someone dared me to post this
January 24, 2005 11:04 PM   Subscribe

Is Anal Sex Fair to Women? n+1 investigates. [probably NSFW]
posted by neckro23 (175 comments total)


 
Can someone please elaborate on the act of "docking"?
posted by FissionChips at 11:09 PM on January 24, 2005


Somehow, I'm not sure this tally has any relevance to the question posed. I'd say the question is far too broad to be answered directly, in any case. One act can't really be deemed 'fair' or 'unfair' as regards all women in all situations.
posted by sindark at 11:12 PM on January 24, 2005


Docking is two dudes putting their cocks end to end. I believe it's like a big gay swordfight.
posted by mosch at 11:14 PM on January 24, 2005


More research showed I was wrong.

This says that docking is mutual masturbation by two males, one of whom pulls the foreskin of his uncircumcised penis over the glans-penis of the other; once the two penises are locked together the foreskin is moved back and forth over the two glans.
posted by mosch at 11:21 PM on January 24, 2005


Docking.

Not to be confused with Space Docking.
posted by tim_in_oz at 11:25 PM on January 24, 2005


What about "snoodling?" Or does docking cover that as well?
posted by sklero at 11:25 PM on January 24, 2005


Docking is the cutting off or removal of something, such as a person's pay or an animal's tail

cite
posted by reflection at 11:33 PM on January 24, 2005


Penis in own asshole -- female no, male yes

Wait a minute... own penis in own asshole? Is there a documented case of this being done?

Also, who wants a penis up their nose? Anyone?
posted by sbutler at 11:37 PM on January 24, 2005


neckro23, you have my respect for correctly using the 'montecarlo' and 'buggery' tags within the context of one post.
posted by FissionChips at 11:39 PM on January 24, 2005


what?
posted by joelf at 11:42 PM on January 24, 2005


sbutler, not only is it possible, there are in fact instructional videos that show you how.

I can track it down and post a link if it's something you think you'd like to try.
posted by kyrademon at 11:43 PM on January 24, 2005


Ah, here's one:

Uranus: Self Anal Massage for Men

"As a special gift, the video includes 'Al' at the very end, a young man who has played with himself for so many years that he has been able to twist his hard cock around to push it into his ass in a self-fucking way."

Have fun.
posted by kyrademon at 11:50 PM on January 24, 2005


**Sticks a yellow sticker on this post**

/U.C.B.
posted by Balisong at 11:51 PM on January 24, 2005


They left this out of their calculations!
posted by mr_roboto at 11:51 PM on January 24, 2005


"As a special gift, the video includes 'Al' at the very end, a young man who has played with himself for so many years that he has been able to twist his hard cock around to push it into his ass in a self-fucking way."

Huh. Well I'll be...
posted by sbutler at 11:58 PM on January 24, 2005


They left this out of their calculations!

I too noticed that they forgot to mention such things as prince's wands and other sounds.
posted by sbutler at 12:14 AM on January 25, 2005


ernie: "bert bert, you've got a penis in your ear"
bert : "what?" ..... erm nevermind

i hope me + 1 never get to the point where we discuss the fairness of a sexual position.
posted by borq at 12:25 AM on January 25, 2005


fairness = both partners getting off. right?
posted by dabitch at 12:38 AM on January 25, 2005


When I was young, which was long before most of you were even sperm and ova, I did indeed that anal sex was unfair to women. There seemed to me to be an implicit degradation and domination involved in it--all the guys I knew who were into it would never consider being on the receiving end of such and seemed to be obsessed in getting the women they were with to do it because they, too, saw it as an act of domination and degradation. Because that was how men thought of it at the time--or so it seemed to me. Part of the desire and the pleasure was in the getting a woman to give in and take it in the ass, in the getting over part.

As it has been throughout history for the most part and as it still is in most cultures--he who penetrates is a man, he or she who is penetrated is something less than a man--especially he who is penetrated. And this mentality has been pervasive--I've always remembered an apocryphal quote on the topic from Truman Capote--whether true of false, I know not--that I once read years ago: I pitch but I don't catch.

It was only much later in my life that I realized it could be a pleasure for the catcher as much as the pitcher. I think part of my wake up call was reading an instructive essay on the topic by Dan Savage some years ago.

(Boy, when Dan Savage started writing for the Stranger way back when, he was in your face gay with a capital G and always on a tear about breeders. It was breeder this and breeder that and he gave no quarter. You'd think he was Larry Kramer in 1980. And then he mellowed and, eventually, became a dad, if not a breeder.)

All the same, pitchers over catchers is still the rule. Look at all the jokes about prison rape that have been told on TV and even some of the insults that have been thrown between men here. It's a concept most don't even think about consciously. And for a fact, most of the hoo hah about gays among the cultural right always boils down to what is put where by whom. And yet love is surrender and anal sex on the part of the catcher an act of surrender, which makes the idea of Toni Bentley's sexual memoir intriguing. I may even read it some day.
posted by y2karl at 12:52 AM on January 25, 2005


I didn't read the article, because I'm at work right now, but I assume the basic premise they're working from is that it's not possible for women to enjoy the act, whereas it is for men?
Patently ridiculous, as I have known a few in my day who enjoyed "being catcher" quite a bit. I suppose it depends entirely on the people involved and the manner in which it is undertaken.
Excellent euphemism by the way, y2karl, thanks.
posted by nightchrome at 1:06 AM on January 25, 2005


The article is a short paragraph about Toni Bentley's memoir followed by a checklist of what can be put where and pretty much work safe. The nut of it is thus:

...In order to find Bentley’s story compelling, the reader (whether neocon, ur-feminist, or third-waver) must grant that such an arrangement is somehow shocking. Given that the most likely audience for Bentley’s book veers to the left, the intended surprising counterintuition is that her “subjugation” through anal sex was satisfying for her. She did not turn the tables of paternalism with a large purple strap-on...

The writer seems to find Toni Bentley hopelessly out of it. I wonder, though, whether she meant penetration for paternalism there. Out of it or not, I'd suspect that Bentley's perception of herself being in a “demeaning” submissive role is likely the opinion of by far the majority of women ...and men on the topic still.
posted by y2karl at 1:26 AM on January 25, 2005


I didn't read the article, because I'm at work right now, but I assume the basic premise they're working from is that it's not possible for women to enjoy the act, whereas it is for men?

You'd think so, wouldn't you, nightchrome? But alas, it is simply a table of who can put what where by gender. Pretty silly, actually.
posted by teece at 1:29 AM on January 25, 2005


As long as nobody is saying there's anything wrong with being in a demeaning and submissive role...
Heck, that's half the fun.
posted by nightchrome at 1:32 AM on January 25, 2005


"Head out of other’s vagina"

Heh heh.
posted by breath at 1:32 AM on January 25, 2005


Heck, that's half the fun.

Half--or less--the fun of the one doing the demeaning is how most people probably would see it. Evidently Bentley's revelation was that she got something out of being in what she regarded as the demeaned position. Hence the title of her memoir: The Surrender.
posted by y2karl at 2:05 AM on January 25, 2005


People enjoy being buggered?
Wow, real shocker there...
posted by nightchrome at 2:12 AM on January 25, 2005


People enjoy demeaning people?
Wow, real shocker there...
posted by y2karl at 2:55 AM on January 25, 2005


Anal sex is accessory to this story. The underlying point is trying to sync sexual preferences with political ideology, which could lead to a fairly intriguing discussion or turn out to be an useless exercise. IOW: what is the relevance of what goes on during sex on anything outside of sex?

It would seem to appear that political ideologies tend to revert their standard positions when it comes to this question. Simplifying brutally: the right suddenly defends the intervention of the state while the left sings the praises of individualism.
posted by magullo at 2:59 AM on January 25, 2005


magullo: Now that is an interesting take on things.
posted by nightchrome at 3:04 AM on January 25, 2005


My point was our culture, as did the ancient Greeks, seems to think still that pitching is nobler than catching. That being penetrated gives pleasure is somewhat beside the point when the penetration is usually only in one direction and not mutual. That is what I saw in my peers when I was younger--many had the same attitude towards oral sex as anal sex: it was fine to have girls put their mouth on your dick but not everyone was hot on reciprocation in kind. My friends with sexually active teenage daughters report that this has not changed all that much--the girls are giving blow jobs but the boys aren't returning the oral favor very often. It's just a matter of where they stick it in, so to speak, for them.
posted by y2karl at 3:06 AM on January 25, 2005


You're not getting the whole equation, y2k. A lot of women are honestly turned on by the act of submission. I'm not sayin' all of them, but imagine a pretty surprising number. Or maybe I'm just hangin' in the wrong crowds.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:10 AM on January 25, 2005


Or the right crowds, depeinding.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:11 AM on January 25, 2005


You're not getting the whole equation, y2k. A lot of women are honestly turned on by the act of submission.

Oh, I get that. All I'm saying is not many guys are honestly turned on by the act of submission but rather being submitted to. It's still better to poke than to be poked for men. As natural as it seems in terms of primate dominance behavior, it colors men and women's attitudes towards women and men who allow themselves to be penetrated and the men penetrated are regarded as somehow less manly for being on the receiving end. The men who do the penetrating of women or other men in other than genital to genital contact have a higher status and receive far less criticism or attention by those horrified by what they consider unnatural sex.
posted by y2karl at 3:25 AM on January 25, 2005


Oh, I get that. All I'm saying is not many guys are honestly turned on by the act of submission but rather being submitted to. It's still better to poke than to be poked for men. As natural as it seems in terms of primate dominance behavior, it colors men and women's attitudes towards women and men who allow themselves to be penetrated and the men penetrated are regarded as somehow less manly for being on the receiving end. The men who do the penetrating of women or other men in other than genital to genital contact have a higher status and receive far less criticism or attention by those horrified by what they consider unnatural sex.

