Right, on-topic. Clearly "coffee-table" is a more degrading position than doggie-style. In line with my earlier remarks about submission being a matter of demeanor rather than position, it involves something beyond her just bending over and staring at the pillow. If the shit is not going to fall off her back and spill all over the bed she's going to have to actively try to be as inanimate as possible, like a piece of furniture. As compared to doggie-style in which she would presumably still be an active participant in the fucking, and representing herself as a human being rather than something less than human.
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.
I don't think anyone equated them. Just arguing whether the doggy-style position signified that the penetrator is being dominant.
My opinion is just that the whoever is bent over in the position is being submissive to their partner -- nothing demeaning about it. Further, I just think it accounts for why some women are turned off by the position on some principle (at least for the women who I have met that take such a stance).
Maybe it's just all the dumb men in our culture who say shit like, "I'd like to bend her over a rail," that makes the position seem demeaning.
And yes, this is generalizing. Some people just don't like it for whatever other reasons.
e.g. Your dick is too small...Or, It hurts.
It doesn't even have to be a reaction to male sexuality in america.
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?
why do so many people in here envision sex as some kind of battle?
and to answer your earlier question yet again, sex only becomes demeaning when one or more partners makes it so. It has nothing to do with any actual acts.
why do so many people in here envision sex as some kind of battle?
Well, because it's a zero-sum game, Cat. Sex is a finite resource that women give to men. Once they give it up to too many men, they run out and they spend the rest of their lives as spinsters. That's why men either have to use deception and subterfuge or material wealth to convince them to give it up.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
why do so many people in here envision sex as some kind of battle?
Well, because it's a zero-sum game, Cat. Sex is a finite resource that women give to men. Once they give it up to too many men, they run out and they spend the rest of their lives as spinsters. That's why men either have to use deception and subterfuge or material wealth to convince them to give it up.
You see, women are born with a finite supply of ova while men can continuously produce sperm for their entire lives. Furthermore,
Its a rhetorical question, kiddo. I'm trying the polite method of posting "you people are completely fucked in the head".
Man I hate rhetorical devices.
--
Hoax or no, it's only so far from the truth.
--
Anyways. People have different kinks. People are often offended that other people do not share their worldview including their kinks. Old news. Silly thread.
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?
I am extremely suspicious of any attempt to attempt to explain any aspect of modern human behavior based on our evolutionary past. Obviously we are affected by our instincts and have a great many holdovers from our ancestors but the relationships are so complicated I don't think they can be adequately explained at the present time.
For example, how many bullshit theories have we heard on these board along the lines of "in the past men were the hunters and / or stronger in order to fend off the dreadful spindly killerfish therefore X". Yet looking at the actual remains of our recent ancestors (eg: last 10,000 years or so) that has been discovered in the last 50-60 years we find that the female skeletons show just as much wear and tear (in terms of injuries sustained during life) and evidence of musculature as the men. These women were not the stay-at-home-and-gather-nuts type.
I just don't think its possible to draw conclusions about modern social behavior based on speculation on our simian past. Especially if the theory can be explained in a few sentences on a message board.
At any rate, was 'doggy style' not the very first sexual position?
Was it?
We had dogs long before we had missionaries. Adun willing, we'll have them long after.
Glyph on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
I prefer girl on top. I guess I'm.. weird? Who knows. Doggy style.. I dunno. I can't say I've ever gotten off on it.
I think it's best to discuss with your partner what they like and what you like. Hopefully you'll find something you both like.
The one thing I can't stand is a partner who always has to make sex so.. methodical. Like, preparing the bed, being logical about it and such.. I'm not sure about other people, but by the time the other person is 'ready' to get down I'm pretty much bored.
You what, this isn't "post what gets you off/how rad your genitals are/how kinky your imaginary gf is". People need to start reading the OP before posting.
The Cat on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
Sorry
I was just trying to be open. Didn't realize it'd piss you off so much.
But yeah, as has been said, some people find it demeaning. It may be sociological, it may religious, it may just a personal issue from the past. If it doesn't affect your relationship, do you really need to spend the time worrying about it?
