? being passive in sex
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 06-28-2006 - 12:28pm |
healthy passive in sx/IC
Women would you say for the most part you are healthy passive in sex meaning that you lay there and let him do. even though your body turns on etc. and -passive meaning that you lay there and want him to do... Let me describe what I mean..
This is what i see in my minds eye.. the scene is: she is laying on her back and he (she is kissing him) is kissing her and and he is on his side facing towards her and at one point she starts caressing his penis. He gets hard as she does it but then at a certain point he starts sticking his finger in and searching in around her vaginal entrance... He has stuck his finger in. - she is just laying there with eyes half closed and seems like she is not aware of her surroundings?. he does most of the thrusting and she still just lays there-she is not active in it or is she?). She seems to be liking him kissing her and thrusting in her and that is all she does during and after he comes.. would you say this is healthy passive?
I do see her being active when it is woman on top.. and except for doggie position I see any other position as her being passive if not show me how she isn't? I do see that the woman can and does need to stimulate herself in order to be able to have him insert himself etc. and if the need is there for her to be invovled. but it seems to me that for the most part the woman needs to be passive for orgasm to occur so that she can be relaxed in order for IC to take place even if the orgasm didn't occur at least the relax to still take place so that.. Granted she tells him what she wants but by laying there -she is "getting" what she needs to feel "good". WOuldn't the man have more strength being able to continue it and since he wants it more that he ...
women would you say for the most part 10 out of ten that you are active just in a different way by being ... even though you can be forward about sex it just happens for you in a different way... is that true for you?
It feels safe if the woman is active just as much as the man is but I see her being active like she when she is on top..
Wouldn't you say that the reason you dont actively go after it like a man does is because you are emotional and relational and you need to be turned on whereas the man can turn on more than ... Am i making sense? Do you see that as a difference and do you like that difference if you do?
Otherwise what does passive look like to you when you are doing it the healthy kind?
the orgasm helps you to relax before IC and a woman is "built" to be healthy Passive-because a woman doesn't have the strength to maintain the activeness..etc. would you say that is a difference between a man and woman and that ... in order for sex to work there has to be that passive.. granted not all the time but.. .woudl you say that it makes the man sort of want her more? It seems to me that a woman who is healthy passive a man wants her more? and usually will always seek her out more.. and most of the time she "will" give it in that vein -...
Am I making sense?
sorry it is so long.

Pages
If a woman enjoys sex, wants to have sex, etc., she doesn't have to think about sex more to be able to do it.
>>is actually what I have seen ... actually saw in movie-top gun-. not that that is..<<
A movie is entertainment and does not depict real life situations. In addition to that, the movie Top Gun depicted ONE possible sex act when there are an infinite number of possibilities in real life. Yes, the woman was very passive in that particular scene but it was just ONE example of a couple having sex. I am sure that if she was that passive every time that her and Maverick had sex that he would quickly loose interest in her.
The woman is perfectly capable of being active. I do not know what you mean when you say that she does not have the strength to be active. A man is physically stronger in most situations but physical strength is not an issue during sex. The vast majority of women are perfectly capable of being very physically active during sex. What a strange idea.
Some positions do require that the woman is more passive than in others. But that is only because of the mechanics of the positions. Even in the missionary position where the woman has to remain relatively still so that the man can "thrust" into her, she can still be very active - kissing, touching herself and him, hugging, grabbing the bedcovers or bedhead, moving her body and hips under him, wrapping her legs around and behind his, pulling him against her body.... she can still be very active!
Just because the woman is the female of the species does not mean that she has to be passive during sex. Some women that I have known have been much more agressive and active than I ever was.
I'm not really following what it is that you're are trying to spit out.
Everyone is passive at some time. You do whatever feels good. A woman or a man may take on a totally passive role where they DO just lay there enjoying everything that is being done to them. Specifically during oral. Why would intercourse be any different? Sometimes people are passive in certain positions and depending on the mood. Sometimes, I'm just a passive lump and other times my husband is.
One can be passive during foreplay, pre-play (outside of the bedroom) and during afterplay...not only during sex. If what you are trying to say is that a partner will lose interest just because a person isn't being aggressive during a particular act, that's just silly. It's your overall attitude about sex that counts. You may have been very aggressive during foreplay, but now during intercourse, you're more of the passive.