Maybe. I'm sure there also lots of guys who don't mind if their lady friend wants to tie them to the bed posts and do interesting things to them.

Not naming any names.. ;)
posted by The God Complex at 3:45 AM on January 25, 2005


I always thought half the fun was that there was some give and take. There's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying the dominating role, and it's possible that it's cemented so early in our sexuality that there isn't much you can do about it. I've certainly never thought it was particularly productive to curb your fetishes, since they never seem to go away. Why not just be honest about them, have some fun, and make sure both people get at least some time to do the things they want.

That said, y2karl's general point is a good one.
posted by The God Complex at 3:47 AM on January 25, 2005


nightchrome (from the link):

Given that the most likely audience for Bentley’s book veers to the left, the intended surprising counterintuition is that her “subjugation” through anal sex was satisfying for her. She did not turn the tables of paternalism with a large purple strap-on

You tell me how that is a intended surprising counterintuition outside the take I outlined earlier.

I'm sure there also lots of guys who don't mind if their lady friend wants to tie them to the bed posts and do interesting things to them.

I very much doubt that the numbers match up.
posted by magullo at 3:59 AM on January 25, 2005



I very much doubt that the numbers match up.


No, they probably don't. But most guys are lame anyway. Either way, the act of anal sex wouldn't be what's unfair to women--what would be unfair is expected subjugation without reciprocation (if it's desired). Maybe that could be the catch-all (no pun intended;P) slogan for sexual deviancy: no subjugation without reciprocation!
posted by The God Complex at 4:04 AM on January 25, 2005


A lot of straight men enjoy being dominated, they just don't want anybody they know in their daily lives to find out. This explains the market for dominatrixes.

And most "subs" of either sex are damn picky about how they want to be "dominated", which is why I put those in quotes -- and another reason why people would pay to be "dominated".
posted by davy at 4:17 AM on January 25, 2005


damn picky about how they want to be "dominated

Why do you hate President Bush so much?
posted by zaelic at 4:50 AM on January 25, 2005


no subjugation without reciprocation!

Sure sounds like a political slogan to me 8?)

davy: Maybe indeed most men are into some degree of sexual submission, but I am a man and I very much doubt it. Don't get me wrong: I am curious and adventurous - being dominated simply is not a common element in my fantasies. Most guys that I can think of seem to be in the same boat. However, most women I've had sex with (and many other close friends) privately hold the opposite view about their sisters (and themselves). And I am talking about people from all continents and very diverse backgrounds. Then again, all sexual acts are only meaningful to the participants in them, so it really isn't such a big deal. At all.
posted by magullo at 5:21 AM on January 25, 2005


This should SO have been my post.

It's been my experience that a woman who desires anal intercourse with a man had better be a bit dominating in order to convince him to 'put it in THERE'.

Maybe I've just had bad luck in my choice of men though...
posted by kamylyon at 5:48 AM on January 25, 2005


It's odd that catchers get no respect, since catching takes a fair bit of skill, much like giving a good blow job -- and come to think of it, cocksuckers also get no respect.

I know, I know, sexism, internalized homophobia, etc. etc. Anthropologically, there's some reasons, even if they're not good ones. But from a supply-and-demand point of view, you'd think people with the skill and willingness to be penetrated in creative ways would be more valued.
posted by nebulawindphone at 5:48 AM on January 25, 2005


Two (almost rhetorical) questions:

1) is sex inherently unfair to women just because they have no ability to penetrate?

2) any good surveys on how many guys are multiorgasmic?
posted by RockCorpse at 6:04 AM on January 25, 2005


As natural as it seems in terms of primate dominance behavior...

When you see illustrations of early hominids they sometimes have a tick-mark somewhere around the elbow.
What is that? The height of the female.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:17 AM on January 25, 2005


If you read the book you will find that the author finds a spiritual enlightenment (yes: she says so) via anal sex, thus making it hardly "unfair."
posted by Postroad at 6:21 AM on January 25, 2005


They forgot these:
Finger(s) in other's vagina
Head in own asshole
posted by kirkaracha at 6:46 AM on January 25, 2005


Oh, I get that. All I'm saying is not many guys are honestly turned on by the act of submission but rather being submitted to.

Or they just like female butts, and the way anal sex feels. Not everything is wrapped up in sinister motives.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on January 25, 2005


I think it goes beyond sexual submission into the whole role of women in general, and the idea that women like to be submissive in bed is often consciously or unconsciously expanded into the idea that women like to be submissive in society in general.

Re: dominatrices, the idea is that that is a niche market, not the norm. There is a market, but it is not the default. For many men, the turn on seems to be precisely the inversion of expected roles.

As a woman, I am generally made uneasy by the claim that women are turned on by being submissive. I don't think that's true for me, and I don't really like the connotations. But it may be a biological fact for some people, and there's not much I can do about that. In my ideal relationship, sex is primarily reciprocal and interesting, not a power play, but just play. I understand that power comes into everything, but it doesn't have to be the focus.
posted by mdn at 7:06 AM on January 25, 2005


I'm sorry, but I think this is a pretty dumb link, whether it's about sex or not. And the "Someone dared me to post this" makes it even worse.

Definitely not the best of the web.
posted by agregoli at 7:06 AM on January 25, 2005


Butt...
posted by bardic at 7:15 AM on January 25, 2005


women are turned on by being submissive

[attempting to agree with you here, mdn]

I don't feel that I'm turned on by being submissive, or that I am at all submissive.

I'm turned on by getting what I want/need sexually at the moment.
posted by kamylyon at 7:30 AM on January 25, 2005


I'd have never dreamed it possible, but we've managed to turn a discussion of buttfucking into something dry and analytical. Way to go.

I said anal-ytical. heh.
posted by jonmc at 7:41 AM on January 25, 2005


What's dry and lytical about anal sex?
posted by kamylyon at 7:56 AM on January 25, 2005


Sex is unfair.

In my ideal relationship, sex is primarily reciprocal and interesting, not a power play, but just play.

Hear, hear.
posted by rushmc at 8:03 AM on January 25, 2005


Well, if you forget the lube...
posted by fet at 8:04 AM on January 25, 2005


I think it goes beyond sexual submission into the whole role of women in general, and the idea that women like to be submissive in bed is often consciously or unconsciously expanded into the idea that women like to be submissive in society in general.

I disagree and I hope that was clear. I have my opinions on the matter based on personal experience (and thus ready to be changed at a moment's notice). But most importantly, I strongly believe you cannot distill any non-sexual meaning out of it.
posted by magullo at 8:06 AM on January 25, 2005


DAMN. fet beat me to it...
posted by craven_morhead at 8:09 AM on January 25, 2005


Wow. I just want to say these are the kind of interesting discussions I come to Metafilter for. Yay for everyone.
posted by dame at 8:14 AM on January 25, 2005


dame, no disrespect, but What??

We're just beginning to rid ourselves of the old guilt, shame and baggage surrounding sex. I don't think adding new baggage like what karl & magullo are talking about is a good idea.

And it's ill advised to analyze pleasurable things too much. Think too much about it and you leach all the fun from it. Just take it where you find it and realize that even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.
posted by jonmc at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2005


Not everything is wrapped up in sinister motives.

I was talking about a largely unconscious and universally pervasive received opinion. Pleasure between consenting adults is one thing but a unconscious propensity for demeaning other men by implying that they are less than men, just as making jokes about prison rape--don't drop the soap!--is another thing entirely. He who bends over is always the butt of the joke, never the guy who nails him. Some of the biggest meltdowns here in times past--son-of-minya comes to mind--have involved that sort of taunting. Innuendos from one man to another implying you're kinda gay, aren't you ? as in passive catcher as opposed to active pitcher is a pretty universal line of taunt from self-identified tough guys. Now, could one, do you suppose, go back in your comments history and pull up some playground innuendos you've made in the heat of the moment to men here in language easily interpreted as suggesting or implying they bend over and take it up the ass, jon ? Or are you positive you've never made a comment like that ? That sort of talking trash is as common as dirt.
posted by y2karl at 8:22 AM on January 25, 2005


jonmc: if it helps getting rid of the old guilt, shame and baggage surrounding sex, I am happy to keep these observations, confessions and thoughts private and secret
posted by magullo at 8:29 AM on January 25, 2005


Now, could one, do you suppose, go back in your comments history and pull up some playground innuendos you've made in the heat of the moment to men here in language easily interpreted as suggesting or implying they bend over and take it up the ass, jon ? Or are you positive you've never made a comment like that ? That sort of talking trash is as common as dirt.

Trash talking and what actually goes on in people's bedrooms are two different things.

He who bends over is always the butt of the joke, never the guy who nails him.

Actually, I remember a novel set in prison where a gay charachter says "Pitching. Catching, it's all baseball." And that's moreor less my point of view on it. In trash talk, it's more a matter of not letting people get the best of you. Nobody respects people who always back down. To conflate that with homophobia is a bit of a stretch.

