Wait, how can the missionary position be forceful?

TW here for graphic description of (consensual) violent sex. Relatedly, this post is not exactly SFW.

So, on the Julian Assange case. I keep seeing people on the internet scoffing at the idea that he’s accused of using force on someone, when all he did was have standard, boring missionary-position sex. “I do that all the time!” they say or think. “Obviously it’s all trumped up baloney. After all, how can that be forceful?”

It can. Believe me. How do I know? I’ve had that sex.

I’m a kinky motherfucker. I identify as a switch, meaning I enjoy taking both a top and a bottom role. I also enjoy D/s (dominance and submission), and enjoy both roles there. I have a boyfriend who shares my interests — he’s taller than me, but also lighter.

When we have kinky sex, it’s often in missionary. He’s the dominant partner. He’s aggressive, forceful. He usually holds my hands over my head, using the weight of his body to keep them pinned to the mattress while the other hand goes wherever he wants to put it. Sometimes he lets my hands go, with the understanding that I’ll keep them there or he’ll hit me, grab them, and roughly put them back. I can’t move very much, and if I try, it’s likely to end up with my movement more restricted. Even though he’s lighter than I am, he’s in a far more advantageous position — the missionary position is not very far from wrestling’s mount, and he can easily start choking me with his hands or forearm.

And then sometimes we have vanilla sex in missionary. Neither of us is dominant. The sex is caring, collaborative. My hands are free to explore his body or provide leverage against the bed. I can move as I like, pushing against him or angling for a better position. While physically, his position is the same, his attitude is completely different, and I forget that he could hold me down if he wanted to.

Lastly, while I’ve never done it, missionary sex can be kinky/forceful in the *other* direction, with the man submissive (that link is so very NSFW). There are a lot of options here, that picture covers only some of them.

Context is key. There is no sex position or sex act which is inherently dominant, submissive, or neutral. None. The characterization of every single sex act depends on context, a context which comes from a person’s history and the relationship between them and their partner. This is where a number of feminists and BDSM enthusiasts have gone wrong, positioning some things (being the penetrative partner, receiving oral sex) as always dominant, and their complement as always submissive. This, too, is where people go wrong when talking about Assange — just because you have never had missionary sex that was violent or forceful doesn’t mean that nobody has, that it can’t happen. Did it? I don’t know, and I hope an impartial court decides. But that’s not the point. The point is that it’s possible, and sex exists outside the scripts which our culture has written for it.

About aliarasthedaydreamer

Aliaras is a giant nerd. Kinky, queer, and poly, she loves thinking about things and poking at them to see how they work. She’s currently in college learning the secrets of the universe (physics). While not arguing over the internet, she blows pixels up, draws, writes, cooks, and wanders around making the world a weirder place.
This entry was posted in libido, noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Wait, how can the missionary position be forceful?

  1. Danny says:

    Off topic but:
    Lastly, while I’ve never done it, missionary sex can be kinky/forceful in the *other* direction, with the man submissive (that link is so very NSFW). There are a lot of options here, that picture covers only some of them.
    You know when I read this but before hitting the link I imagined a couple in missionary with the woman wrapping her legs around his waist, refusing to let him go. And digging her nails into his back or wrapping her arms around his neck.

  2. Clarence says:

    http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/632902/sorry,_victim_blamers:_julian_assange%27s_lawyer_confirms_that_%22disturbing%22_sexual_acts_occurred/

    I just love this: “retroactive” consent..or changing one’s mind to consent during a sex act does NOT make it not rape, but changing one’s mind during intercourse does make it rape. Holy double standards, Batman!

    I followed this for nearly 3 months reading things about it on various feminist, MRA, and other political websites.
    My opinion is partly based on the actions and later reactions of the two women involved, both of whose names I know. They don’t think he raped them, they don’t want him prosecuted for rape, the initial Prosecutor in Sweden declined to prosecute but was over-ruled, hence this is very likely a prosecution for political reasons.

  3. typhonblue says:

    Having someone in your guard (ie. between your legs) is a dominant position in wrestling.

