Well balls do suck in that they are a big flashing weak point on the male anatomy.
So is are the throat, everything below the wrist/ankle, our lack of a fur coat, the inherent instability of a bipedal, upright stance as opposed to four legs, and a bunch of other shit. The balls are easily protected, just like the rest of these, unless you're doing something that requires them to be exposed. So during waste-removal and reproduction they're especially vulnerable, the rest of the time they're one of many weak-spots.
In the part where he quoted the posts above and raised an objection.
He did? I don't see one.
He probably didn't either, but it's right there.
Ah, I see, by virtue of commenting on the balls as an inconvenience, it implies that they are especially weak and notable, right?
Unless you take into account things like context. I mean, it'd be weird for him to comment on the flaws in the design of the throat when we're talking about balls
It's obvious you were just trying to pick a fight, dude.
In the part where he quoted the posts above and raised an objection.
He did? I don't see one.
He probably didn't either, but it's right there.
Ah, I see, by virtue of denoting an exception to comment on the balls as an inconvenience, it implies that they are especially weak and notable, right?
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."
That's the only reasoned resistance I've gotten in certain escapades.
In the part where he quoted the posts above and raised an objection.
He did? I don't see one.
He probably didn't either, but it's right there.
Ah, I see, by virtue of denoting an exception to comment on the balls as an inconvenience, it implies that they are especially weak and notable, right?
Well balls do suck in that they are a big flashing weak point on the male anatomy.
So is are the throat, everything below the wrist/ankle, our lack of a fur coat, the inherent instability of a bipedal, upright stance as opposed to four legs, and a bunch of other shit. The balls are easily protected, just like the rest of these, unless you're doing something that requires them to be exposed. So during waste-removal and reproduction they're especially vulnerable, the rest of the time they're one of many weak-spots.
They aren't as easily protected as other parts, there is no protective cover for them, and keeping your hands below your waist to guard your nuts is not a very good stance in a fight. I am not looking to get into some kind of pissing match over this. I will say few things hurt as bad to a male as when your balls get injured even lightly damaged they cause pain for days on end.
Is it bad that some women like to feel submissive to their male counterpart in the bedroom? I know my fiancee likes to think of me as the big male protector/ravager, and I'll have to admit that kind of turns me on as well. To each their own I guess.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
They aren't as easily protected as other parts, there is no protective cover for them, and keeping your hands below your waist to guard your nuts is not a very good stance in a fight. I am not looking to get into some kind of pissing match over this. I will say few things hurt as bad to a male as when your balls get injured even lightly damaged they cause pain for days on end.
Try rotating your hips so that they don't face your opponent, like in every fighting stance I've ever seen except those that only apply to an organized sport with rules against punching/kicking below the belt.
Is it bad that some women like to feel submissive to their male counterpart in the bedroom? I know my fiancee likes to think of me as the big male protector/ravager, and I'll have to admit that kind of turns me on as well. To each their own I guess.
No, it's not bad. It turns me off when it's a whole lifestyle thing, as I'm not looking to be a keeper or a babysitter so much as I'm looking to be and have a companion in life. When it's just a bedroom game it's fun and therapeutic, especially when you take turns.
Yeah I was thinking of the rotating hips, still nothing destroys a person more then taking away their rights to reproduce like stepping on their genitals can (or hell get an erection) I think we can both agree to that.
I would hate to be in a sub/dom relationship. To me that just screams something isn't right with both people. I mean great if that works for you, but I just couldn't get off on that.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No, it's not bad. It turns me off when it's a whole lifestyle thing, as I'm not looking to be a keeper or a babysitter so much as I'm looking to be and have a companion in life. When it's just a bedroom game it's fun and therapeutic, especially when you take turns.
Yeah I was thinking of the rotating hips, still nothing destroys a person more then taking away their rights to reproduce like stepping on their genitals can (or hell get an erection) I think we can both agree to that.
I would be very upset if I could never reproduce, but given that I can't anyway I don't think it would destroy me quite as much as say gouging out my eyes or lopping off my arms or breaking my neck enough to cripple but not enough to kill.