This whole thread was really kind of concluded however many pages ago when we covered "personal preferences" and "you need to be open with your partner about these things".
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?
I am extremely suspicious of any attempt to attempt to explain any aspect of modern human behavior based on our evolutionary past. Obviously we are affected by our instincts and have a great many holdovers from our ancestors but the relationships are so complicated I don't think they can be adequately explained at the present time.
For example, how many bullshit theories have we heard on these board along the lines of "in the past men were the hunters and / or stronger in order to fend off the dreadful spindly killerfish therefore X". Yet looking at the actual remains of our recent ancestors (eg: last 10,000 years or so) that has been discovered in the last 50-60 years we find that the female skeletons show just as much wear and tear (in terms of injuries sustained during life) and evidence of musculature as the men. These women were not the stay-at-home-and-gather-nuts type.
I just don't think its possible to draw conclusions about modern social behavior based on speculation on our simian past. Especially if the theory can be explained in a few sentences on a message board.
Except this would be far greater that 100,000 years ago. Second of all, sorry that this offends your sense of self-determinism. Lastly, are you absolutely kidding? Google the Machiavellian Social Intelligence Hypothesis. I didn't explain it AT all what the theory is. But here's a go: as our ancestors started to work together in larger social groups, there was an immediate payout for members with more complex cereberal networks. In other words, the bigger your brain, the better suited you are to survival in complex group dynamics. Also, the better suited each member of the group is to survival in said fashion, the greater the likelyhood of a strong group. That doesn't really do the theory justice, but hey, what do you expect from a few sentences on a message board. I have provided a link to a potential mathematical model below: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0601428103v1
Note that there is a competing theory that attempts to explain our encephalization with regards to tool use and physical environmental factors. Neither one is accepted as the universal model.
And I'm sorry that you think we can't learn particularly much from studying our phylogenetic tree. However, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are still primates. Thusly, studying other primates is generally considered not a TERRIBLE use of scientific resources.
But watch me "explain" other theories in a few sentences:
-Quantum Mechanics: All existence is comprised of probability waves.
-Relativity: Gravity fields and conventional accelleration are equivalent. Time Dilation occurs under heavy gravitational influence. Spacetime is curved and the Universe is expanding. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform relative motion to one another. Finally, the speed of light in a vacuum will always be the same, regardless of an observer's motion or the light source's motion.
-Evolution: The strongest and most fit members of a species survive and successive generations become more adapted to fill an ecological niche.
-Expanding Universe Theory: All matter is accellerating away from each other, in opposition to what we think we know about the Universe. This phenomenon has been categorized as "dark energy" since we know less about it than we would like.
And I argue that people offended by the notion that "sex is some kind of battle" have been brainwashed by the post-1960s liberal egalitarian culture.
Waka LakaRiding the stuffed UnicornIf ya know what I mean.Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
5 star thread guys, but I'll pitch in.
Out of the 4 girlfriends I've had in my life, only one liked going backwards. The other three either said it was "Stupid" or it "Hurt".
1 liked it standing and holding her up.
1 liked it missionary
1 liked it side on (kinda awkward)
1 liked it doggy alot of the time, but mind you she was probably the most demanding of the lot.
I dunno, I guess there are some that like it, some that don't. The only thing I can sat were similar with the ones that did not like it, is that they were all only small girls, with only the taller one liking it the way Rex does.
Out of the 4 girlfriends I've had in my life, only one liked going backwards. The other three either said it was "Stupid" or it "Hurt".
1 liked it standing and holding her up.
1 liked it missionary
1 liked it side on (kinda awkward)
1 liked it doggy alot of the time, but mind you she was probably the most demanding of the lot.
I dunno, I guess there are some that like it, some that don't. The only thing I can sat were similar with the ones that did not like it, is that they were all only small girls, with only the taller one liking it the way Rex does.
*Froths at mouth*
There must be universal convergence of preference!
My girlfriend likes it from behind on nights that she's not that into it. No joke, she studied once. Biochem. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.
On nights that she's into it, she doesn't like it. That's usually when we break out the missionary, she says she enjoys that more than anything else we've done, save for sitting in a chair. We broke the chair though, so we don't do that anymore.