  4. kaija24 says:

    As a smallish female with a very large muscular male partner, I am VERY aware of the possibility for violence and being overpowered during missionary sex…all that force and weight is positioned to come down on me/hold me down/literally nail me into the floor (bed, sofa, whatever). In a consensual situation, letting this happen/asking this to happen can be very VERY hot…like aliarasthedaydreamer, I like the power games and switching up roles when it comes to sex, but just the thought of that minus the mutual caring, consent, and awareness of the other’s headspace/emotions is somewhat terrifying.

    Even a kiss can be intrusive, revolting, and traumatic if inflicted without your agreement by someone you are not attracted to…think about a virtual stranger or an irritating acquaintance forcing you into a wet kiss…blech. As aliaras said, the context and not the act itself is the determining factor.

  5. @Clarence: the point about “retroactive consent” is not that suddenly in the middle of things for no reason the women went “OMG I AM SUDDENLY SO INTO THIS YEAH BABY!” but that it is much more likely and common that the women feared escalation or gave in to get it over with – submitting to nonconsensual sex that was already happening, not enthusiastically consenting to a continuation of the sex. Giving up because your “no” is not being respected (as is clear at least in the second case) is not the same as “changing your mind” to be an enthusiastically consenting partner. However, changing your mind from enthusiastic consent and withdrawing your consent is actually changing your mind, and should be respected just as much as an initial no.

  6. ozymandias42 says:

    Right, if your partner is clearly not giving affirmative consent to sex, you shouldn’t continue to try to have sex with them. I… really hope everyone reading this blog agrees to that.

    I personally believe the only reason it’s being prosecuted is politics, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a rape, and that doesn’t make rape apologism okay.

  7. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @Ozy: exactly. It’s possible for it to be political and true at the same time.

  8. AMZB says:

    Wait, people thing missionary-position sex isn’t forceful? Since when? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  9. typhonblue says:

    @ startledoctopus:

    “but that it is much more likely and common that the women feared escalation or gave in to get it over with – submitting to nonconsensual sex that was already happening, not enthusiastically consenting to a continuation of the sex.”

    Or the man.

  10. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @AZMB I’ve seen it around on the internet. It makes sense to me — if you never *have* or intend forceful missionary sex, there’s no reason why it would be forceful (to you). Like I said, context is everything, and many people’s context does not involve force or D/s games.

  11. typhonblue says:

    @ kaija

    “As a smallish female with a very large muscular male partner, I am VERY aware of the possibility for violence and being overpowered during missionary sex.”

    Ha. This reminds me of something. I was play wrestling a fairly big guy, 6’4″. I was around 145 lbs at the time. I had him in guard on a bed and swept him flat on his back in a second.

    It’s not just size. It’s skill.

  12. typhonblue says:

    Oh, forgot. He was 200lbs. I’m also around 5’1″-2″.

  13. Jared says:

    Just to get back on topic, the idea that missionary couldn’t be rape is completley weird to me. Most other positions seem to necessitate a lot of cooperation from the nonconsensual person. Not that cooperation means it isn’t rape, just that it seems impractical for the rapist.

  14. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @Jared

    I mean, missionary does require that the receiving partner open their legs. Cooperation is still nonzero, or force is needed. Although that’s going to be the case wherever.

  15. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @thread: Consent thread now open here. Will see about moving comments over; I’m new to this whole “wordpress” business.

    Edit 9:34 PST — comments could not be moved over, but have been duplicated at the bottom of the new post. The copied comments have been deleted from this post, in order to focus discussion over there. If I’ve missed a copy-paste somewhere, please let me know on the new thread.

  16. Pablo says:

    @Clarence
    I’m not sure why that’s difficult for you to understand. It makes perfect sense to me. If at any point there is sex in absence of consent that is rape. That’s not a double standard, that’s the definition of rape.

    As an aside, most current laws handle prior consent poorly and could be improved, but future consent doens’t really make sense.

  17. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @Pablo:

    I approved this comment, but you should take the consent discussion over here where people are currently going at it.

    So to speak.

  18. Pablo says:

    Sorry, read these in the wrong order. I’ll just repost it if that’s okay. Please delete this one.

  19. typhonblue says:

    @ aliarasthedaydreamer

    “I approved this comment, but you should take the consent discussion over here where people are currently going at it.”

    Hopefully with consent.