We have to make some assumptions here; 2 (or more) people having sex are not looking to cause one another actual harm, discomfort or unhappiness. Whether the encounter is meant for reproduction, an intimate moment with a loved one or just a brief fling, the goal should be for both partners to be having a good time.
If one person is NOT having a good time, they need to say so. As much as sexual partners should strive to be open, considerate and fun, we cannot expect other people to read our minds. If someone really wants me to stick something somewhere, and I'm not doing so, or not in a fashion that they prefer, it's better to gently tell me than to suffer in silence or to paint a whole gender with the broad brush of "____'s don't know what they're doing".
So this really all just stems down to this; Communicate, fuckers. (pun intended)
Didn't we just do this in the derail that the "stay with me even without sex?" thread became? Sexuality encompasses such a vast scope of likes, dislikes, wants and needs that to assume "all women" will like or dislike X, or that "all men" are only out for Y is naive and counterproductive. In bed might not seem like the best time for constructive criticism, but as I said before, if you can't at least talk about something, you probably aren't ready to be doing it in the first place.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
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.)
It's exactly why Cel was waiting for some women to post on this thread. Now we finally have some diversity of opinions.
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
Hair pulling has come up a few times, so perhaps it's worth addressing;
There is a very fine difference between gently taking hold of a large clump of hair and gently pulling (which most people I've been with seemed to like), in conjunction with how good it can feel to have someone run their fingers through your hair, and grabbing a section of hair and yanking.
I assume most people are aware of this distinction, and yet some seem to be under the impression that it's done with some inherant risk of harm. If done right (like, well, everything involved in sex) it can be a very pleasant feeling, or so I'm told.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah I was thinking of the rotating hips, still nothing destroys a person more then taking away their rights to reproduce like stepping on their genitals can (or hell get an erection) I think we can both agree to that.
I would be very upset if I could never reproduce, but given that I can't anyway I don't think it would destroy me quite as much as say gouging out my eyes or lopping off my arms or breaking my neck enough to cripple but not enough to kill.
Well I was thinking more of in line with a very minimal amount of force a great deal of damage to a person can be accomplished. Obviously being crippled is worse then someone bursting one of your testicals, but one is usually easier to accomplish (though people have been crippled fairly easily), damn these multifaceted problems.
Anyway, doggy style, cool if your partner likes it, not so cool if they are not down. So it comes down to personal preference and there is no easy answer. By the way my penis is massively huge so huge I can only have sex while the woman is like 5 feet away (the last part is just for mikeman).
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.)
It's exactly why Cel was waiting for some women to post on this thread. Now we finally have some diversity of opinions.
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
It's really inaccurate to associate submissive with a particular position without really thinking about what it means. Power games (submissive and dominant) are extra cultural things that a lot of people are attaching to different sexual positions. This does not mean x position is inherently submissive/dominant. For example, if a woman is sitting on top of the guy, is the guy nessesscarily being submissive? In some cases, it's possible that he is. However, he may in that position because maybe he's feeling lazy and doesn't want to be in a more active position. So there's the issue of separating the physical practicalness of a position and the positive/negative cultural connotation.
Submissive is just a cultural tag that's being assigned to the "doggy style" position. It's not nesscessarily a good or bad thing because it depends on the people that are involved. Some people (as it's already been said) enjoy doggy style because the physcological aspect of submisssive/dominant that really turns them on. Some like it because it simply feels really good. Other people aren't comfortable with power games at all or find doggy style uncomfortable because of lack of physical compatibility. These reasons for disliking x style can be mutually exclusive and should never be mistakenly mushed together. People don't all generally dislike/like something for the same reasons.
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
Consider the simple tableaux of some dude behind a woman who is bent over. It's pretty obvious that the woman is being submissive. Not being able to see anything of your partner other than a pillow, tv, or the texture on the wall signifies that this is clearly for the penetrator's visual appetite. Just because you're into bondage doesn't make you an authority on what is submissive. Anyone who has a sex life understands that sex, in itself, has a lot to do with dominating and submitting to a partner.
