Missionary vs. Cowgirl....
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 06-03-2004 - 7:20pm |
i prefer Missionary. Or guy on top i should say. to me the term missionary sounds dull. Why did they even name it that? Anyways. although I do like riding my guy, I get alot more excitment when he is on top. When you're in missionary, you can either make slow passionate love, or you can have some hard and fast rough sex. i like it when my guy puts my legs up over his shoulders. the feeling is so deep. there is this other thing I love. Basically you start missionary and while he is in you, you close your legs and have him straddle you. He then just grinds real hard against your clitoris area. Circles, side to side, It is amazing. Oh yueah and Ishytish, I love your comments, and you seem to know alot. Could you please enlighten us on some new missionary variations?

Pages
You know my favorite cosmogall as we have discussed this on a few other boards, cowgirl is my favorite, but that doesn't mean I don't love missionary and every other position there is.
I consider myself a Christian, because I'm not Jewish, or Muslim, or any other religion. But, there are Christians who would say I'm NOT a Christian, because I haven't been "saved"!
In any case, that's why "that" position is called the "Missionary" position. Because that's what they promoted, rightly or wrongly.
You've made quite a few in your post, but no idea where you got them from.
Keeping in mind that this string isn't about that, but my question was pretty simple: Isn't it possible that other positions were taught to be sinful because of the 'abuse' of those positions as opposed to somebody simply saying it was sinful and thats it. That was the question. No answer from anyone yet as to a simple yes or no, but I'm guessing that OF COURSE its possible.
For anyone to say that the Christians...period...came along and sanctified this one position, especially for no reason other than personal belief without any Biblical backing, is not really justified IMHO...anymore than claiming one gender did this or one race did that. One group of people in those days didn't necessarily represent the whole, that was the point I was making...along with the point the example(s) I gave in my previous post.
Its not a crime to say what YOU think an actual Christian is, but just remember that THAT is your own interpretation only. I'm certainly not going to say I'm Oriental because I'm neither Indian nor Hispanic, lol.
Anyway, if the missionaries in those days actually DID teach that other positions were evil, then we TODAY must also have been taught WHY they thought that, since we've been taught about them already. ;)
OTHERWISE, I'm sticking with what I've been taught, since the explanation fits so perfectly without the loopholes. Regardless, all have own opinions and historical knowledge, but nice to discuss BOTH sides of an issue instead of simply reading one side. BTW, I'm an actual baptized Christian, believing in salvation through faith and not works according to the New Testament, so forgive me for speaking up when someone claims knowledge of my ...LOL!!
C H A R A C T E R
The missionaries, believing that God surely did not intend for man to be so animalistic, immediately set about teaching face-to-face intercourse with an element of lovemaking (kissing, but this was to be minimal, no doubt - lol).
While we are on the subject, all evidence is that an early Pope set in place the "no meat on Fridays" rule that was still common among Roman Catholics well though the 1960's and 1970's simply as a way to help fishermen sell their catch. And, Jewish teachings against eating the meat of "cloven-hoofed" animals (pigs/pork in particular) is believed by many modern researchers to be simply a response to the knowledge that many people became ill aftr eating said meat due to what we now know was caused by an infection with the larvae of the trichinosis worm.
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
Pages