And submission does not neccessarily equal degradation. Someone offering themselves to you completely is sexy because it says 1)I trust you with myself and b)I want you to do this to me. Nothing's more of a turn on than feeling desired.

magullo: but aren't you adding new baggage to replace it?
posted by jonmc at 8:32 AM on January 25, 2005


See, jon, that's where we differ. Analyzing things always makes them more pleasurable for me. As a matter of fact, analysis is kind of like fucking with your glasses on.

But in this case, it really isn't who I (dis)agree with.* I just like seeing interesting discussion.

*My feelings about things near my ass in sex are so extreme that I am eminently unqualifed to discuss this subject.
posted by dame at 8:32 AM on January 25, 2005


And if such common trash talk is demeaning for men, how is it possible that women assuming the same passive position, however willingly, however much for their own personal pleasure, aren't as demeaned to some degree in the eyes of men ?

And it's ill advised to analyze pleasurable things too much.

Pleasure aside, men asserting their masculinity by telling other men to take it up the ass says a great deal about how traditional we are still about the difference between active and passive, inserter and inserted, pitcher and catcher in the arena of sex--that's what I'm saying. What is unconsciously received as opinion perhaps can only be changed by becoming conscious about the implications of the way we talk to each other about the act.
posted by y2karl at 8:33 AM on January 25, 2005


You are right, Jon, it is becoming dry and analytical, so how about if we go back to the charts?

Clitoris in own mouth: Yes-Woman, NA-Men

Boy! Somebody is taking some really advanced Yoga!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:37 AM on January 25, 2005


is sex inherently unfair to women just because they have no ability to penetrate?

Is sex inherently unfair to men just because they have no vagina with which to engulf?
posted by kindall at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2005


Analyzing things always makes them more pleasurable for me. As a matter of fact, analysis is kind of like fucking with your glasses on.

Don't they get foggy?

I liken it to ruining a nice salami sandwich by picturing the butcher's bloody apron.
posted by jonmc at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2005


I liken it to ruining a nice salami sandwich by picturing the butcher's bloody apron.

In ancient times, when meat was eaten, and it was a rarer event by far then for most people, the animal was killed, butchered, cut up, roasted and eaten, all in front of the eyes of everyone eating that meat in a a ritual of sacrifice. There were no euphemisms there. Everyone knew a living creature died to fill their bellies. Today we buy slices of meat wrapped in plastic and avoid the whole topic of how the animals are slaughtered. This mass looking away from the central bestial acts of out daily sustenance eases our way. We can talk about sausage but ooh, ick, don't mention the bloody apron. I suppose it's more convenient to ignore the details in every topic of controversy when they make us uncomfortable. Look away, look away...
posted by y2karl at 8:50 AM on January 25, 2005


Why would it matter if they get foggy? Anyway, I bet you don't like talking during sex either.

I liken it to ruining a nice salami sandwich by picturing the butcher's bloody apron.

If you really really liked salami though, wouldn't you get excited by a bloody apron? Wouldn't it be: Ah, that sweet bloody apron whence comes the salami. If there is an apron, then salami cannot be far behind.
posted by dame at 8:51 AM on January 25, 2005


sex, yes! Bagels, no.
posted by Hands of Manos at 8:52 AM on January 25, 2005


y2karl, I'm well aware of what meat is, and it really dosen't bother me, but that dosen't mean I want to make the abbatoir the focus of the experience.

Perhaps meat is a bad (and too loaded) metaphor.

I mean it's nice that manure helps roses grow, but I'd much rather smell the rose than sniff the horseshit. Call me crazy.
posted by jonmc at 8:54 AM on January 25, 2005


And it's ill advised to analyze pleasurable things too much. Think too much about it and you leach all the fun from it.

This is an error that you make all the time, jonmc. Not everyone feels this way in all cases. There are cases to be made for mindlessness and mindfulness and every state in between.
posted by rushmc at 8:55 AM on January 25, 2005


rushmc, I never said everybody felt that way. I said that I did, and gave my ideas why.
posted by jonmc at 8:56 AM on January 25, 2005


Metafilter: That sweet bloody apron whence comes the salami.
posted by rushmc at 8:57 AM on January 25, 2005


But if you truly loved roses, manure would be sweet as the provider of roses. The scent of manure would be the scent of roses yet to come. (I can do this all day.)
posted by dame at 8:59 AM on January 25, 2005


rushmc, I never said everybody felt that way. I said that I did, and gave my ideas why.

The statement I quoted, couched as a universal law, comes across otherwise. But I'm certainly willing to concede that that's what you meant if you say it is. It just seems to me that you are often scolding people for "thinking too much," and that it might be better to just accept that some people like to think a lot. Of course, that's easy for me to say: I wouldn't be very amenable to accepting a similar recommendation to just accept that some people reject thought. :)
posted by rushmc at 9:00 AM on January 25, 2005


Not on preview: Jon, you didn't say why you felt that way. You just gave more examples of feeling that way. Please give us some analysis on the phenomenon of analysis ruining things.
posted by dame at 9:00 AM on January 25, 2005


And submission does not neccessarily equal degradation. Someone offering themselves to you completely is sexy because it says 1)I trust you with myself and b)I want you to do this to me. Nothing's more of a turn on than feeling desired.

Has anybody noticed that it's been taken for granted in most of this discussion that the specific issue about anal sex is submission? It must seem obvious to everybody that there is something more submissive about getting fucked in the ass rather than in the vagina. Why is that? Is it about pain?

Let's face it: it really is about degradation and dirtyness, and this is what explains both some people's great pleasure in it, and other people's fear and dislike of it. Even if you claim to have liberated yourself from such ideas in thinking about it, can you honestly say they don't affect your experience?

jonmc, your analysis doesn't offer a specific explanation of the appeal of anal sex, just of getting penetrated in general (at least until you say why anal sex involves offering yourself more "completely", which I think will push you in this same direction), and think what you will about it, there's certainly something different about anal sex. Anybody who prefers to keep thinking nice, clean thoughts about how power and arousal get hooked up together, you're free to do that; hell, your boyfriends (or girlfriends!) might appreciate it if you do.

(The observation about the distinction between submission and degradation is probably right; but aren't they both involved here?)

You just gave more examples of feeling that way. Please give us some analysis on the phenomenon of analysis ruining things.
Isn't this example, a meta-discussion about analysis ruining the pleasure of things which threatens to ruin the pleasure of the original discussion, enough?
posted by paul! at 9:04 AM on January 25, 2005


and I'm familiar with the primal pleasures of non-euphemistic carnivorousness. I've been to a pig roast or two in my time.

on preview: heh. I so wish I had packed salami for lunch now. Ah, sweet meat of Genoa...

on second preview: I'm sure you can, but does that neccessarily negate the point I'm making?

Please give us some analysis on the phenomenon of analysis ruining things.

hypothetical example: is it better to realize that you enjoy full-figured women because you were inadequate nurtured/abused by mom and thus get squicked, or is it better to merely keep on digging the zoftig ladies squick-free?

on preview yet again (slow down, you bastards): I don't have a problem with thought. If I did I would spend all this time articulating mine around here, would I? I just acknowledge that over-intellectualization does exist.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM on January 25, 2005


"Toni Bentley has written a memoir about her three-year experience of sexual awakening via anal intercourse with a man."

Dang, I'd figure it would get pretty painful after 2-3 months... tops.
posted by cedar at 9:07 AM on January 25, 2005


I'd figure it would get pretty painful after 2-3 months...

I could be wrong, but I don't believe she had a dick up her ass the entire three years...
posted by kamylyon at 9:11 AM on January 25, 2005


jonmc: I don't know. I know I sound like a broken record here, but I think one of the big problems with the sexual revolution and the sex positive movement is that we can talk a lot about sex, but you can't really say anything beyond "look at me, am I not sexeee?" For example, if you really look into old Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, the originator of the whole Venus in Furs thing, a large part of that dynamic involved bullying female partners into doing all kinds of nasty things to him. There is something funny there that is worth discussing.

Trash talk may be different from what goes on in bedrooms, but I think it's a huge stretch to say that there is no relationship between the way our culture talks about sexuality out there, and the attitudes that people bring to the bedroom. For me, I find that sex is a lot better having done some critical analysis into the stereotypes and myths about sexuality that permeate our culture.

The whole top/bottom dominant/submissive thing is really complex. The other side to the story is that while the BDSM movement is guilty as a whole of a severe phobia of critical analysis of what they do, feminist critiques of BDSM seem to have a phobia of actually talking to people who have been in the scene. Both sides are talking out of their ass in many cases. I have yet to see a feminist criticism of BDSM that addressed the really incredible high that bottoms experience.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:16 AM on January 25, 2005


KJS: I don't deny that there's all kinds of manifestations of the quirks and inequities of daily that show up in the bedroom. It's just that the logical leaps in the central thrust of this piece seem to be a bit of a stretch, and an accusatory stretch at that. Namely: that if you're a heterosexual make who enjoys the occasional bit of sodomy, that you harbor a secret desire to subjugate and degrade womanhood, which I can assure is not neccessarily the case.

This is what I mean when I refer to the perils of overanalysis, it tends to result in flights of fancy that when veiwed with a bit of perspective, seem a bit ridiculous.

But hey, that's just my 2 cents.
posted by jonmc at 9:23 AM on January 25, 2005


I would venture to guess that analysis helps sex. If I understand my motivations and my partner's motivations behind the actions, I can in turn be a better sexual partner because I don't have to rely only on what verbal cues they give me, but on the potential meaning behind that. It changes "I want to stick it up your ass" to "I want to be in a role of deviance/domination and I want you to trust me with that" which allows me to be more empathetic in my response and the make a response that is best suited for the situation.