  20. TomeWyrm says:

    @Jared & aliarasthedaydreamer, cooperation doesn’t require consent. Besides, the need for cooperation can be obviated with the application of force. While missionary does lend itself to physical control in ways some of the other positions do not (cowgirl springs to mind), you don’t have to wrestle with someone to control them. Threats of bodily harm, inducing emotional shock, chemical inhibitors (Date Rape drugs, anesthetics, sedatives, etc.), and more techniques than I care to contemplate can be used in place of, or in addition to, raw physical force.

    The idea that anyone believes that any sexual act can’t be rape is appalling. The short definition of rape is “non-consensual sex”, it blows my mind sometimes to realize that people can be that oblivious. All you have to do is not want it, and any sex is rape.

    On the wrestling thing, skill doesn’t mean the big strong person isn’t going to make you nervous when they’re in a position of dominance if it were on the mat instead of the bed, couch, or whatever. Just because you have skill doesn’t mean the other person doesn’t have more. Wrestling and martial arts are popular pastimes for those big strong males.

  21. typhonblue says:

    @ TomeWyrm

    “While missionary does lend itself to physical control in ways some of the other positions do not (cowgirl springs to mind), you don’t have to wrestle with someone to control them.”

    I’m guessing that you’re really focused on the idea that rapist = male, rape victim = female when you say cowgirl doesn’t lend itself to physical control.

    “On the wrestling thing, skill doesn’t mean the big strong person isn’t going to make you nervous when they’re in a position of dominance if it were on the mat instead of the bed, couch, or whatever.”

    Nor does being the ‘big strong person’ necessarily mean anything when it comes to who gets sexually assaulted and by whom.

    * Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion in a romantic relationship in the last year. Almost 2.3% of women reported forced sex and 25% reported verbal coercion. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

    The ‘big strong person’ doesn’t make me nervous because I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t fear me as much as I fear him.

  22. typhonblue says:

    Looking back on that last line it came out a lot more threatening then I intended.

    It should read more like:

    The ‘big strong person’ doesn’t make me nervous because I don’t see any reason why I should fear him any more then he fears me.

  23. Clarence says:

    typhonblue:

    Tell you what:
    I will pair you against a 6 foot tall and 8 inch man. Let us say for the sake of argument he is strong and in great shape.
    The rules are he gets to punch you as hard as he can in the stomach and you get to punch him as hard as you can in the stomach. One time nothing else. Only the stomach. Neither of you can do such things as curling your knuckles to concentrate the force, these are simply closed fist punches. One each. You and he both have to stay still and open and take it directly in the stomach.
    You get to go first as you are smaller.
    Force equals mass times acceleration. Are you going to tell me he has equal reason to fear you as you do him?

  24. typhonblue says:

    @ Clarence:

    Tell you what. Let’s pair that 6 foot tall 8 inch man with a bear. Are you telling me the bear has anything to fear from him?

    We’re a tool using species, Clarence. I’m smart enough to realize that I need to get my shot gun to deal with a 6′ 8″ man. Or a bear.

  25. Clarence says:

    Typhonblue:

    So you finally admitted that strength and size makes some difference. Thanks. Super Elite Ninja Powerchicks don’t exactly exist on every block , and while I might -as a man- have to fear them siccing 3 male friends on me, or killing me in my sleep, I usually have less to fear going punch to punch with a girl. Which means that for a woman to fear a larger man (heck, for ME to fear a significantly larger man) is perfectly defensible.

  26. typhonblue says:

    Also, why should I fear a 6’8″ man any more then another woman? Women are very creative about getting around the whole ‘size issue’ plus I’ve never been hurt by a woman in a way that they couldn’t hide behind plausible deniability. Which is a whole extra level of pain after the injury heals. (Worst injury I ever got was from a woman and I got thrown down a concrete culvert by a teenage boy when I was nine.)

  27. typhonblue says:

    @ Clarence

    “Which means that for a woman to fear a larger man (heck, for ME to fear a significantly larger man) is perfectly defensible.”

    No. It’s actually not defensible unless the bigger person has expressed a propensity towards violence.

    Is it defensible for white people (on average smaller and less muscular) to universally fear black people (on average bigger and more muscular)? In fact, if we follow your equation of ‘larger equals unequivocal power over’ then why are white people on top(generally) in society?

    Hell, why aren’t we ruled by bears?