Man how insulting would that be to a guy to have a woman read a book while he had sex with her. Put that one in the negative column for doggy style guys, way negative.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
My girlfriend likes it from behind on nights that she's not that into it. No joke, she studied once. Biochem. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.
On nights that she's into it, she doesn't like it. That's usually when we break out the missionary, she says she enjoys that more than anything else we've done, save for sitting in a chair. We broke the chair though, so we don't do that anymore.
This thread is hilarious.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once: Why do Canadians like to do it doggy-style? So they can watch hockey simultaneously.
/rimshot
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
And I argue that people offended by the notion that "sex is some kind of battle" have been brainwashed by the post-1960s liberal egalitarian culture.
I would argue that your dumbass should stick to the dang topic. In fact, I would argue strongly that this will probably be the last warning anyone in this thread will get about staying on-topic. Call it a hunch.
Man how insulting would that be to a guy to have a woman read a book while he had sex with her. Put that one in the negative column for doggy style guys, way negative.
Definitely done doggy style before so we could both watch TV.
My girlfriend likes it from behind on nights that she's not that into it. No joke, she studied once. Biochem. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.
On nights that she's into it, she doesn't like it. That's usually when we break out the missionary, she says she enjoys that more than anything else we've done, save for sitting in a chair. We broke the chair though, so we don't do that anymore.
This thread is hilarious.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once: Why do Canadians like to do it doggy-style? So they can watch hockey simultaneously.
/rimshot
Hells yes, though cheering after a goal can be awkward.
RE: Girl gets to read while guy goes at it from behind.
I would equate that roughly to many a mans fantasy of watching TV / playing video games while recieving felatio, except the girl has put her time to much better use. Men, we should learn something from this. (haha, who am I kidding, we all know we are lazy already)
Also back on topic regarding Doggy Style:
Doesnt it allow the girl to control the pace much easier? Or at least with less effort than cowgirl, what with her not having to lift her whole torso for each thrust, she can just lean forward and back again.
My girlfriend likes it from behind on nights that she's not that into it. No joke, she studied once. Biochem. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.
On nights that she's into it, she doesn't like it. That's usually when we break out the missionary, she says she enjoys that more than anything else we've done, save for sitting in a chair. We broke the chair though, so we don't do that anymore.
This thread is hilarious.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once: Why do Canadians like to do it doggy-style? So they can watch hockey simultaneously.
/rimshot
Hells yes, though cheering after a goal can be awkward.
RE: Girl gets to read while guy goes at it from behind.
I would equate that roughly to many a mans fantasy of watching TV / playing video games while recieving felatio, except the girl has put her time to much better use. Men, we should learn something from this. (haha, who am I kidding, we all know we are lazy already)
Also back on topic regarding Doggy Style:
Doesnt it allow the girl to control the pace much easier? Or at least with less effort than cowgirl, what with her not having to lift her whole torso for each thrust, she can just lean forward and back again.
A man can still do stuff while doing doggy style. He can't, like, write something down, but he could read a book, eat a sandwich, post on a forum, brush his teeth, or numerous other fun activities, as long as he's willing to utilize the table layed out before him. Though I think somebody already established that as degrading, but I think a girl doing any of the same things in her own position is pretty degrading, too.
Personally...it doesn't do anything for me. Might just be a height disparity, but it's just so-so for me and I don't even get to look at my partner. It makes me feel a little foolish, frankly.
Personally...it doesn't do anything for me. Might just be a height disparity, but it's just so-so for me and I don't even get to look at my partner. It makes me feel a little foolish, frankly.
Height disparity? Details? Unless, you know, you're not comfortable with that sort of thing.
She isn't exactly the first person in the thread to point out that it doesn't work out too well if the two participants are significantly different heights. If you really need it I could draw a diagram for you...
Personally...it doesn't do anything for me. Might just be a height disparity, but it's just so-so for me and I don't even get to look at my partner. It makes me feel a little foolish, frankly.
Height disparity? Details? Unless, you know, you're not comfortable with that sort of thing.