I kind of pity those who have sex without thinking about it...it seems so meaningless and fleeting.
posted by amandaudoff at 9:24 AM on January 25, 2005


Me too - seems mastabatory.
posted by agregoli at 9:25 AM on January 25, 2005


I kind of pity those who have sex without thinking about it

"Pity is a polite form of loathing." - Jim Dodge
posted by jonmc at 9:28 AM on January 25, 2005


jonmc: hypothetical example: is it better to realize that you enjoy full-figured women because you were inadequate nurtured/abused by mom and thus get squicked, or is it better to merely keep on digging the zoftig ladies squick-free?

Oh, did you have to crap in the well by bringing Freud into this?

But in defense of analysis, (and as a person with more zoftig than thin people in my history), I think it would be foolish to ignore the cultural baggage that is dumped on zoftig people. It is very difficult to leave this baggage behind at the doorway to the bedroom, (or bathroom, or kitchen, or living room, or office, depending on where the sex happens.)

Namely: that if you're a heterosexual make who enjoys the occasional bit of sodomy, that you harbor a secret desire to subjugate and degrade womanhood, which I can assure is not neccessarily the case.

I agree that is not necessarily the case.

On the other hand, it seems that for every time it is portrayed as just another way to have fun, there seems to be at least five that treat it as some sort of a special "prize" or achievement that signifies submission.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:28 AM on January 25, 2005


KJS: Check out Jane Sexes It Up. I don't know enough to say it's exactly what you're looking for (it likely isn't), but it is feminism dealing with BDSM in a clued-in way, and I think does talk about the pleasures of bottoming (I read it years ago).

Let's face it: it really is about degradation and dirtyness, and this is what explains both some people's great pleasure in it, and other people's fear and dislike of it.

I don't think that is entirely true. I would wager it's a good part of it, but you can't ignore the question of sensation. Some people may like the idea of dirtyness and not enjoy the sensation itself. Likewise, someone could really like the sensation and feel disgusted by the dirtiness.

This is what I mean when I refer to the perils of overanalysis, it tends to result in flights of fancy that when veiwed with a bit of perspective, seem a bit ridiculous.

No, no, jon. That's why it's fun. Though *some people* may think metaanalysis ruins a conversation, others think the absurdity augments it.
posted by dame at 9:30 AM on January 25, 2005


"Pity is a polite form of loathing." - Jim Dodge

I don't disagree with that. But it just means that we won't be hooking up anytime soon. :)

On the other hand, it seems that for every time it is portrayed as just another way to have fun, there seems to be at least five that treat it as some sort of a special "prize" or achievement that signifies submission.

And so what? If my partner wants to feel like he conquered some uncharted territory, why shouldn't I let him? How does the idea that he has done something deviant get intrisically linked to the idea that I am being subjugated?
posted by amandaudoff at 9:32 AM on January 25, 2005


Jonmc, twice in as many days you've complained people are overanalyzing something - if you don't want to hear the analysis that others are enjoying, why are you participating? You just seem to be stating the same points over and over again, to what end I have no idea.
posted by agregoli at 9:33 AM on January 25, 2005


No, no, jon. That's why it's fun. Though *some people* may think metaanalysis ruins a conversation, others think the absurdity augments it.

Oh sure. It can result in humor like Denis Leary's riposte those who say he smokes because he didn't nurse on his mom long enough: "That's absolutely true. If I could buy a pack of breasts, I would."

But my travels have taught that there's plenty of dull-witted people who take all such analysis as 100% srious carved in stone gospel rather than the parlor game it often is.

agregoli: I'm just offering my opinions like everyone else. And it seems to have kept an interesting conversation going. Just cause you dislike me is no reason to try to marginalize what I'm saying.
posted by jonmc at 9:38 AM on January 25, 2005


I think Jenna Jameson put it best (it pays to talk to the pros):

Getting fucked literally can be a lot of fun --
Getting fucked figuratively never is.
posted by rtimmel at 9:39 AM on January 25, 2005


In trash talk, it's more a matter of not letting people get the best of you. Nobody respects people who always back down. To conflate that with homophobia is a bit of a stretch.

No, it's not. People tend to equate getting it in the ass with weakness. And what people really don't respect is men who degrade other men with buttfuck innuendos and You know, you're a real pussy and such. Men who talk trash in the first place to make themselves feel big and powerful by demeaning other men... At least, in my book.
posted by y2karl at 9:40 AM on January 25, 2005


jonmc - who said I dislike you? Play the martyr if you must, but at least stick to the facts.
posted by agregoli at 9:44 AM on January 25, 2005


It simply seems odd to me to protest so strongly that people are analyzing too much - while you yourself participate in said analysis.
posted by agregoli at 9:45 AM on January 25, 2005


My personal experiences as a "catcher" have been all over the board actually. But I have enough experience to know that some people really do get off on the whole d/s dynamic associated with it. So really, from the reviews I've read of Bentleys' book, it seems like it's a real snoozer in the whole area. Woman gets a spiritual buzz off of a sexual act she constructs as submissive. *Yawn*. The whole reason why this book is making waves in the popular press (as opposed to the niche community press) is because it is just a tiny step forward in the "confessional" genre which seems to involve stories that are just kinky enough to sell, but not so out of line that they really challenge much of anything.

Now what would be radically subversive would be talking about anal sex without the associated d/s baggage.

dame: Good link. I'll have to add it to my over-full reading list.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:45 AM on January 25, 2005


P.S. I have no issues with being a submissive in a sexual situation provided I'm allowed to do the same to my partner - when he's comfortable with being the catcher, I'll be willing to consider doing so myeslf.
posted by agregoli at 9:48 AM on January 25, 2005


"All I'm saying is not many guys are honestly turned on by the act of submission but rather being submitted to." Except for guys who answer personal ads in alternative weeklies. I'd get one nice indie rocker guy responding for every ten who had a fantasy of me with a strap on. And I didn't mention anything of the sort in my ad (it started with: "books, bikes, Belle and Sebastian") .

That said, I'm sorry I didn't keep a blog of my slut years because they seem to be a saleable now.

Besides, Tristan Taramino has been selling anal to hipsters for four years. I think the ballerina part is more interesting than where she likes her bananas.
posted by GlitterBum at 9:49 AM on January 25, 2005


Men who talk trash in the first place to make themselves feel big and powerful by demeaning other men... At least, in my book.

Depends on the context. There's the "playing the dozens," context where it's basically playful verbal sparring. The there's the context where two people dislike eachother and it's a form of verbal combat. Now, as far as I'm concerned, reaching for the "you're a real pussy" type of line in that situation is a sign that somebody's not too good at it. In a perfect world we'd all relate to eachother by talking about roses and moonbeams and lollipops, but we don't live in a perfect world.

I realize that sometimes I aggravate and exasperate people. Including you, sometimes. But perhaps people need to aggravated and exasperated. The only thing I'm ever really at war with is smugness and complacency.

jonmc - who said I dislike you?

Well, you do show up to scold me an awful lot.

It simply seems odd to me to protest so strongly that people are analyzing too much - while you yourself participate in said analysis.

Maybe I worded it wrong> The danger might be more in taking the analyses to seriously or too much to heart.
posted by jonmc at 9:51 AM on January 25, 2005


Well, you do show up to scold me an awful lot.

Twice?
posted by agregoli at 9:52 AM on January 25, 2005


Whoops. TT's book on anal sex for women has been out since 98.

So it only took Playboy six years to catch onto the fad. Wow.
posted by GlitterBum at 9:54 AM on January 25, 2005


I also think people can decide for themselves what's important to them and whether they want to take analysis more seriously than you might, but hey, I guess that's where we differ, and I said that yesterday as well. *shrug*
posted by agregoli at 9:54 AM on January 25, 2005


Let's face it: it really is about degradation and dirtyness

Only if you're Catholic.

"Pity is a polite form of loathing." - Jim Dodge

Heh, I like that.
posted by rushmc at 9:58 AM on January 25, 2005


"Let's face it: it really is about degradation and dirtyness"

Sorry, survey says "don't overgeneralize from your own experiences and opinions - human sexuality is way too big for that".

I for one, enjoy being both the pitcher and the catcher. And I dont like it when it's dirty. I like it because IT.FEELS.SO.GOOD!

(tip to paul! - you know there are ways of making it clean and non-dirty, right?)
posted by Irontom at 9:59 AM on January 25, 2005


I also think people can decide for themselves what's important to them and whether they want to take analysis more seriously than you might, but hey, I guess that's where we differ, and I said that yesterday as well.

vive la differance! That's what makes conversations interesting, differing opinions and perspectives. It'd be kind of dull around here if we all saw things the same way.

Heh, I like that.

It's from his novel Not Fade Away, a fun read involving love, death, Cadillacs and the ghost of Buddy Holly.
posted by jonmc at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2005


So you don't think people can decide things for themselves. What a great thing to celebrate!

Viva la differance!
posted by agregoli at 10:07 AM on January 25, 2005


agregoli, I meant we can differ on what decision we make regarding how seriously we take things.

See what I mean about rushing to judgement and scolding too quickly?
posted by jonmc at 10:09 AM on January 25, 2005


Eh. We can differ - I guess I bristle at you re and restating that everyone is taking things too seriously - it's only your opinion, as you stated earlier.

But now I'm taking this too seriously, and it's getting really boring. Continue stating your points.
posted by agregoli at 10:13 AM on January 25, 2005


Along the same lines, are we (men) all equally stimulated by anal penetration (catching, not pitching)? The reason I ask is for a comparative perspective of gay and straight men catching...