  28. Clarence says:

    typhonBEAR
    *winks*
    Bears aren’t intelligent enough to rule, so we can keep them out of our argument now, I would hope.
    I am not making a claim that one should fear based simply on size UNLESS the context is such that a fight or assault seems imminent. Which is what we were talking about, or so I thought. Once again, it’s perfectly understandable for the average woman to fear getting in a fist fight with the average man. She’ll likely lose, and lose a few teeth as well, as his punches will do a considerable amount more damage.

    This whole sub argument came about because you seem to think that wrestling your partner into submission is as easy for your average woman as your average man. I should say after reading you for probably 8 years now, that you love to focus on the exception and give it undue weight as compared to the rule.

    I am skeptical about the Assange case because it is often not stated whether he explicitly held one of the girls down or merely happened to BE ON TOP in missionary position where it was NOTHING but his WEIGHT that was considered “force”, and the way this was played out in the press. It seems that even today many people believe that Assange is accused of being brutally forceful to the second accuser. He is not accused of what would commonly be called “force”. That’s unfair to him, and prejudices people against him.

  29. typhonblue says:

    @ Clarence:

    “I should say after reading you for probably 8 years now, that you love to focus on the exception and give it undue weight as compared to the rule.”

    I said that skill was a *component* not a trump card. Just like size is a *component* and not a trump card. Also, that I don’t fear based on size but on *propensity*.

    I think this is a mischaracterization of what I’m about here, Clarence.

  30. Clarence says:

    typhonblue:

    Then you still don’t get to decide what other people decide is their preferred “trait” to fear. Women who fear men can hold them down during intercourse in most positions are perfectly justified in doing so. Indeed, I wouldn’t mind a sexual partner declaring certain positions off limits because they might make her feel “trapped”.

  31. typhonblue says:

    @ Clarence:

    “Then you still don’t get to decide what other people decide is their preferred “trait” to fear. ”

    WTF?

  32. Brian says:

    @Clarence: I also wouldn’t be too afraid of big guys; without a lot of intellectual knowledge of how to rape someone they don’t have much advantage over you.

    As the weakest guy I know without exaggeration, I can tell you you’d be surprised how possible it is to win a fight, if you pick the fight right. A weapon is much more dangerous than big muscles, if you don’t have training in either.

    OTOH, “directly under the big guy” is probably the worst possible fight to pick. A big guy would probably lose to most women if he was directly under them; it’s very awkward for him to get her off and very easy for her to keep him there.

  33. Clarence says:

    It’s quite simple Typhonblue:

    People profile in various situations and you don’t like how some people do it. Tough cookies.

  34. I’m 6’1″ and 250lbs. I was dating a 5’2″ 104lbs Russian exchange student at the time.
    She would regularly dominate me when we wrestled – and I hated it. Size has very, very little to do with it. Strength and skill have far more to do with the ability to physically dominate someone.

    Also, a weapon.

  35. typhonblue says:

    @ Clarence:

    “People profile in various situations and you don’t like how some people do it. Tough cookies.”

    Actually, it’s not simple Clarence. BECAUSE I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU ARE ASCRIBING TO ME.

    I relayed an anecdote in the spirit of Ozymandius’s comment on how missionary can be forceful *the other way round*, ie. female-on-male.

    I also think it’s indefensible for people to profile based on physical characteristics. They still do it; I still find it indefensible and profoundly stupid because, IME, the most dangerous person is the person you don’t expect to be dangerous but *is*.

  36. typhonblue says:

    “I relayed an anecdote in the spirit of Ozymandius’s comment on how missionary can be forceful *the other way round*, ie. female-on-male.”

    To use an analogy, missionary is like guard; cowgirl is like top mount.

    Guard is just top mount in reverse; missionary is just cowgirl in reverse.

  37. Clarence says:

    Typhonblue:

    That just goes to show you that you don’t seem to know very much about self defense or the use of statistics when doing so. The best fights are those that are avoided. Thus:
    It makes sense to avoid high crime areas late at night.
    It makes more sense (on average, because few people are ninja assassins) to fear a fight with the big guy versus the 98 pound milquetoast.
    It makes sense to avoid most drunk people.
    It males sense to avoid being in isolated areas with large groups of teens
    It makes sense to stick to well lit areas at night

    And a whole bunch of other things that people do to protect themselves.