Well you can always use a mirror to see your partners o face. At times I think doggy style is something to the benefit of both sexual partners, especially if it's a one night stand.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
Consider the simple tableaux of some dude behind a woman who is bent over. It's pretty obvious that the woman is being submissive. Not being able to see anything of your partner other than a pillow, tv, or the texture on the wall signifies that this is clearly for the penetrator's visual appetite. Just because you're into bondage doesn't make you an authority on what is submissive. Anyone who has a sex life understands that sex, in itself, has a lot to do with dominating and submitting to a partner.
I see your point as to how it CAN be submissive, but I think you're generalizing it too much. It's not submissive for everyone, despite the physical positions of the bodies.
Would you also say that when the girl is on top and the guy is on the bottom, that position is inherently submissive?
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
Consider the simple tableaux of some dude behind a woman who is bent over. It's pretty obvious that the woman is being submissive. Not being able to see anything of your partner other than a pillow, tv, or the texture on the wall signifies that this is clearly for the penetrator's visual appetite. Just because you're into bondage doesn't make you an authority on what is submissive. Anyone who has a sex life understands that sex, in itself, has a lot to do with dominating and submitting to a partner.
I see your point as to how it CAN be submissive, but I think you're generalizing it too much. It's not submissive for everyone, despite the physical positions of the bodies.
Would you also say that when the girl is on top and the guy is on the bottom, that position is inherently submissive?
Would the woman being on top and facing away be demeaning to one, the other or magically both at the same time? She's on top (oooh, dominant!), but facing away so all she really sees is legs, and can't touch much more (:-( submissive?), whereas he has rull access to her entire backside, and more if she leans back a bit (... dominant?), but she's controlling much of the tempo, force used and depth of penetration, putting her in control (dominant again? I'm confused now).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
Consider the simple tableaux of some dude behind a woman who is bent over. It's pretty obvious that the woman is being submissive. Not being able to see anything of your partner other than a pillow, tv, or the texture on the wall signifies that this is clearly for the penetrator's visual appetite. Just because you're into bondage doesn't make you an authority on what is submissive. Anyone who has a sex life understands that sex, in itself, has a lot to do with dominating and submitting to a partner.
I see your point as to how it CAN be submissive, but I think you're generalizing it too much. It's not submissive for everyone, despite the physical positions of the bodies.
Would you also say that when the girl is on top and the guy is on the bottom, that position is inherently submissive?
Well, it has always been considered a position where the woman is in control. It's not to say that creativity doesn't take hold and both can work it. Sexual positions totally manifest who is dominating, who is submitting. It's not a significantly conscious realization, as to who is submitting to who when your having sex, but it crosses everyone's mind every once in a while. I don't even think in terms of my being dominated or my submitting when I have sex. But somewhere in my head, I know that it's what's happening.
It's not to say that creativity doesn't take hold and both can work it. Sexual positions totally manifest who is dominating, who is submitting. It's not a significantly conscious realization, as to who is submitting to who when your having sex, but it crosses everyone's mind every once in a while. I don't even think in terms of my being dominated or my submitting when I have sex. But somewhere in my head, I know that it's what's happening.
Hey, thank you, you guys who defended me while I was off at class. I really do appreciate it.
VC, my comment, was meant to be humorous, but, I guess you missed that.
See, cat said "No, the balls are special, you see" or something to that extent.
And I said "No, but they are one of the stupidest designs ever" as in, No, the balls aren't special, but they are a stupid design. I then went on to comment humorously on the poor layout of the balls. Hell man, you can get your balls twisted around each other and screw up all sorts of shit just by rolling over wrong in your sleep.
Also, if you think turning your hips towards someone in a fight magically makes your balls safe, then you haven't done much fighting, ever. Yeah, it stops someone from drop kicking you in the nads. But, there are side kicks, grapples, and other various methods that make it a vulnerable point on the body, much like, as you pointed out, the neck and other weak points.