I've never caught. I've never known a straight man to admit catching. But I know that gay men are more likely to try. I realize my comments sound completely ignorant, but they're founded in a genuine curiousity.

So is it possible that gay men are more stimulated, simply more willing to try (not as much pressure to be a macho man), or are more likely to admit such behavior? Or something else altogether?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:31 AM on January 25, 2005


I like to switch off, personally.

Coupla points: anal sex is not necessarily an act of submission. Some people just, you know, like it.

It *can* be an act of submission or surrender, which isn't paticularly a bad thing in and of itself. If both sides are enjoying it, no problem.

I suppose it could also be degrading, which I also don't think is necessarily a bad thing, as long as that's the way they want it.

There is, however, probably a social imbalance between the number of men willing to pitch and the number willing to catch. This isn't an inherent inequity, since, well, everyone has an asshole, but it exists and probably does say something about the utter terror in our society many men have of not being in the perceived "control" position. Poor things. So, yeah, *if* you were with someone who was willing to pitch but not catch, and *if* it was for that reason, I can see how it could be a power imbalance or means of maintaining dominance. And that probably does happen quite a bit.

jonmc, I always like to know where my urges come from. It doesn't make them less pleasurable for me. But then, I got over my fear of incest a long time ago.

Anyway, I've personally always thought that if there's an orifice available, on you or your partner, you should stick something in it and see what happens.
posted by kyrademon at 10:33 AM on January 25, 2005


*sticks pencil in ear*

Call....doctor...
posted by jonmc at 10:42 AM on January 25, 2005


Metafilter: should stick something in it and see what happens
posted by amandaudoff at 10:43 AM on January 25, 2005


Actually, I've quite enjoyed aural sex. :)
posted by kyrademon at 10:47 AM on January 25, 2005



posted by sonofsamiam at 10:47 AM on January 25, 2005


Good read: the Guide to Getting it On (intro page is semi-OK, apart from the giant pink "SEX" graphic, but site contents probably NSFW). Helped me overcome certain inhibitions. The GTGIO seems to suggest (apart from all the good/bad, d/s, dirty/clean politics attending butt sex) that there are plenty of nerve endings in the ass that feel good when stimulated (however you do it, and whoever does it, and whyever you want it). I must admit to giggling when reviewing the finer points of the "Texas Two-Strap."

A more serious point: I do things with my current lover that I never considered with my former. That's because my former made EVERYTHING seem icky and somehow forbidden. Probably why he strayed...I refused to go along with his take on sex. His current is submissive enough to satisfy, from what I know of her. With my Mr. Current Love Interest, the communication is very good, and therefore I've been willing to be far more experimental. Which brings me to my point, finally: sex starts in the head (no, you silly men, the OTHER head).
posted by MiHail at 10:52 AM on January 25, 2005


sex starts in the head

Then it's an empty experience.

/rimshot
posted by jonmc at 10:58 AM on January 25, 2005


[What kyrademon said. Well put!]
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:03 AM on January 25, 2005


BlueTrain: So is it possible that gay men are more stimulated, simply more willing to try (not as much pressure to be a macho man), or are more likely to admit such behavior? Or something else altogether?

I suspect, not talking about it as much.

jonmc: Well, hrm. I see the dynamic as being a little bit different. A little bit of thought away from the keyboard, and I realized that you are performing a very effective dodge/derail that I've seen enough times that I should have recognized it earlier.

Statement: Many(*) men see anal sex as a d/s thing.

Derail: Not all do that! I don't do that! Why do you have to overanalyze everything!

(* Many here meaning a number somewhere between a "handful" and "most".)

So, to derail the derail: Of course not all do that. We don't know or care what you do. And the analysis so far has been not much beyond pointing out the obvious, "many men seem to have issues with anal sex."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:39 AM on January 25, 2005


"many men seem to have issues with anal sex."

That's what I said hours ago.
posted by kamylyon at 11:41 AM on January 25, 2005


And the analysis so far has been not much beyond pointing out the obvious, "many men seem to have issues with anal sex."

Actually, my main reason for commenting here was to reply to what I interpreted as an implicit accusation in y2karl's comments. Other people responded (often with tangential issues) and I responded back. This is not about me. Your responses to my opinions are not my problem.
posted by jonmc at 12:13 PM on January 25, 2005


Many women seem to have issues with anal sex. I wouldn't say men have the market cornered on that.
posted by raedyn at 12:15 PM on January 25, 2005


Docking.
Not to be confused with Space Docking.


Or Dokken.
posted by Peter H at 12:29 PM on January 25, 2005


Many women seem to have issues with anal sex. I wouldn't say men have the market cornered on that.

I think the point is, there are plenty of men who'd be happy to pitch but not catch, while for women it is just a question of whether the act itself is appealing or not. I think most women willing to catch would be happy to put on a strap-on, too, while the general cultural climate seems to indicate that a lot of guys would only be interested in one side of the transaction.

I strongly believe you cannot distill any non-sexual meaning out of it.

Do you think it is entirely coincidence that traditionally women are considered to play a submissive role in both sexual and social roles?

nice comments, y2karl & KJS.
posted by mdn at 12:39 PM on January 25, 2005


The purpose of this page is to make readily available literature excerpts and articles from all periods of Western history pertaining to homosexuality and eunuchs, that is otherwise not easy to access, and to allow the reader to get a sense of how cultural views of homosexuality have changed over time.

To understand ancient views of homosexuality, it is important to recognize that the "superstitious" ancients distinguished (1) sexual penetration of "non-males" (i.e., men who were either naturally impotent with women or castrated) from (2) sexual penetration of "males" -- maleness being defined as the capacity to play the male role in procreation. Prior to the advent of rational philosophy, the ancient world generally considered the first category to be acceptable, in some cases even sanctified, while on the other hand, sexual penetration of adult free males was universally condemned as being opposed to and destructive of the nature of the male. The sexual use of free boys and beardless youths was controversial because of their ambiguous status as pre-males, and where it was allowed it was strictly controlled, as in ancient Greece. The sexual use of male slaves was permitted because slaves were not accountable for and had no rights regarding the use of their bodies, which belonged to their owners.



The library at Faris Malik's "Born Eunuchs": Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World is a fascinating compendium of historical texts related to this topic, which I came across while looking for an Ibn Hazm quote for a long ago Valentine's Day post I did on the origins of romantic love in the Western World. Malik's synopsis of his argument that the eunuchs of the ancient world are the gay men of today is well worth the read. And his source documents are fabulous. Born Eunuchs is truly a labor of love.
posted by y2karl at 12:46 PM on January 25, 2005


Actually, my main reason for commenting here was to reply to what I interpreted as an implicit accusation in y2karl's comments.

This is not about me.


Those two sentences are having an argument.
posted by y2karl at 12:48 PM on January 25, 2005


The implicit accusation that I saw in your comment was against all men, that they view anal sex has being born from a desire to subjugate women. I consider that a false assertion. And saying so is something I'm well within my rights as a MeFi member to do.
posted by jonmc at 1:00 PM on January 25, 2005


People are quick to judge other people according to their own biases. This is common, of course, but I find it is most apparent when talking about sex in all its variations. It is incorrect to assume that being penetrated in anal sex is anymore submissive than being penetrated in vaginal sex. There's nothing inherent to the act that involves being overcome, those are overtones that we place on it. Or not. Am I submitting everytime that I (a woman) engage in vaginal sex? Not hardly. So why would someone assume different because it's going in a different hole a couple of inches away?

the general cultural climate seems to indicate that a lot of guys would only be interested in one side of the transaction

I'm not so sure about that. You might be right. But my experience is that men are a lot more willing to talk about one particular side of the transaction, and wouldn't publicly admit to being curious about the other side. And I have a sense it's for the reasons preiously discussed: being thought of as 'less of a man' - as if enjoying anal stimulation makes a man gay and, you know, that's universally bad. (right.) That's the social demand - don't show that you might be 'less of a man'.

But get a man alone and they often act differently than they talk in public (even in the company of a few friends). I have found that, given the right situation, many (most?) straight men are willing to explore 'taking it' to some degree or another and they invariably enjoy it if they do. But often they are incredibly uncomfortable talking about it, and I've always had the sense that this is a very private thing for them. This might say more about the kind of guys I've had sex with than anything, but it does lead me to believe that in many cases men talk one way then act another.

But why can't men talk about it? Why is there still this idea that if you 'take it' you're 'less of a man'? I really think it's a shame, because some guys are just too uptight about the whole idea to explore there and they might be missing out.
posted by raedyn at 1:10 PM on January 25, 2005


I think the point is, there are plenty of men who'd be happy to pitch but not catch, while for women it is just a question of whether the act itself is appealing or not.

Well put.
posted by dame at 1:18 PM on January 25, 2005


against all men, that they view anal sex has being born from a desire to subjugate women. I consider that a false assertion.

Oh no! I'm agreeing with jonmc [this is weird].

I know for a fact that not all men view it as subjugation, some few actually see it as a gift of pleasure that a woman can offer him while in an exploratory or playful part of their sexual experience.

And on preview: what raedyn said.
But get a man alone and they often act differently than they talk in public
posted by kamylyon at 1:19 PM on January 25, 2005


Oh no! I'm agreeing with jonmc [this is weird].