If you are referring to a truly passive person who does not only participate, but who also isn't into it, then that's something very different. Anyone would lose interest (although as I understand that's the way it used to be in the good old days.... ;-)). But the reality is, is that in certain positions, at certain times, one may be more passive than at others -- that's how you really want it to be (and so does your partner) -- a total lump in the mud. It's all a part of a great sex life -- variety.
I did not understand the entire post but I think I got the gist of it. I have only read a few responses. I think one was a little rude, saying that her mind's eye is voyeuristic; isn't it apparent that this person's first language is not English or maybe there is some language difficulty? I think she's trying to describe something and get feedback, although to be honest I'm not sure I know what the question is, so I'll just throw out some comments.
I agree with poster #3 (I think it was) because I had a partner who expected me (a female) to run the show, and as much as I love sex, my libido got sapped by someone expecting me to be the aggressor all the time. It was a bummer. I wound up not being interested.
I'll stick my neck out here and say that while it's healthy, normal, expected and all that for a woman to take initiative, express some assertiveness/aggressiveness in bed, maybe plenty of it at times, in reality I agree with what I think the original poster is trying to say (and maybe her word choice of "passive" could be picked over endlessly but I think she tried to temper it with another word) that I also believe that the happiest males enjoy taking more of the lead. I just believe, after lots of life experience and the input of a very smart psychiatrist, that men are inherently aggressive (that word has a bad ring to it for some, but it's not meant in a bad way) and to take a man's aggressiveness away (even if he takes it away from himself) leads to results that are sub-optimal, in a sexual sense. So yeah, I think that most of the time, it's pretty normal that the woman, after expressing some degree -hopefully a large degree - of desire that most certainly gets the man all that much hotter, has an essentially more passive, (but highly enjoyable) role in sex while the man is more aggressive. I'm not going to defend or pick this apart; others can disagree. But it's just biology, people! ;o)
I think that a relationship in which the man is more passive than the woman is the pits; if both partners really enjoy that, more power to 'em, but I think there are plenty of females who hate that or would hate it. I happen to think that a fair number of men, who might say they think that a domineering woman sounds heavenly, might get less enamored of it over time or might find myself like I was with my woman-like (ha!) male partner - less than optimally aroused eventually, over time, anyway!
I guess I never thought she was talking about just laying there like a board when she said passive. I thought she was talking about what you described, being "on the bottom" but caressing, touching etc. I guess I do not understand this discussion or what the poster is getting at. I have had trouble with her language structure.
I did mean to disagree, though, with some of what she's said (if I understood it correctly.) Did she say women have to touch themselves to get ready to get penetrated? One thing I have not understood well in the little time I've been reading these boards is the notion frequently passed around that women need self-stimulation or manual stimulation to either be ready for intercourse or to have an orgasm, intercourse or not. (Sure, some of us enjoy it whether we need it or not.) But some of us need no manual, oral, or other stimulation, can be penetrated (I don't need to be on top, I've read that, too) and have an orgasm very quickly. Some of us do it pretty routinely that way, and like it. I'm starting to think I'm a freak. Maybe I have a super organ or something? ;o) ;o) ;o) I do have to admit that it makes my husband pretty happy, though - which is good, because I love seeing him happy.
Although one gets the sense that English is not this persons first language, according to her she's a born and bred midwestern American.
This post is just the most recent of MANY posts, totally strange, totally impossible to understand what the poster is trying to say/ask/convey. The "vagueness" is supposed to be on purpose, because she won't reveal her "problem" on a message board, only in one-on-one e-mails. If you want to understand her problem(s), you'll have to e-mail her.
The OP seems to want to get a blow-by-blow of other people's sexual activities, thus the "voyeurism" comment. As though anything you or I or anyone else does sexually is going to teach her something. As though you or I or any other normal person is going to lie there, thinking and analyzing every move we make. We don't. We "react", and until and unless she tries it for herself, she will NEVER know what it feels like.
If you want some total confusion, then go into the archives, and read some of the prior posts. They go back several months.
I understood her post (due to previous posts) as women being totally submissive during sex, women giving in
I see, I see. Thank you for "initiating me." I looked at the old threads, like the breastfeeding one. I wish she could make her questions just a little more concise, because I'm happy to take on any question if only I understand it. (I call myself the thinker for a reason - I like to think.)
Does anyone wonder if Judith is really female? I got the "male" impression while reading.
Pages