You're both level, resting on your knees. If the length of your thighs are really disparate, lining up your genitals vertically becomes difficult.
I wanted to make a little diagram out of brackets, but I don't know how kosher that would be.
I'm something like eight inches taller than my girlfriend standing, but we've never really had a problem with it. I just go a bit spread eagle and we're good. I could see my knees starting to give me a problem if we were in that position too long, but... well... that has yet to be a problem.
:oops:
I'm wondering, how do people feel about those lower-back tattoos as it relates to this? Sorry if it's already been covered, I only skimmed the thread.
She isn't exactly the first person in the thread to point out that it doesn't work out too well if the two participants are significantly different heights. If you really need it I could draw a diagram for you...
Posts
Was it?
"Yeah while we are fucking could you like put a drink on my back and like some chips, I am a coffee table fetishist".
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's all I have to be proud of. Is that what you want to hear? You want to break me down?
*sob*
I don't think anyone equated them. Just arguing whether the doggy-style position signified that the penetrator is being dominant.
My opinion is just that the whoever is bent over in the position is being submissive to their partner -- nothing demeaning about it. Further, I just think it accounts for why some women are turned off by the position on some principle (at least for the women who I have met that take such a stance).
Maybe it's just all the dumb men in our culture who say shit like, "I'd like to bend her over a rail," that makes the position seem demeaning.
And yes, this is generalizing. Some people just don't like it for whatever other reasons.
e.g. Your dick is too small...Or, It hurts.
It doesn't even have to be a reaction to male sexuality in america.
why do so many people in here envision sex as some kind of battle?
and to answer your earlier question yet again, sex only becomes demeaning when one or more partners makes it so. It has nothing to do with any actual acts.
Well, because it's a zero-sum game, Cat. Sex is a finite resource that women give to men. Once they give it up to too many men, they run out and they spend the rest of their lives as spinsters. That's why men either have to use deception and subterfuge or material wealth to convince them to give it up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
To be blunt, Victorianism/Puritanism, marriage-as-currency, and the creepy rapicious mindset that resulted from it.
Ever run across the advice article on how to make sure sex isn't pleasurable? "Try going over your grocery list."
Its a rhetorical question, kiddo. I'm trying the polite method of posting "you people are completely fucked in the head".
If we're thinking of the same thing, I think that was a hoax.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Man I hate rhetorical devices.
--
Hoax or no, it's only so far from the truth.
--
Anyways. People have different kinks. People are often offended that other people do not share their worldview including their kinks. Old news. Silly thread.
I am extremely suspicious of any attempt to attempt to explain any aspect of modern human behavior based on our evolutionary past. Obviously we are affected by our instincts and have a great many holdovers from our ancestors but the relationships are so complicated I don't think they can be adequately explained at the present time.
For example, how many bullshit theories have we heard on these board along the lines of "in the past men were the hunters and / or stronger in order to fend off the dreadful spindly killerfish therefore X". Yet looking at the actual remains of our recent ancestors (eg: last 10,000 years or so) that has been discovered in the last 50-60 years we find that the female skeletons show just as much wear and tear (in terms of injuries sustained during life) and evidence of musculature as the men. These women were not the stay-at-home-and-gather-nuts type.
I just don't think its possible to draw conclusions about modern social behavior based on speculation on our simian past. Especially if the theory can be explained in a few sentences on a message board.
We had dogs long before we had missionaries. Adun willing, we'll have them long after.
I think it's best to discuss with your partner what they like and what you like. Hopefully you'll find something you both like.
The one thing I can't stand is a partner who always has to make sex so.. methodical. Like, preparing the bed, being logical about it and such.. I'm not sure about other people, but by the time the other person is 'ready' to get down I'm pretty much bored.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I was just trying to be open. Didn't realize it'd piss you off so much.
But yeah, as has been said, some people find it demeaning. It may be sociological, it may religious, it may just a personal issue from the past. If it doesn't affect your relationship, do you really need to spend the time worrying about it?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
word. ninjas all braggin' and shit.
Don't be a twat, I'm supposed to keep it on topic.