Edit: Geeze guys, we all know submissive women are better, why the argument? When Lillith got all uppity about Adam being on top, God sent her straight to hell to hang out with Satan and rot women's brains. God made the much better Eve who didn't mind Adam being on top after. [/sarcasm tag for people like VC]
Also, if you think turning your hips towards someone in a fight magically makes your balls safe, then you haven't done much fighting, ever. Yeah, it stops someone from drop kicking you in the nads. But, there are side kicks, grapples, and other various methods that make it a vulnerable point on the body, much like, as you pointed out, the neck and other weak points.
I'm operating under the assumption that just because you're in a fighting stance doesn't mean you think you don't have to respond to attacks launched at you. If you don't think it's infinitely easier to defend your balls against a side-kick when they're facing perpendicular to your opponent than against a straight nutshot I'd have to say in the future you should probably only fight when you're awake. They're not that big a target and that target can be moved pretty easily.
Also, if you think turning your hips towards someone in a fight magically makes your balls safe, then you haven't done much fighting, ever. Yeah, it stops someone from drop kicking you in the nads. But, there are side kicks, grapples, and other various methods that make it a vulnerable point on the body, much like, as you pointed out, the neck and other weak points.
I'm operating under the assumption that just because you're in a fighting stance doesn't mean you think you don't have to respond to attacks launched at you. If you don't think it's infinitely easier to defend your balls against a side-kick when they're facing perpendicular to your opponent than against a straight nutshot I'd have to say in the future you should probably only fight when you're awake. They're not that big a target and that target can be moved pretty easily.
All I said is that it wasn't a magic cure all. It certainly helps. You also totally ignored the issue of grapples, which is really when the crotch becomes the biggest liability, but whatever.
Sorry, but I don't really feel like arguing with you when you in such a butt-hurt mood.
Since when does submissive = degrading? Assuming that is true (which I posit as NOT the case), can't we have a bit of gradiation here? It's not like doggy style is the same as full on bondage bukkake.
Also, if you think turning your hips towards someone in a fight magically makes your balls safe, then you haven't done much fighting, ever. Yeah, it stops someone from drop kicking you in the nads. But, there are side kicks, grapples, and other various methods that make it a vulnerable point on the body, much like, as you pointed out, the neck and other weak points.
I'm operating under the assumption that just because you're in a fighting stance doesn't mean you think you don't have to respond to attacks launched at you. If you don't think it's infinitely easier to defend your balls against a side-kick when they're facing perpendicular to your opponent than against a straight nutshot I'd have to say in the future you should probably only fight when you're awake. They're not that big a target and that target can be moved pretty easily.
All I said is that it wasn't a magic cure all. It certainly helps. You also totally ignored the issue of grapples, which is really when the crotch becomes the biggest liability, but whatever.
Sorry, but I don't really feel like arguing with you when you in such a butt-hurt mood.
It's not hard to stay out of a grapple if your objective is simply to avoid injury rather than to beat someone down. And you don't get to argue and then ask me not to argue back.
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
Consider the simple tableaux of some dude behind a woman who is bent over. It's pretty obvious that the woman is being submissive. Not being able to see anything of your partner other than a pillow, tv, or the texture on the wall signifies that this is clearly for the penetrator's visual appetite. Just because you're into bondage doesn't make you an authority on what is submissive. Anyone who has a sex life understands that sex, in itself, has a lot to do with dominating and submitting to a partner.
I see your point as to how it CAN be submissive, but I think you're generalizing it too much. It's not submissive for everyone, despite the physical positions of the bodies.
Would you also say that when the girl is on top and the guy is on the bottom, that position is inherently submissive?
Well, it has always been considered a position where the woman is in control. It's not to say that creativity doesn't take hold and both can work it. Sexual positions totally manifest who is dominating, who is submitting. It's not a significantly conscious realization, as to who is submitting to who when your having sex, but it crosses everyone's mind every once in a while. I don't even think in terms of my being dominated or my submitting when I have sex. But somewhere in my head, I know that it's what's happening.
It also depends on how you define 'dominance'. When the woman's on top or the man's at the rear, is it really being in control or is it doing all the work? In addition (trying not to draw too broad a stroke), psychologically speaking, female sexual stimuli tends to be more tactile while male stimulation tends to be more visual. Many women don't actually even need to see their partners during sex or imagine one during masturbation to achieve orgasm.