It happens to everyone eventually.
posted by jonmc at 1:28 PM on January 25, 2005


My two cents: I don't view it as dirty, I don't see it as subjugation (although if that's how you want to see it, I'll play along...) and I'm perfectly willing to be on the "other" end. Especially if the woman suggests it. I am certainly NOT representative of 90% of my peers. I would consider myself untainted by religious guilt and free from the puritanical cleanliness issues. I'm just posting as another data point.

For paul! who mentioned upthread Is it about pain?

Never. Not if it's done right. Although, I reckon a lot of folks don't know what they're doing.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:30 PM on January 25, 2005


See, jon, that's where we differ. Analyzing things always makes them more pleasurable for me. As a matter of fact, analysis is kind of like fucking with your glasses on.


Hah!

[that was good]
posted by The God Complex at 1:49 PM on January 25, 2005


It is incorrect to assume that being penetrated in anal sex is anymore submissive than being penetrated in vaginal sex. There's nothing inherent to the act that involves being overcome, those are overtones that we place on it.

well, exactly... Those overtones are ones I personally dislike, but they still seem to be there in the culture at large. My personal experience has primarily been with people who are more flexible and open minded, but the one non-artsy guy I had a sexual relationship with lived up to all the bedroom stereotypes I'd dismissed, so it made me wonder if my view was skewed by the sort of people I tend to know.

Re: vaginal vs. anal, I think the whole root of the issue is that being penetrated any which way is thought to be inherently submissive to a certain degree, which is okay if you're a woman because, hey, you're a woman, but which is not okay if you're a man. Again, I don't think this way, and the enveloping/penetrating distinction seems false to me, but there are those on this thread who have confirmed that domination/submission is central to the pleasure of sex, and that men tend to prefer the former and women the latter, in most cases.

And I have a sense it's for the reasons preiously discussed: being thought of as 'less of a man' ... That's the social demand - don't show that you might be 'less of a man'.

But you act as if that "social demand" just was imposed by aliens or something! It grew out of social expectations and beliefs. It exists because some portion of the population believes that men 'ought' to dominate, and that penetration is dominating while 'being penetrated' is submissive (the language itself makes it passive in ordinary usage).
posted by mdn at 1:49 PM on January 25, 2005


What I find most entertaining about this entire conversation is that it's framed almost entirely in terms of the heterosexual world. In gay terms, most bottoms ('catchers') are extremely happy being such, for a whole host of reasons. Sometimes it's about being dominated, but most of the time it's because (to quote a friend of mine) "Nothing in the world feels as good as a dick up my ass."

Sometimes, for some people, anal sex is about domination. Usually those people are straight men, and usually they're younger, in my experience.

Further, I suggest all y'all who think that straight men aren't into receptive anal sex Google the term 'pegging.'
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:53 PM on January 25, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy, it's been framed almost entirely in terms of the heterosexual world because the initial topic (far away as it may be) was at least vaguely about heterosexual power relationships. I don't think anyone really thinks gay male sex can be unfair to women except for women who happen to lust after Ricky Martin.
posted by kyrademon at 2:04 PM on January 25, 2005


Do you think it is entirely coincidence that traditionally women are considered to play a submissive role in both sexual and social roles?

Perhaps it's as simple as the fact that sexual roles are a subset of social roles?
posted by rushmc at 2:14 PM on January 25, 2005


being penetrated any which way is thought to be inherently submissive to a certain degree, which is okay if you're a woman because, hey, you're a woman, but which is not okay if you're a man
I agree. Not with the idea, but with your description of it.

Again, I don't think this way, and the enveloping/penetrating distinction seems false to me
Me too. Just because I get penetrated more than I penetrate doesn't make me submissive.

but there are those on this thread who have confirmed that domination/submission is central to the pleasure of sex, and that men tend to prefer the former and women the latter, in most cases.
I don't agree with this in the leastl. I have found that straight men often like to hand over control. Perhaps specifically because they're expected to always be in control. Are you claiming that there must be an element of submission / domination in any sexual act? While I agree that can be enjoyable, I think there's also a place for sex not complicated by those power-plays. Particularly as a survivor of rape, I find "submitting" to be very difficult. But with the right partner, we can both submit to the moment and it feels safe.

But you act as if that "social demand" just was imposed by aliens or something!
Well if it's a social demand that you adhere to, but don't believe in, it might as well be imposed by aliens. There are social norms that I think are a bunch of hooey that I'll play along with because I'm supposed to. Others I make a point of challenging.

penetration is dominating while 'being penetrated' is submissive (the language itself makes it passive in ordinary usage).
Yes, in having this discussion, I've noticed how the language reinforces this. Any ideas of how to use language to reduce the precieved passivity? I'm not passive when I'm having sex. I'm not 'recieving' I'm participating.

What I find most entertaining about this entire conversation is that it's framed almost entirely in terms of the heterosexual world.
Well 1) most of the posters thus far are more or less hetero 2) it's mostly the straights that still have hang ups about anal penetration. (Notice I said mostly) and 3) The post that sparked this discussion was about a book written a a straight woman, after all. (on preview, what kyrademon said)

In gay terms, most bottoms ('catchers') are extremely happy being such, for a whole host of reasons. Sometimes it's about being dominated, but most of the time it's because (to quote a friend of mine) "Nothing in the world feels as good as a dick up my ass."

Similarly, most straight women are happy to engage in vaginal sex. And sometimes it's about being dominated, but most times not.
posted by raedyn at 2:28 PM on January 25, 2005


kyrademon - "Anyway, I've personally always thought that if there's an orifice available, on you or your partner, you should stick something in it and see what happens."

Still true even now. Why would you not surrender yourself to your lover in every way for pleasure? I like to know that if I or my partner ever have a desire the other person will do what can be done to satisfy that desire (as long as it's not taking the piss).

My missus would love me to get it on with Jude Law and Ewan McGregor as she likes to watch the gay sex. I am totally in love with her and if the opportunity arose I would fulfil her desire. The chances of this are pretty slim but even as a straight man I would make a sacrifice for her pleasure, it's only fair. In return for this I'd expect some similar favour as long as it met with her acceptance.

jonmc - didn't you bring that "go screw yourself" post to MeFi? I can't believe you wouldn't take one for the home team...
posted by longbaugh at 2:53 PM on January 25, 2005


Kyra, that was blindingly obvious, tyvm. What I was referring to was all the ideas of anal sex being about power, about d/s, about degradation. It's called offering another viewpoint on the situation; one, I hope, which sheds light on the original subject.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:53 PM on January 25, 2005


jonmc - didn't you bring that "go screw yourself" post to MeFi? I can't believe you wouldn't take one for the home team...

Read the thread again, longbaugh. I'm one of the one's who thinks buttfucking is no big deal and should be treated as such.
posted by jonmc at 3:21 PM on January 25, 2005


Oh wow, amazing how this idea comes up in two places on the net on the same day. You know, I had an ex who was into the gay male porn thing and when she found that I had an attraction to a certain male friend, it was really creepy how pushy she was about trying to set something up that she could watch.

Interestingly enough, she also got off on the whole idea of anal sex as a power-play. But she was really into role reversal as well. Or perhaps it was acting out a role from the gay leather porn novels she loved so much.

Once upon a time, I found the tendency for some women to gush over male homosexuality to be flattering. Now, it just seems to be voyeristic, egocentric and creepy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:01 PM on January 25, 2005


Once upon a time, I found the tendency for some women to gush over male homosexuality to be flattering. Now, it just seems to be voyeristic, egocentric and creepy.

My theory is that there's a type of woman who likes having attractive men around but is utterly terrified of the "otherness" and threat that straight men represent and think (wrongly, I might add) that the stereotypical gay male is a neutered Ken doll for them to play with.
posted by jonmc at 4:08 PM on January 25, 2005


Great discussion here, folks. Thanks.
posted by rocketman at 4:11 PM on January 25, 2005


jonmc: My theory is that there's a type of woman who likes having attractive men around but is utterly terrified of the "otherness" and threat that straight men represent and think (wrongly, I might add) that the stereotypical gay male is a neutered Ken doll for them to play with.

Wow! No idea where this comes from but wow!
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:15 PM on January 25, 2005


The implicit accusation that I saw in your comment was against all men, that they view anal sex has being born from a desire to subjugate women.

You saw your own projection then. That was not what I wrote. Initially I spoke of how things were among my peers when I was young--over thirty years ago--and as the thread shows, times have changed. However, there is this theme among many cultures, that those who catch are lesser beings than those who pitch and you see in the language men use to men, especially online. It's not all that far removed from men's prison culture, where it's all about power and men are divided between jockers and bitches.

In my experience, that mentality has bled into the common culture--another blessing of our lock 'em mentality--for example, just a week ago I was standing at a bus stop in downtown Seattle and saw a young woman drop an unopened bag of Cheetos. I said, Miss, you dropped your bag!

Shut up, bitch! Or do I have to come over there and slap your face ? was the response. All this talk of bitches and bitch slapping, like baggy sack ass pants with inseams starting at the knees began in prison and it, to my ears, is a poison in the common culture. We put so many young men in the most bestial and degrading conditions possible and it bleeds out into things like rap lyrics and jokes about prison rape. That's something almost entirely other than the mutual activities of worldly and consenting adults.

I know the streets were a hard place when I was young but I don't recall that sort of degradation being part of the common language of street kids then. It's a far cry from playing the dozens, which is a thing entirely quaint and antique in my experience. I heard that going on when I was young. What I hear now is another thing entirely. I must be getting old--you know, it really bothers me to hear that sort of stuff going on between tough kids on the bus or on the street--men calling women bitches, men calling men bitches.