Except this would be far greater that 100,000 years ago. Second of all, sorry that this offends your sense of self-determinism. Lastly, are you absolutely kidding? Google the Machiavellian Social Intelligence Hypothesis. I didn't explain it AT all what the theory is. But here's a go: as our ancestors started to work together in larger social groups, there was an immediate payout for members with more complex cereberal networks. In other words, the bigger your brain, the better suited you are to survival in complex group dynamics. Also, the better suited each member of the group is to survival in said fashion, the greater the likelyhood of a strong group. That doesn't really do the theory justice, but hey, what do you expect from a few sentences on a message board. I have provided a link to a potential mathematical model below:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0601428103v1
Note that there is a competing theory that attempts to explain our encephalization with regards to tool use and physical environmental factors. Neither one is accepted as the universal model.
And I'm sorry that you think we can't learn particularly much from studying our phylogenetic tree. However, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are still primates. Thusly, studying other primates is generally considered not a TERRIBLE use of scientific resources.
But watch me "explain" other theories in a few sentences:
-Quantum Mechanics: All existence is comprised of probability waves.
-Relativity: Gravity fields and conventional accelleration are equivalent. Time Dilation occurs under heavy gravitational influence. Spacetime is curved and the Universe is expanding. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform relative motion to one another. Finally, the speed of light in a vacuum will always be the same, regardless of an observer's motion or the light source's motion.
-Evolution: The strongest and most fit members of a species survive and successive generations become more adapted to fill an ecological niche.
-Expanding Universe Theory: All matter is accellerating away from each other, in opposition to what we think we know about the Universe. This phenomenon has been categorized as "dark energy" since we know less about it than we would like.
And I argue that people offended by the notion that "sex is some kind of battle" have been brainwashed by the post-1960s liberal egalitarian culture.
Out of the 4 girlfriends I've had in my life, only one liked going backwards. The other three either said it was "Stupid" or it "Hurt".
1 liked it standing and holding her up.
1 liked it missionary
1 liked it side on (kinda awkward)
1 liked it doggy alot of the time, but mind you she was probably the most demanding of the lot.
I dunno, I guess there are some that like it, some that don't. The only thing I can sat were similar with the ones that did not like it, is that they were all only small girls, with only the taller one liking it the way Rex does.
Tumblr
*Froths at mouth*
There must be universal convergence of preference!
On nights that she's into it, she doesn't like it. That's usually when we break out the missionary, she says she enjoys that more than anything else we've done, save for sitting in a chair. We broke the chair though, so we don't do that anymore.
This thread is hilarious.
pleasepaypreacher.net
/rimshot
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
I would argue that your dumbass should stick to the dang topic. In fact, I would argue strongly that this will probably be the last warning anyone in this thread will get about staying on-topic. Call it a hunch.
Definitely done doggy style before so we could both watch TV.
(Damn you Bloodhound Gang, DAMN YOU)
Hells yes, though cheering after a goal can be awkward.
RE: Girl gets to read while guy goes at it from behind.
I would equate that roughly to many a mans fantasy of watching TV / playing video games while recieving felatio, except the girl has put her time to much better use. Men, we should learn something from this. (haha, who am I kidding, we all know we are lazy already)
Also back on topic regarding Doggy Style:
Doesnt it allow the girl to control the pace much easier? Or at least with less effort than cowgirl, what with her not having to lift her whole torso for each thrust, she can just lean forward and back again.
MWO: Adamski
A man can still do stuff while doing doggy style. He can't, like, write something down, but he could read a book, eat a sandwich, post on a forum, brush his teeth, or numerous other fun activities, as long as he's willing to utilize the table layed out before him. Though I think somebody already established that as degrading, but I think a girl doing any of the same things in her own position is pretty degrading, too.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
Height disparity? Details? Unless, you know, you're not comfortable with that sort of thing.
You're both level, resting on your knees. If the length of your thighs are really disparate, lining up your genitals vertically becomes difficult.
I wanted to make a little diagram out of brackets, but I don't know how kosher that would be.
I'm wondering, how do people feel about those lower-back tattoos as it relates to this? Sorry if it's already been covered, I only skimmed the thread.
Please.