  38. Clarence says:

    Easily Enthused:
    Why did you bring strength into things. Skill is one thing, but are you saying that your 5’2 lady friend was stronger than you? What, you didn’t exercise? Your ability to gain muscle mass was obviously far more than hers was and yes I wrestled for two years in high school. Strength is a big advantage in wrestling unless the difference in skill is really great.

  39. typhonblue says:

    @ Clarence

    “It makes more sense (on average, because few people are ninja assassins) to fear a fight with the big guy versus the 98 pound milquetoast.”

    Er… unless the 98 lb milquetoast has a concealed weapon and knows how to use it?

    As for the rest of this, I’m not going to get into an internet pissing match over this… I’ll be frank… it’s a waste of time.

  40. Clarence says:

    Typhon:
    You have to bring weapons into things, because your arguments are so weak otherwise? Rather sad , since you thereby admit I’m right. You know I’m talking about regular fist fights not weapons. Otherwise, I’d just shoot the big guy.
    How often are people killed by weapons in bar fights? Not that often.
    So, while you are free to profile as you see fit, so are other people. Hand to hand combat is one thing where bigger and stronger is almost always better UNLESS weapons are brought into play or there is some extreme difference in fighting skills.

  41. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    Okay, you guys, drop this thread for a little bit and come back to it later. This is getting unnecessarily flamey.

  42. typhonblue says:

    I already did, aliarasthedaydreamer.

    For the record, it’s really annoying to be told to do what you’re already doing. 😛

  43. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @typhonblue: I really had no way to know that. But thank you.

  44. typhonblue says:

    Hmm… you didn’t get that impression from my last post on this side topic?

  45. Putting aside judgement on the innocence or guilt of Assange, one of the things that I’ve heard comments about was that it must have been rape because when he started out they were asleep, and somebody can’t give consent when they’re not conscious. Which is an assumption I find really problematic, because I’ve been woken up by sex before and it was something I very much wanted and enjoyed. So not big on the idea of that being put on some kind of “no go” list. That said, where what is alleged to have taken place crossed the line is that Assange woke his partner up with unprotected penetration, something that she had specifically ruled out when they were together the night before. So the presumption of non-consent to unprotected sex should have been held to.

  46. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    The thing is, you can’t know — really, really can’t know whether or not someone would like being woken up to sex if you haven’t talked about it yet, or if you don’t get them awake enough to consent first. It’s– they’re asleep. They went to sleep with you for sleep, not for more sex, and might not even be expecting to have more sex with you today.

  47. Tamen says:

    Iamcuriouslyblue: Good for you that you enjoyed it, I did not. I hope you’re not arguing that I am acceptable collateral damage since _you_ enjoyed being woken up by sex?
    That hopefully unintentional implication that I should’ve enjoyed it (or at least not have the right to call it for what it was) did upset me.
    The way of keeping that kind of sex of the “no go” list for your partner and you is to explicitly give advance consent for this to your partner.

  48. Brian says:

    @iam: Lucky for you, but you can’t assume that most people want that.

    If you do, you arrange it beforehand, you don’t wait for them to rape you.

  49. No, my “implication” is not that anybody should suck up and enjoy anything. In terms of “collateral damage”, I think holding all people at all times to lowest common denominator restrictive standards of other people sounds like “collateral damage” to me. And, for fuck sake. Tamen and Brian, your comments are the very death of nuance and I won’t be responding to them further.

  50. “And, for fuck sake. Tamen and Brian, your comments are the very death of nuance and I won’t be responding to them further.” Actually, didn’t mean to single anybody out except to say all three responses were ham-fisted and in several cases, rude.

  51. Tamen says:

    Strange that, I thought it was you who were un-nuanced since you said you didn’t want sex with sleeping partner to be on a “no-go” list without qualifying the statement with any pre-arranged consent.
    I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and opened up for the possibility that that wasn’t your intention and that the omission of the pre-arranged explicit consent was a just mistake from you or that you thought that was so self-evident that you omitted it for that reason.