Everybody here's talking about their enlightened un-uptight personal experiences. For all the talk of the 60s sexual revolution, in my experience we were all extremely vanilla by current standards for all the times that we got laid. You know, in my day, conversation concerning oral sex was something akin to what that of heterosexual anal sex has been here today. Things are far more wide open now, as any examination of the personal and hooker ads in in any alternative urban weekly will amply demonstrate. That Dan Savage could write an instructive and entertaining column on the how tos of anal sex shows how far we have come. You would never have seen that in any hippy news paper in the 60s. And I think that is, by and large, a good thing.

But what I was talking about was an ancient theme still embedded underneath the common consciousness: there's a big difference between the way young men can still demean other men in the language of pitching and catching and bitches in common conversation and the mutual consent of equal partners, so, from my point of view, we are talking about two differemt things and you are telling me I am saying what I am not saying. Well, there's over-intellectualizing and then there's under-intellectualizing. So be it.
posted by y2karl at 4:17 PM on January 25, 2005


It comes from observation and listening. I've heard countless women say how as teenagers they developed crushes on androgynous, "pretty" teen idols because of they were nonthreatening. Think Fabian (or even better Troy Donahue) as opposed to Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis. Most girls grow out of it. Some don't. And the media promotes the stereotype of gay men as effeminate and harmless, so in the minds of some women they become another version of those Tiger Beat posters.

You saw your own projection then.


Right. Couldn't be that you just made a mistake in how you stated something.
posted by jonmc at 4:22 PM on January 25, 2005


I must be getting old--you know, it really bothers me to hear that sort of stuff going on between tough kids on the bus or on the street--men calling women bitches, men calling men bitches.

Young men, especially those putting up a tough front, like to use shocking language. It takes more to shock someone from your generation than from your parents. It's immature and counterproductive, but that's definitely a part of it.
posted by jonmc at 4:29 PM on January 25, 2005


jonmc: My theory is that there's a type of woman who likes having attractive men around but is utterly terrified of the "otherness" and threat that straight men represent and think (wrongly, I might add) that the stereotypical gay male is a neutered Ken doll for them to play with.

That's how most fag-hags are. They think we're these sort of fully-grown dolls to play with, who will also help them pick out fabulous shoes.

For a large, large percentage of women I've known who have wanted to help me find them gay porn/find them a couple of bi boys to sleep with/watch me and a boy go at it/etc., it's a very similar phenomenon. It's such an annoying thing; they're subscribing to exactly the same commodification of a human being that they bitch about when straight men do it. I have nothing whatsoever against voyeurism; hell, it can be great fun. But I'm not here to provide you with sexual fantasies.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:47 PM on January 25, 2005


jonmc: I'm more inclined to believe that it's primarily about "good for the gander, good for the goose." If straight men can make the ubiquitous "lesbian" scene a staple of pronography, why shouldn't women adopt gay porn?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:48 PM on January 25, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy: For a large, large percentage of women I've known who have wanted to help me find them gay porn/find them a couple of bi boys to sleep with/watch me and a boy go at it/etc., it's a very similar phenomenon. It's such an annoying thing; they're subscribing to exactly the same commodification of a human being that they bitch about when straight men do it. I have nothing whatsoever against voyeurism; hell, it can be great fun. But I'm not here to provide you with sexual fantasies.

Well, I've come to the bitter conclusion that most sexual relationships are less about sharing between people, and more about having a living interactive prop to fit into a particular type of role-play. And I think that coupled with this is the stereotype that gay and bi men will have sex at the drop of a hat (any hat). But this is drifting a bit away from the anal sex issue.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:00 PM on January 25, 2005


If straight men can make the ubiquitous "lesbian" scene a staple of pronography, why shouldn't women adopt gay porn?

That's not what bothers me. Taste in porn is a matter of, well, taste. It's more the "fag hags" dirtynumbangelboy desribes above who seem obsessed with preconcieved notions of gayness to an unhealthy degree.

That's how most fag-hags are. They think we're these sort of fully-grown dolls to play with, who will also help them pick out fabulous shoes.

When you'd probably rather go crate-digging with a straight slob like me and then get drunk and start a bar fight. ;)
posted by jonmc at 5:10 PM on January 25, 2005


I'm a pretty hard core fag hag myself (although I prefer the term 'fruit fly'). I can't imagine anyone getting away with treating my friends like a neutered Ken doll or a three - way procurement specialist. That certainly wouldn't last long in my crowd.

/derail


Anyway, good conversation.
posted by Space Kitty at 5:40 PM on January 25, 2005


Well, I've come to the bitter conclusion that most sexual relationships are less about sharing between people, and more about having a living interactive prop

Kirk, a few months ago I would've completely and utterly agreed with you. For many (far too many hetero men, anyway), sex seems to be all about imposing some kind of soft-core Playboy-esque fantasy upon their inflatable girlfriend. Could be I'm hanging out (ha) with the wrong crowd. That, I would suspect, is the real reason why many females might consider catching demeaning--not because of the act itself, but because of the pitcher. A "this is soooo nasty" pitcher is a big turn-off. (tra-la, there's my entry for my Playboy centerfold interview...and yes, I've been practicing dotting my "i"s with little hearts.) Mutuality is everything, in my book.

Then it's an empty experience.

Case in point.
posted by MiHail at 7:03 PM on January 25, 2005


Is sex inherently unfair to men just because they have no vagina with which to engulf?

Well, as much as I enjoy my dick I suspect I have something close to vag-curiousity. So, the rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question to my rhetorical question is maybe.
posted by RockCorpse at 7:08 PM on January 25, 2005


Right. Couldn't be that you just made a mistake in how you stated something.

Weak.
posted by y2karl at 7:33 PM on January 25, 2005


154 posts... good golly! And a few belly laughs out of it, thanks folks!

Let me just say that I love you all, but... seriously, sheesh! All this time you've been typing, you could have been having sex. Maybe even anal sex! I'm with jonmc on this one, *tips hat* and allow me to paraphrase:

LESS THINKING.
LESS TALKING.
MORE FUCKING.


Things overall would improve, I should think.

Oh, PS: dame said, "As a matter of fact, analysis is kind of like fucking with your glasses on."

I'd just like to state for the record here that I am extremely turned on by women who fuck with their glasses on.

That is all. MeFi is a great place indeed. Resume party!
posted by zoogleplex at 8:10 PM on January 25, 2005


It is incorrect to assume that being penetrated in anal sex is anymore submissive than being penetrated in vaginal sex. There's nothing inherent to the act that involves being overcome, those are overtones that we place on it

Well yea I can see that but then again an anus is not a vagina. Getting past the sphincter muscle is not at all that similar to getting into a vagina. In fact there is a certain amount of submissiveness, at least physically, in allowing entry to the anus. As both a catcher and a pitcher I can state categorically, at least for me, there isn't any d/s component to this. But you really can't say there's nothing inherent to the act that involves being overcome, because there is, unless of course you catch "all the time" and have lost a bit of vigor to the sphincter.
posted by filchyboy at 8:34 PM on January 25, 2005


magullo: Maybe you're not hanging out with the right crowd. I've dated many (an embarrassingly large number of) men that wanted to be controlled. They certainly wouldn't act that way in public, and would probably be totally different in the workplace or at a bar/pub. Most men don't actually want to discuss anything that goes on in the bedroom, truth be told. Even if they like to brag, I've heard a few men tell utter bullshit stories about what they've done, fully knowing I'm going to kick their ass when I find out. And knowing they'll like it just fine.

y2karl: I was a teenage girl not too long ago, technically. 1) I would never, EVER speak to my mum or dad about who was pleasuring who, and 2) Most of my female friends refused to give blowjobs. In the groups I was around, the boy better get down on his knees if he ever expected anything in return.

Again, I run in different circles. I'm sure that I give off "dom" vibes. I know I'm not getting a clear view of the sexual spectrum. But I think those arguing that men aren't as likely to enjoy being subjugated aren't getting a clear view either.
posted by honeydew at 9:05 PM on January 25, 2005


Don't know why this is nagging on my mind but...

In my mind, the straight people who gush on and on about how gay sex is just "so hawt" are not nearly as gay positive as they think they are.

I mean, they've grasped the idea that I should not be hit in the head with a baseball bat. What they have moved forward to is some sexual version of cultural imperialism. Just like well-traveled Americans, these people want to read about it, see the videos, make friends with people from there, and perhaps visit for a weekend fling. They like the difference, the feeling that what is out there is more "real" than in their bedroom. Within their cultural circles, stories of their safaris and souveneers provide a certain cultural capital.

But while they are romantacizing these new countries to death. They want the nice easy escape route back to the same old home they know and love.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:30 PM on January 25, 2005 [1 favorite]


KJS: <3

Hit the nail on the head of what I was trying to say, in a much clearer and more concise way.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:53 PM on January 25, 2005


zoogleplex, you're making the assumption that I'm not having sex at the same time that I'm posting to metafilter.
posted by kyrademon at 12:41 AM on January 26, 2005


"Let's face it: it really is about degradation and dirtyness"

Only if you're Catholic.

posted by rushmc at 11:58 AM CST on January 25


So everyone debating the "dirtyness and degradation" in this thread is catholic?

Your hardon for the catholic church is comical rush. You find a way to fit it into everything. In a way, I admire your one mindedness, and in a way you're just really pathetic, like a child pulling at his mom's aprons because she won't pay attention to him.

