Missionary position gets a lot of flak for being boring, but I’d like to defend it for the simple and effective genius that it is. I’m not going to say it is the most exciting position out there. All one must do to find dozens of more creative options is to glance at the Kama Sutra (or any dark corner of the internet).
But for me, missionary just works. It allows for deeper penetration, especially if I raise my legs up to my chest, spread my knees wide, and tilt my pelvis up to open myself as much as possible to accommodate His thrusts. And by rocking my hips forward and back and up to meet them, He can pretty much graze my g-spot with every plunge and every exit.
I appreciate it for purely selfish reasons, as well. I don’t have to work as hard in missionary. That doesn’t mean I’m lazy (though I’ll admit that I can be and do need to up my seduction game – another post for another time). The real benefit is that when I relax, I can focus on my pleasure and I come almost instantly…and repeatedly. I am also more likely to gush or squirt in this position, which intensifies my orgasm, spreading it throughout my whole pelvic region rather than localizing it in my vaginal walls and/or clitoral area.
I find missionary to be intimate, too. Face to face, eye contact, His breath on my face, skin to skin, kisses, my hands on His back, His sides, His hips, pulling Him deeper into me, closer.
Some historians believe that early Christian missionaries taught (or at least suggested) the position because it was more civilized, say, than doggy style, but other primates (gorillas and Bonobo monkeys, for example) exhibit the proclivity for face to face and chest to chest contact during sex in the wild. Chimpanzees and other primates are known to exhibit this preference in captivity (which begs the question – what is it about captivity that alters their sexual choices?). Even lions have been seen using it. (Go ahead, look it up…you know you want to. I’ll wait right here.)
Some historians suggest that maybe it was more about the symbolic placement of the man above the woman, making him the leader and controller of sexual activity. Though in many old world Asian cultures, the opposite is seen to be more Male-centric. So, I’m not sure I buy that line of reasoning.
I’ve even read that the Catholic church pushed the position because it reduced sexual pleasure and was considered to be more likely to produce a successful pregnancy. I can find no proof that it increases the likelihood of conception, but I can guarantee that it does not decrease my sexual pleasure.
Some call it boring, overdone, disappointing. Others like me, praise it and return to it again and again because it allows for deeper penetration, clitoral stimulation, relaxation and increased focus, and intimate eye contact.
The missionary position gets a bad reputation as being “vanilla,” and therefore lazy and unimaginative, as if anything less than wild and crazy acrobatic sex were somehow unworthy of anyone’s time. It does put the man in control (which I prefer) and is therefore sometimes associated with men who are domineering and selfish about sex. But, I’ve also heard that some feel it is more selfish for the woman because it allows her to “just lay there and let the man do all the work.” Yay for personally biased analyses, eh? We can pretty much find evidence to support any claim if we so choose.
I will admit that if all a couple ever does in bed is the missionary position, it will get old. And there are only so many ways to vary it.
I can find sexual gratification in other positions. I can even orgasm. But no other position is as successful for me, as often, and as consistently…as plain old wonderful missionary.
I raise my glass to it.