    In fact you mentioned the Assange case and seemed to protest that him starting to have “surprise sex” as some pundits have called it with the sleeping woman is called rape. Since she since have reported him to the police it is more likely than not that no such explicit pre-arranged consent were given
    .
    I lost my virginity to a woman who took it upon herself to mount me while I was asleep – I woke up with me being inside her and I didn’t want that and hadn’t given any pre-arranged consent allowing her to do that to me. I note that me not wanting others to experience the same and saying that one shouldn’t have sex with a sleeping partner without getting consent in advance is according to you a case of holding all people at all times to lowest common denominator restrictive standards of other people and that that would even make you collateral damage.

    I am baffled that you seem so hurt over the pushback against the notion that initiation sex with someone who sleeps without getting explicit consent in advance is ok. It already is considered rape by law in many jurisdictions and here in Norway one woman have been convicted for rape as she performed oral sex on a sleeping man after a party so it is not that my position is a very radical one.

  52. Well, actually not super-enthused over Nordic countries trends in this area of law, thank you very much. Sweden now is pushing for a law in which the state can step in and prosecute a sexual encounter to be “sexual exploitation” even when both parties were clearly consenting.

    Now as to the specifics, you’re talking about situations where there had been no prior sexual relationship at all and somebody just sprung sex on a somebody else while they were sleeping. Seriously not OK. As opposed to the very different situation I’m talking about where we were already partners and sleeping together. And she made a very good guess that this would be something I’d enjoy. But, hey, I guess with the absence of long, protracted negotiations in advance, that defaults to rape, right?

    The other matter about this issue. I’m talking about regular *sleep* here, not being passed out drunk. The level of sleep you can easily awaken from and make your wishes known whether you’re being touched in a way you don’t like, or simply don’t have enough bed space.

    Note that I think “enthusiastic consent” is a great concept to aspire to, as the pleasure of all partners really should be a concern for everybody involved. However, I think the concept is being made sadly unappealing those advocates who make it a micromanaging and authoritarian set of rules that everybody must abide by in their sexual practice or be a rapist by default.

  53. typhonblue says:

    @ Iamacuriousblue

    “And she made a very good guess that this would be something I’d enjoy. But, hey, I guess with the absence of long, protracted negotiations in advance, that defaults to rape, right?”

    Sexual encounters in established relationships work along very different consent lines then one-night stands or hookups. Because people can make educated guesses about what the other person wants barring abusive relationships.

  54. Tamen says:

    I have to wonder why anyone would consider the following two exchanges for “long, protracted negotiations”:
    1) A: I’d like to be waken up by sex and you have carte blanche to do so.
    B: Ok/I don’t feel comfortable doing that.

    2) A: Would you like to be waken up by sex sometime/tomorrow?
    B: Yes/No

    And since someone mentioned the Assange case as an example I must point out that mr. Assange was not in an established relationship with that girl. I firmly believe that having sex with someone the night before is not in itself ground enough to assume that they would like to be waken by sex and that if you’re mistaken in your guess then you are responsible for the pain you’ve caused and you may very well be at risk for prosecution.

  55. Pingback: Friday Sex Links!!!! « Sex with Timaree

  56. Kenshiroit says:

    Communication and honestly is paramount in thise cases.
    I dont belive the good old missionary is a abusive position, more than any other. Is doggy style just as abuse than the missionary? is a 69 also abusive? everything can be abusive, but it doesent mean they are, but they can. Without consent everything is abusive both coming from a man or a woman. Who does it and what postition are used is purely cosmetic. The real issue is there is consent or not?

    Consent require communication and again honestly. Dont say yes if you mean no, and dont say no if you mean yes. Nobody is a mind reader, so dont expect people to know your mind.

    Finally, imagine, you are sleeping with Master Yoda. And in the middle of the night he wakes you up and tell you: remember my dear padawan to f*ck me…..and you answer yes master (jumps on him) then he adds NOT!……….meanwhile you did it. This sound like a joke, but situation like this happens all the time (offcourse not with master yoda) and not because people are malevolent or evil minded (some maybe are…but not everybody) but simply because people dont understand each other.

    Another situation whery difficoult to manage, is sex during sleep. Several times I wake up and found my gf mounting me. I didnt give consent. And she reacts whit surprise….are you kidding me? you did this and that ect. And I have no memories about this. Off course not everynight.

    But how to cope with sleepsex? what to do in thise situations?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s