I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts. It's possibly just the way I'm built, but it is very uncomfortable. I put up with it for a while because my husband likes looking at my butt (and yes, the jiggling boobs) but I had to put a stop to it because it was entirely too painful.
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."
Krysanthemum on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts. It's possibly just the way I'm built, but it is very uncomfortable. I put up with it for a while because my husband likes looking at my butt (and yes, the jiggling boobs) but I had to put a stop to it because it was entirely too painful.
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."
Alternatively your husband has a fairly lengthy penis, and is just now discovering how that works against him.
I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts. It's possibly just the way I'm built, but it is very uncomfortable. I put up with it for a while because my husband likes looking at my butt (and yes, the jiggling boobs) but I had to put a stop to it because it was entirely too painful.
How does he see the jigglers from back there?
Glyph on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
On a fairly busty woman with a slender waist (booyah, amirite? ), you are able to see the sides of her breasts past her back, and past her waist.
Indeed. I've never heard this; in fact, my girlfriend says she loves it because she feels like it is mildly submissive, which evidently makes her hot.
Also, no objections to anal sex. Maybe I'm just dating someone awesome.
And you will find a GREAT MANY WOMEN who think this way.
I'd even go so far as to say more women think this way than those who do not. Feel free to correct me on that though, thats just a hunch I have.
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.)
I find the submissive aspect kinda hot. But I think that may be because my bf is usually pretty laid back.
Dulcius_ex_asperis on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
It can be submissive or simply yet another way to enjoy yourself.
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.
I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts.
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.
I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts. It's possibly just the way I'm built, but it is very uncomfortable. I put up with it for a while because my husband likes looking at my butt (and yes, the jiggling boobs) but I had to put a stop to it because it was entirely too painful.
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."
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:
LondonBridge on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts. It's possibly just the way I'm built, but it is very uncomfortable. I put up with it for a while because my husband likes looking at my butt (and yes, the jiggling boobs) but I had to put a stop to it because it was entirely too painful.
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."
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.
I do not like doggy-style, mainly because it bloody hurts. It's possibly just the way I'm built, but it is very uncomfortable. I put up with it for a while because my husband likes looking at my butt (and yes, the jiggling boobs) but I had to put a stop to it because it was entirely too painful.
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."
Alternatively your husband has a fairly lengthy penis, and is just now discovering how that works against him.
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.
Certainly the pain is going to be different but it doesn't mean it's not at all comparable or not worth paying attention to.
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.
Certainly the pain is going to be different but it doesn't mean it's not at all comparable or not worth paying attention to.
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.
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.
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)
Trowizilla on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Certainly the pain is going to be different but it doesn't mean it's not at all comparable or not worth paying attention to.
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.
I'm thinking the forums have had a somewhat negative effect on you.
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.
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.
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.
The thing that bothers me most about this thread is the sheer amount of gall coming from some people. "They don't like it like that? Why not? It works so well for anyone!"
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.
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.
Oh, but the balls are special, you see.
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)
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.
Oh, but the balls are special, you see.
No, but they are one of the stupidest designs ever.
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.
Oh, but the balls are special, you see.
No, but they are one of the stupidest designs ever.
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.
Still assumes intentionality. I am aware that you contradicted yourself in your post, but that doesn't change the fact that "they're not a design" is all there is to reply to your comment with. Unless you believe in intelligent design, in which case you're wrong.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The thing that bothers me most about this thread is the sheer amount of gall coming from some people. "They don't like it like that? Why not? It works so well for anyone!"
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.
Seriously, Inquisitor. Anthropomorphisms, and frankly any literary device which can't be taken literally or misinterpreted, is a totally rude thing to do. So what if you were speaking sarcastically to nature as if were it an actual designer with a clear indication that you weren't calling the balls a design. Using the word "design" just... naturally means you actually believe the literal interpretation of what you're saying. :P
Seriously, Inquisitor. Anthropomorphisms, and frankly any literary device which can't be taken literally or misinterpreted, is a totally rude thing to do. So what if you were speaking sarcastically to nature as if were it an actual designer with a clear indication that you weren't calling the balls a design. Using the word "design" just... naturally means you actually believe the literal interpretation of what you're saying. :P
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.
I'd say the main problem with anal sex is that it can be very very dirty (not intentionally but you are sticking your dick in a place that shit comes out of). And it's not readily apparent till after the act and you're like "Ok time to take a shower". Other then that it's a very rewarding sexual experience.
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.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The thing that bothers me most about this thread is the sheer amount of gall coming from some people. "They don't like it like that? Why not? It works so well for anyone!"
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.
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?
I'd say the main problem with anal sex is that it can be very very dirty (not intentionally but you are sticking your dick in a place that shit comes out of). And it's not readily apparent till after the act and you're like "Ok time to take a shower". Other then that it's a very rewarding sexual experience.
Doggy style doesn't mean anal sex.
Re. the demeaning aspect, this quote answers it somewhat:
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."
You're right, Aemilius, in that submissive doesn't mean demeaning, either.
@VC -- Man, is _J_ not being pedantic enough that you need to pick up his slack, or something?
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".
@VC -- Man, is _J_ not being pedantic enough that you need to pick up his slack, or something?
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".
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.
I'd say the main problem with anal sex is that it can be very very dirty (not intentionally but you are sticking your dick in a place that shit comes out of). And it's not readily apparent till after the act and you're like "Ok time to take a shower". Other then that it's a very rewarding sexual experience.
Doggy style doesn't mean anal sex.
I know it doesn't there was just a discussion about anal and I felt I had to chime in.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'd say the main problem with anal sex is that it can be very very dirty (not intentionally but you are sticking your dick in a place that shit comes out of). And it's not readily apparent till after the act and you're like "Ok time to take a shower". Other then that it's a very rewarding sexual experience.
Doggy style doesn't mean anal sex.
I know it doesn't there was just a discussion about anal and I felt I had to chime in.
Really? I didn't note it in this thread, which was why I felt the need to clarify.
Yeah it was on page 5 before the faggotry about balls and cervix hitting bitching began (and by this I mean the whining about the comparison not the actual pain aspect). So I wasn't completely off topic.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
@VC -- Man, is _J_ not being pedantic enough that you need to pick up his slack, or something?
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".
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.
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.
Oh, but the balls are special, you see.
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)
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."
@VC -- Man, is _J_ not being pedantic enough that you need to pick up his slack, or something?
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".
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.
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.
Oh, but the balls are special, you see.
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)
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."
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".
Where is that evidenced in his post?
But, I mean, really. It's obvious that that was not a particularly serious post.
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