At any rate, was 'doggy style' not the very first sexual position? It's not like society invented it. I sometimes wonder if our early simian ancestors thought about it in terms of dominance and submission.
Interestingly enough, female apes use the base position of a doggy style in order to coax larger males into protecting them from predators or competitors, due to the hopes of mating. This occurence has been cited as evidence for the Social Intelligence Hypothesis of human brain evolution. So if anything, in apes, it derives from women using men. Go figure eh?
At any rate, was 'doggy style' not the very first sexual position? It's not like society invented it. I sometimes wonder if our early simian ancestors thought about it in terms of dominance and submission.
Probably depends on how willing the recipient was.
Given the way our joints work and where our claws and teeth are located, one would imagine that such a position or a similar one would be better suited for a less than reciprocative partner?
Otherwise, it'd still probably work well as far as matching up the anatomy.
We're gonna have to dig out some documentaries on primates next, aren't we?
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Guys can't you just make sweet yet senuous love? Doggy style of course, VC's got to have his sigs while he's plugging someone.
Honestly I don't have any real desire to smoke during sex because half the motivation for smoking is to have something to do with my hands. Sex satisfies that need far more effectively than cigarettes. :winky:
It also depends on how you define 'dominance'. When the woman's on top or the man's at the rear, is it really being in control or is it doing all the work?
I still say it doesn't have to be either, and it shouldn't be the latter.
Damn VC and here I had this image of you puffing away occaisionally dotting your cigarette in an ashtray on the womans back. For some reason I imagined you more like hunter s thompson though.
"We can't fuck here, it's anal country".
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Damn VC and here I had this image of you puffing away occaisionally dotting your cigarette in an ashtray on the womans back. For some reason I imagined you more like hunter s thompson though.
"We can't fuck here, it's anal country".
Way too impersonal for me. I'm not sure I would even want to have sex with a woman who would let me use her as a coffee-table.
Edit: Unless it was some kink of hers or something. Context changes things.
Posts
He did? I don't see one.
Right. Because this thread has been brimming with meaningful posts.
So is are the throat, everything below the wrist/ankle, our lack of a fur coat, the inherent instability of a bipedal, upright stance as opposed to four legs, and a bunch of other shit. The balls are easily protected, just like the rest of these, unless you're doing something that requires them to be exposed. So during waste-removal and reproduction they're especially vulnerable, the rest of the time they're one of many weak-spots.
He probably didn't either, but it's right there.
Ah, I see, by virtue of commenting on the balls as an inconvenience, it implies that they are especially weak and notable, right?
Unless you take into account things like context. I mean, it'd be weird for him to comment on the flaws in the design of the throat when we're talking about balls
It's obvious you were just trying to pick a fight, dude.
Editted for exactly.
That's the only reasoned resistance I've gotten in certain escapades.
Whoops!
They aren't as easily protected as other parts, there is no protective cover for them, and keeping your hands below your waist to guard your nuts is not a very good stance in a fight. I am not looking to get into some kind of pissing match over this. I will say few things hurt as bad to a male as when your balls get injured even lightly damaged they cause pain for days on end.
Is it bad that some women like to feel submissive to their male counterpart in the bedroom? I know my fiancee likes to think of me as the big male protector/ravager, and I'll have to admit that kind of turns me on as well. To each their own I guess.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Try rotating your hips so that they don't face your opponent, like in every fighting stance I've ever seen except those that only apply to an organized sport with rules against punching/kicking below the belt.
No, it's not bad. It turns me off when it's a whole lifestyle thing, as I'm not looking to be a keeper or a babysitter so much as I'm looking to be and have a companion in life. When it's just a bedroom game it's fun and therapeutic, especially when you take turns.
I would hate to be in a sub/dom relationship. To me that just screams something isn't right with both people. I mean great if that works for you, but I just couldn't get off on that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I would be very upset if I could never reproduce, but given that I can't anyway I don't think it would destroy me quite as much as say gouging out my eyes or lopping off my arms or breaking my neck enough to cripple but not enough to kill.