We get it. You hate the catholic church. Everyone on mefi knows it. Happy? Good. Now step outside the house for once.
posted by justgary at 5:53 AM on January 26, 2005


(tip to paul! - you know there are ways of making it clean and non-dirty, right?)

Not dirtyness in that sense. Dirtyness in the figurative sense - sure, there's some overlap here, but that's not the point.

Am I submitting everytime that I (a woman) engage in vaginal sex? Not hardly. So why would someone assume different because it's going in a different hole a couple of inches away?

Exactly my point. The reason it gets treated this way, I ventured, is it's considered degrading, for whatever reason - to the point where the image is regularly used as a specific reference to getting very badly exploited. Maybe I underestimated the chances that people (and especially Metafilter users) could somehow transcend this cultural baggage and see the asshole as just another orifice, equivalent to the vagina (let's forget about the mouth for now, though I take it that we could have had a very similar discussion about this), and not implying any degradation or, consequently, special submission whatsoever. But I would be willing to bet money that for the vast majority of (heterosexual) "pitchers," the special excitement of anal sex is related to degradation and/or submission. Sure, fine, reader, maybe not in your case; but most. Otherwise, anal sex just wouldn't have the status in (most of) our culture that in fact it does have.

Who knows, maybe that will soon change! Any bets on that?

there's a big difference between the way young men can still demean other men in the language of pitching and catching and bitches in common conversation and the mutual consent of equal partners

Are they really so unrelated?

I know for a fact that not all men view it as subjugation, some few actually see it as a gift of pleasure that a woman can offer him while in an exploratory or playful part of their sexual experience.

But where's the extra pleasure coming from? Special nerves? And why is it any more a "gift" than any other kind of sex?

That's something almost entirely other than the mutual activities of worldly and consenting adults.

I really don't get what the fact that consent is involved has to do with whether and how sexual pleasure and power are linked.

I think those arguing that men aren't as likely to enjoy being subjugated aren't getting a clear view either.

So we've got two currents here:
1. those who think that anal sex involves extra "subjugation," "submission," "degradation," etc., among which some think both men and women like it, others who think men just hide that they like it; and
2. those who think it (at least often) doesn't involve these things (even, I take it, in the mind of just one of the people involved)

I'm fine with the idea that the "d/s" aspect of it is shaped by culture. And I can grant that it might be possible to get past these things, notably living in a subculture where ass-fucking is the norm (like gay male culture). But I would still think that, as long as the dominant culture, which provides the vast majority of us with many of the most important formative early experiences related to sex (not necessarily sexual experiences per se), keeps giving us experiences that make taking it in the ass seem submissive and/or degrading (how exactly does this happen? ideas, anybody?), that's going to keep being part of what makes it exciting and dangerous for most. And why not?
posted by paul! at 6:15 AM on January 26, 2005


1. those who think that anal sex involves extra "subjugation," "submission," "degradation," etc., among which some think both men and women like it, others who think men just hide that they like it; and

Oops, I meant: one group who says that women like those things more, another who say that men like them just as much but may hide it...
posted by paul! at 6:17 AM on January 26, 2005


Further, I suggest all y'all who think that straight men aren't into receptive anal sex Google the term 'pegging.'

That term was coined, what, like three years ago?
I agree that sexual mores are changing, and that columns like dan savage and tristan t. are making a lot of previously taboo sex acts much more 'hip' than they were a generation ago, so perhaps these underlying themes really are less entrenched in younger people, and dying out. I hope that's true. I still don't think it is worth denying that these themes were ever there, though.

I have found that straight men often like to hand over control. Perhaps specifically because they're expected to always be in control.

But that is just reinforcing the basic assumption! This is what I was trying to respond to when people brought up dominatrices & pegging: those things are not the "norm"; in many cases they are exciting to people precisely because they go against the norm. And to "hand over control" is an interesting phrase - that's really quite different from simply being assumed to be the submissive one, don't you think?

Are you claiming that there must be an element of submission / domination in any sexual act?

absolutely not. I hope I made it clear that this is not how I think about sex. I am simply more convinced as I get older, and my circle expands past hip college musician types, that these stereotypes are actually based on something and not just arbitrarily imposed.

Any ideas of how to use language to reduce the precieved passivity? I'm not passive when I'm having sex. I'm not 'recieving' I'm participating.

I often use the active form of fuck & screw; 'surround' and 'envelope' sound kind of cheesy but the idea that both sides are actively engaged was important to me when I first reallly thought about it. A little dictionary of the word 'fuck' I have says the etymology for the word is about penetration, but that there was a female version, which I think was "swive".

Trying to confirm that memory, I came across this article, which isn't really related, but, well, it's interesting.
posted by mdn at 6:31 AM on January 26, 2005


Any ideas of how to use language to reduce the precieved passivity? I'm not passive when I'm having sex. I'm not 'recieving' I'm participating.

I've always thought "genital hug" was silly yet appropriate.

and see the asshole as just another orifice, equivalent to the vagina

But it isn't--not in terms of actual mechanics. That doesn't mean that it isn't equavalently okay to use (if you want to), but my cunt was made for made for penises to go into; my ass, not so much. You know, one self-lubricates, one magically expands, etc. Someone did a better job about scphincters upthread. I don't think it does any good to pretend thy're exactly the same.
posted by dame at 7:14 AM on January 26, 2005


But it isn't--not in terms of actual mechanics. That doesn't mean that it isn't equavalently okay to use (if you want to)...

These are fine points, but by my lights thinking that the main or most important difference between vaginal and anal sex is mechanical would be to get things very wrong. Or rather, to think that it's so for anyone but some very unusual minority. Anyway, I was never saying anything about whether it was okay, just about why and how it seems to mean something so very different.

By the way, I get the impression that nearly everyone here is together on thinking that it would be better to keep degradation and submission out of things, disagreeing mainly about whether or not these things are present in the case of anal sex despite this ideal. Don't some people actually dig this aspect of things? Don't - *ahem!* - a lot of people dig them?
posted by paul! at 7:41 AM on January 26, 2005


No, that last paragraph went too far. I take it back. There's a strain of that kind of view here, but it's not everybody's. Forget that, sorry.
posted by paul! at 7:44 AM on January 26, 2005


'pegging'...That term was coined, what, like three years ago?

You're right about the recentness of the word, but there's evidence of the activity happening back into antiquity.

(I'm at work now, otherwise I'd provide links)
posted by Irontom at 9:44 AM on January 26, 2005


You're right about the recentness of the word, but there's evidence of the activity happening back into antiquity.

given the lack of silicon & latex "in antiquity" I think it's quite unlikely that strap-on dildos were a particularly common device... While it's certainly plausible that a woman stuck a cucumber up her boy's butt every here and there, I sincerely doubt it was a common practice then, as it can hardly be called a common practice now, even though it is certainly talked about, especially among younger, hipper, more sexually adventurous types. But it is not something everyday couples do every day...

I would bet the percentage of people who have engaged in this (by definition a straight women anally penetrating a straight man) is significantly lower than the percentage of people who have had homosexual sex, and the latter category is still a significant minority (maybe 10% of the pop?).
posted by mdn at 10:18 AM on January 27, 2005


Dildos have been a popular device for centuries now - I'm not positive that strap-ons are an entirely modern invention...
posted by agregoli at 11:13 AM on January 27, 2005


mdn, you should try doing an actual study, instead of guessing. I think you're a bit off.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:46 AM on January 27, 2005


I've been pegged. Once. It was reasonably fun and I'd be willing to do it again with a partner that was interested. I didn't at all feel subjugated, but I did feel a bit passive, like someone was doing something to me—I think the penetration thing is an important part of the dynamics of sex for most people. I'd rather there was psychological parity between the sexes as mentioned above (penetration = enfolding), but I don't think there is. So in that sense I was submissive, but I didn't feel the least shamed or dominated.

The three times I've had gay sex were all oral. And I've only been on the "pitching" side of things with anal sex once, as well. It's never really appealed to me so I wasn't in any hurry to try it out. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, but it wasn't some sort of amazing thing that I'd been waiting to do.

I don't think that it can be denied that for many people, perhaps most?, part of sexuality has roots that go into power issues between the sexes (for heterosexuals), power issues in general, violence, shame—a host of "bad" things. Is this inherent? I don't know. I think a lot comes from culture, from being taught to be ashamed and then internalizing that shame into titillation. In my view, people that embrace these things (in a healthy way) in their sex lives are turning something bad into something good and reclaiming something. So if someone wants to be humiliated (or to humiliate) during sex, that's perfectly fine in my book (assuming everyone's willing).

As far as I can tell, I've not connected those sorts of things to my sexuality. In fact, I think I've gone to the opposite extreme and maladaptively denied them in my own sexuality. Power issues in sex, mainly anything that seems like it might be or could be misogyny to me, just freaks me out and turns me off. I've wondered if being dominated might be fun and certainly avoid those issues for me (because they are issues, it's almost a block for me—my partner can say "do this to me!" and I'm still very hesitant). Not had the opportunity, yet.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:19 AM on January 28, 2005


but my cunt was made for made for penises to go into

*ahem* Just to remind everybody, cunts were not only made for penises to go into, but also for babies to come out of.

/pedantic
posted by raedyn at 2:11 PM on February 1, 2005


I'd probably have found this funnier if I were smarter.
posted by nanojath at 8:59 PM on February 23, 2005


« Older I knew we were right!   |   They call me Thumper! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments