DISCUSSION - sexual position

Jul 25, 2009 19:57

I'm pulling a response to THIS POST and opening up another one of these discussions.

→ previous discussions;
homosexual derogatory terms, "gay", being politically correct in terms of race, female masturbation, abortion, lesbians, friends with benefits, porn, euthanasia, taxes, fangirling, egg donation, religious feuding, death penalty, virginity, ( Read more... )

debate and discussion post, sex

Leave a comment

Comments 12

loudxmusic July 26 2009, 06:11:37 UTC
I agree with soonersurrender, I really don't think Booth was talking about missonary sex. But, that's beside the point, I just wanted to say.

In terms of actually making love, I don't think anybody has the right to degrade or belittle the way two people express their love for one another. As long as both are happy, why should it matter which way they express their love for each other?

Reply


codestothestars July 26 2009, 08:16:01 UTC
i've only had sex with one guy, so maybe i don't really have the depth to answer this without at least a bit of bias, but here it goes ( ... )

Reply

lissie_pissie July 26 2009, 09:18:30 UTC
LOL I screened my other comment just in case. BUT! I also wanted to tell you about this -
http://www.bedposted.com/
IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD INTEREST YOU. And I don't want to grow up and be one of those people who loses track of their sexual encounters. So I signed up right after I lost my virginity and I haven't missed a beat.

Reply


chippers87 July 26 2009, 10:29:02 UTC
I think Booth was talking more about casual, anonymous sex versus sex between two people who care about each other very much than he was about position. And in that context, I agree with him. I recognize that there is a difference between sexual need and sexual love, but, if given the choice, I would rather not orgasm with someone I loved and who loved me than come over and over again with a complete stranger for whom I felt nothing. That's not to say that the former wouldn't be frustrating and the latter wouldn't be fun, but in the argument of connection versus completion, I choose connection.

That being said, I do agree with your thoughts on position. As long as partners are consenting and happy, then I have no quarrels with them.

Reply


london_fan July 26 2009, 14:53:12 UTC
I think the difference is that for some reason, society has cited missionary as the "normal" way to have sex, and if you get into certain other positions, they're seen merely as sexual or kinky, and because of that, we've been conditioned to feel like there's more ~love~ in missionary.

You know what really bugs me about that is the fact that it wasn't a voluntary decision by society, but rather something the church decided and tried to force people to live by. Women who wanted to be on top back in those days were burnt as evil witches. This position reflects perfectly on the world view of medieval times. Man on top with less stimulation for the woman than in most other positions, unless the man knows a few tricks how to make it more enjoyable for his partner ( ... )

Reply


tempusfugitx July 27 2009, 01:34:03 UTC
I guess the convention is rooted in the cliche of the male being "dominant" and also protective of the female. But my reasoning is more that I just love the feeling of him exhausting himself and collapsing on me. I do like the eye-contact though, the eye-fucking is what makes it.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up