If one person is NOT having a good time, they need to say so. As much as sexual partners should strive to be open, considerate and fun, we cannot expect other people to read our minds. If someone really wants me to stick something somewhere, and I'm not doing so, or not in a fashion that they prefer, it's better to gently tell me than to suffer in silence or to paint a whole gender with the broad brush of "____'s don't know what they're doing".
So this really all just stems down to this; Communicate, fuckers. (pun intended)
Didn't we just do this in the derail that the "stay with me even without sex?" thread became? Sexuality encompasses such a vast scope of likes, dislikes, wants and needs that to assume "all women" will like or dislike X, or that "all men" are only out for Y is naive and counterproductive. In bed might not seem like the best time for constructive criticism, but as I said before, if you can't at least talk about something, you probably aren't ready to be doing it in the first place.
It's exactly why Cel was waiting for some women to post on this thread. Now we finally have some diversity of opinions.
Anyway, the position itself is inherently submissive. I mean, the women are bent over with their asses up a little ways, leaving men with the only pleasing visual stimuli. In my experience, the women who seemed to have enjoyed it the most have asked me at one point to pull their hair at the same time. I'm not one for hair-pulling but who am I to deny them such a small favor? Point is; that women enjoy it for its mild submission to their partner.
There is a very fine difference between gently taking hold of a large clump of hair and gently pulling (which most people I've been with seemed to like), in conjunction with how good it can feel to have someone run their fingers through your hair, and grabbing a section of hair and yanking.
I assume most people are aware of this distinction, and yet some seem to be under the impression that it's done with some inherant risk of harm. If done right (like, well, everything involved in sex) it can be a very pleasant feeling, or so I'm told.
Well I was thinking more of in line with a very minimal amount of force a great deal of damage to a person can be accomplished. Obviously being crippled is worse then someone bursting one of your testicals, but one is usually easier to accomplish (though people have been crippled fairly easily), damn these multifaceted problems.
Anyway, doggy style, cool if your partner likes it, not so cool if they are not down. So it comes down to personal preference and there is no easy answer. By the way my penis is massively huge so huge I can only have sex while the woman is like 5 feet away (the last part is just for mikeman).
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's really inaccurate to associate submissive with a particular position without really thinking about what it means. Power games (submissive and dominant) are extra cultural things that a lot of people are attaching to different sexual positions. This does not mean x position is inherently submissive/dominant. For example, if a woman is sitting on top of the guy, is the guy nessesscarily being submissive? In some cases, it's possible that he is. However, he may in that position because maybe he's feeling lazy and doesn't want to be in a more active position. So there's the issue of separating the physical practicalness of a position and the positive/negative cultural connotation.
Submissive is just a cultural tag that's being assigned to the "doggy style" position. It's not nesscessarily a good or bad thing because it depends on the people that are involved. Some people (as it's already been said) enjoy doggy style because the physcological aspect of submisssive/dominant that really turns them on. Some like it because it simply feels really good. Other people aren't comfortable with power games at all or find doggy style uncomfortable because of lack of physical compatibility. These reasons for disliking x style can be mutually exclusive and should never be mistakenly mushed together. People don't all generally dislike/like something for the same reasons.
O_o It's inherently submissive because the girl can't look at the dude's cock or ass? So is recieving a blowjob an inherently submissive position for a man? Frankly I can't think of any positions that are inherently submissive, as far as I can figure "submissive" is a matter of demeanor more than simple arrangement. This coming from someone who enjoys both ends of bondage. And as was mentioned earlier even being tied up isn't an inherently submissive position, shit submitting completely takes half the fun out of it no matter who's "on top" as far as I'm concerned. Why bother to have someone tie you up if you're not going to pull against the bonds?
I disagree. I have a big dick and I enjoy the occasional doggy style.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Consider the simple tableaux of some dude behind a woman who is bent over. It's pretty obvious that the woman is being submissive. Not being able to see anything of your partner other than a pillow, tv, or the texture on the wall signifies that this is clearly for the penetrator's visual appetite. Just because you're into bondage doesn't make you an authority on what is submissive. Anyone who has a sex life understands that sex, in itself, has a lot to do with dominating and submitting to a partner.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I see your point as to how it CAN be submissive, but I think you're generalizing it too much. It's not submissive for everyone, despite the physical positions of the bodies.
