The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Dear Women: What's Wrong with the Doggy-Style?
Posts
*shrug*
I know a lot of people.
I also recycle a lot of anecdotes. Seriously, about 75% of my anecdotes are about five people.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But that's just me. I'm just saying, this may be the case for other women, they're just not willing to tell a partner 'Yeah, that position actually hurt, don't do that again."
Also I know a woman like your friend. She pretty much doesn't like it in the vagoo at all, which is funny because she wants kids some day.
How does he see the jigglers from back there?
Now wait, though. At the beginning of this thread everyone was like "how could it possibly be regarded as submissive or mildly demeaning?" Now we have people saying "the fact that it's submissive is a positive for many women."
Well, either have your cake or eat it, because if it's submissive it shouldn't be that hard to imagine why some women do not enjoy it.
(This is at the thread in general, not you two specifically.)
Again, as I and many others said, the position itself is not demeaning, it is what you make of it.
It is only submissive if the woman imagines it to be submissive...whether she enjoys that or not is up to her.
Missionary style could also be submissive if I leant down and whispered in her ear "you're my little slut" (which I have done while drunk, and turned out to get a surprisingly positive reaction), so its not the position thats submissive.
Pretty much. Although I find it's not so much hurts as 'is uncomfortable, and any other position is more favourable'. It feels like my insides are being churned.
But it's okay to compromise, so I'll not say no. The only problem occurs when it's wanted regularly. Then it becomes vaguely insulting - and boring.
Shit, you reminded me of one girlfriend who didn't like it doggy and she explained I was hitting her cervix. She said its the female equivalent of being kicked in the balls. :shock::shock::shock:
Never beleive a girl when she says that.
They do not have balls.
Dear ladies. Ever hold in a dookie for way too long, and then your hips totally cramp up beyond beleif and you cant stand up.
Yeah, when that happens to us, in the ball sack and the hips, and the ballsack is twice as bad as the hips.
This is what we call "hitting the end of the road". When she's like "oh harder" and you're like "yeah, baby, you got it"... and then her face and vagina get clenched and you feel like you just broke your cock on her spine... that's when size matters. And it sucks.
For some women, doggy style feels like someone shoving a wooden spoon up your ass and then twisting it round so it feels like your intestines are being stirred, and afterwards your stomach rumbles like you've just eaten a really dodgy curry and need to go lie down.
That's some sexy pillowtalk you've got going on there.
Sounds like menstrual cramps, except add in "back, sides, and intestines" to hips and crotch. Plus, you don't get kicked in the balls constantly for three days every month. (Or if you do, you probably deserve it. :P)
How the fuck would you know that having your cervix rammed with a meat-hammer doesn't hurt as much as getting kicked in the balls? Unless you're a hermaphrodite. If you're not, it's probably smartest to just take her word for it and not bang on her cervix like it's a bass-drum.
Evidently, it doesn't. It's like if someone made a thread about how someone they know doesn't like strawberry ice cream. Some people are allergic to strawberries, or vegans. Get over it.
No, but they are one of the stupidest designs ever.
Hey, let's make sperm need to be a few degrees cooler then average body temperature, so they need to hang outside of the body. Let's also make this protrusion really, really fucking sensitive. Thanks nature. You think the human strain that would have become evolutionarily dominant would have had some kind of protection for it, like some animals do.
Not saying that the vagina, or women's periods were designed any smarter by nature though. (not that nature really designs things, anyway)
They're not a design.
Yeah, if you read the rest of my post I said. "not that nature really designs things, anyway"
But thanks for just quoting a small part of what I said.
I mean, I could use a different word, if it helps you sleep better. They are one of the stupidest layouts ever? The meaning is still the same.
Nice try, but the problem is actually the word "stupid" in reference to the means by which the feature came into being, which only makes any kind of sense if it was designed by someone or something intentionally.
As far as a position being painful, that's as valid a reason as any not to do something. I know one position my fiancee and myself engage in that I don't particularly like because during moments of passion my balls get pressed in such a way it hurts for a couple days afterward.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think people were only being particularly incredulous about the concept of doggy style as demeaning. Obviously, if you find it physically uncomfortable/unpleasant, you're not going to enjoy it/want to do it. I think the issue was with how it could be construed as demeaning (keep in mind that submissive and demeaning are two very different beasts).
@VC -- Man, is _J_ not being pedantic enough that you need to pick up his slack, or something?
Edit: Having a big dick presents problems with regards to doggy-style?
Doggy style doesn't mean anal sex.
Re. the demeaning aspect, this quote answers it somewhat:
You're right, Aemilius, in that submissive doesn't mean demeaning, either.
There's an air of absolute meaninglessness to the post which he phrased as a protest to the idea that something could hurt as much as getting kicked in the balls that irritates me. He might as well have said "yeah but balls are really gay". In reply to "banging on the cervix hurts".
That...that wasn't Inquisitor. It was some random asshole. Inquisitor was just trying to humorously comment on how the sack is a fairly inconvenient part of anatomy.
Edit: -- the black hunter. He's the dumb one.
I know it doesn't there was just a discussion about anal and I felt I had to chime in.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Really? I didn't note it in this thread, which was why I felt the need to clarify.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Looks like it was Inquisitor to me, unless the black hunter hacked his account. Basically it goes:
sarcastic remark about balls being special
"Well they're not special, but they're still kinda special, but also not."
Where is that evidenced in his post?
But, I mean, really. It's obvious that that was not a particularly serious post.
In the part where he quoted the posts above and raised an objection then backed away from it without actually retracting it.
Nor one that carries any particular meaning. He may as well have just posted "but balls are really gay".
pleasepaypreacher.net