is generally in a more "dominant" position (in control of pace and intensity, and even generally physically above his partner). Also, a lack of perceived intimacy (due to not facing each other), which is only heightened by the lack of control on the part of the woman. For somebody who doesn't particularly enjoy the position...as in, doesn't find it particularly physically pleasurable...and who has any sexual hang-ups in general (whether societal, personal, or religious) this can easily lead to feeling either "used" or "dirty."

    I'll agree that in most cases any issues with this position probably point to larger sexual issues in general...but there are also aspects of this position that tend to exacerbate those issues.

    mcdermott on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    OP: "I've heard that some people dislike X. WTF?"

    Rest of Thread: "Yeah, WTF?"


    Whee, how exhilirating. Three internet cookies to the first person to turn this into an actual discussion.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Sign In or Register to comment.