Would you also say that when the girl is on top and the guy is on the bottom, that position is inherently submissive?
Would the woman being on top and facing away be demeaning to one, the other or magically both at the same time? She's on top (oooh, dominant!), but facing away so all she really sees is legs, and can't touch much more (:-( submissive?), whereas he has rull access to her entire backside, and more if she leans back a bit (... dominant?), but she's controlling much of the tempo, force used and depth of penetration, putting her in control (dominant again? I'm confused now).
Well, it has always been considered a position where the woman is in control. It's not to say that creativity doesn't take hold and both can work it. Sexual positions totally manifest who is dominating, who is submitting. It's not a significantly conscious realization, as to who is submitting to who when your having sex, but it crosses everyone's mind every once in a while. I don't even think in terms of my being dominated or my submitting when I have sex. But somewhere in my head, I know that it's what's happening.
By whom?
No one has to submit for sex to be had, cap'n.
On the contrary, everybody has to submit for sex to be had.
It's just that in some cases one person submits more than the other.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
VC, my comment, was meant to be humorous, but, I guess you missed that.
See, cat said "No, the balls are special, you see" or something to that extent.
And I said "No, but they are one of the stupidest designs ever" as in, No, the balls aren't special, but they are a stupid design. I then went on to comment humorously on the poor layout of the balls. Hell man, you can get your balls twisted around each other and screw up all sorts of shit just by rolling over wrong in your sleep.
Also, if you think turning your hips towards someone in a fight magically makes your balls safe, then you haven't done much fighting, ever. Yeah, it stops someone from drop kicking you in the nads. But, there are side kicks, grapples, and other various methods that make it a vulnerable point on the body, much like, as you pointed out, the neck and other weak points.
Edit: Geeze guys, we all know submissive women are better, why the argument? When Lillith got all uppity about Adam being on top, God sent her straight to hell to hang out with Satan and rot women's brains. God made the much better Eve who didn't mind Adam being on top after. [/sarcasm tag for people like VC]
I'm operating under the assumption that just because you're in a fighting stance doesn't mean you think you don't have to respond to attacks launched at you. If you don't think it's infinitely easier to defend your balls against a side-kick when they're facing perpendicular to your opponent than against a straight nutshot I'd have to say in the future you should probably only fight when you're awake. They're not that big a target and that target can be moved pretty easily.
All I said is that it wasn't a magic cure all. It certainly helps. You also totally ignored the issue of grapples, which is really when the crotch becomes the biggest liability, but whatever.
Sorry, but I don't really feel like arguing with you when you in such a butt-hurt mood.
It's not hard to stay out of a grapple if your objective is simply to avoid injury rather than to beat someone down. And you don't get to argue and then ask me not to argue back.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It also depends on how you define 'dominance'. When the woman's on top or the man's at the rear, is it really being in control or is it doing all the work? In addition (trying not to draw too broad a stroke), psychologically speaking, female sexual stimuli tends to be more tactile while male stimulation tends to be more visual. Many women don't actually even need to see their partners during sex or imagine one during masturbation to achieve orgasm.
At any rate, was 'doggy style' not the very first sexual position? It's not like society invented it. I sometimes wonder if our early simian ancestors thought about it in terms of dominance and submission.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Probably depends on how willing the recipient was.
Given the way our joints work and where our claws and teeth are located, one would imagine that such a position or a similar one would be better suited for a less than reciprocative partner?
Otherwise, it'd still probably work well as far as matching up the anatomy.
We're gonna have to dig out some documentaries on primates next, aren't we?
Honestly I don't have any real desire to smoke during sex because half the motivation for smoking is to have something to do with my hands. Sex satisfies that need far more effectively than cigarettes. :winky:
I still say it doesn't have to be either, and it shouldn't be the latter.
"We can't fuck here, it's anal country".
pleasepaypreacher.net
Edit: Unless it was some kink of hers or something. Context changes things.