Does penetration = presumption of power/control?

Good point LRD!

Yes, I think that's really important - the Catholic Church is actually quite unusual even among Christian sects for saying that sex must be only for procreation. Before the Schism, the Christian Church didn't say that, and the Orthodox and Anglican Churches still don't. It is quite an odd view, really!

sardine - so they do. I have to say I'm not sure a male monk (for it was he) would know that, but I may be doing good old practical medieval peeps a disservice there. They're often quite earthy.

SaF - good point re. shame. I only mention enforcement because it's interesting how resilient people can be (look at homosexual clubs in the early part of the 20th century!) to laws they know are daft.

There are still people who are quite ashamed by the idea of non-missionary sex, too.

Just been catching up (skimming I admit) and the religious stuff is fascinating. I was also wondering about the idea that PiV = full body contact, that it's the most intimate thing you can do (not for me and my friends it wasn't, as other posters have said too), and not being able to have eye contact during oral sex

Anyhoo.

Just saw this LRD "'the swelling of flesh' tells you they want to have sex. That's pretty penis-centric and frank, so I would guess there's still an emphasis on PIV." and wanted to point out that women's genitals become engorged when they are aroused too.

Last post in a row ... promise ... but isn't it fascinating about bodies?!

This is how I know I'm not at heart an intellectual person - I just love to know about the physical stuff because it is so interesting that we're all a bit different. And women's bodies are a pretty amazing bit of design, aren't they?!

thanks for the sharing SaF, another reason to pester DH for a baby!

UMS - oh, yes, the Church does say those things.

I think there are two issues. Firstly - does the law get enforced? I think (I could be wrong, this isn't my area really) that actually getting put to death for fornication is relatively rare. Despite it being technically illegal. It's maybe a bit like underage sex these days - technically there's a law, but often no-one bothers to prosecute. Secondly - if you look at what laws are made and what the authorities are keen to talk about people not doing, that is often a fair guide to what people are doing! No-one bothers to legislate against a crime that isn't occurring.

FWIW, I was talking to someone working on disability/mental illness, and she points out that in medieval England, disabled or mentally ill people were entitled to marry, and their marriages were valid - even if they were so disabled sex/PIV was out of the question. One writer says you can tell it is right for disabled people to marry because they've grown up knowing about sex from their relatives, and - basically - 'the swelling of flesh' tells you they want to have sex. That's pretty penis-centric and frank, so I would guess there's still an emphasis on PIV.

I don't think we'll ever know for certain what happened in the past. What I think is most important is not to assume PIV was always the definitive ideal of sex. I hate it when people use incorrect or incomplete 'evidence' from the past to insist 'it's always been like this' - that is rubbish!

LRD, I did read somewhere (can't remember where - I was just googling a while ago) about the anatomy of the clitoris. It way saying that the leg parts of the clitoris are different in different people. So some people may have leg parts that are kind of more curved around the base of the vagina and some have leg parts that extend further back under the perineum. So the sensations are going to be different based on that. No doubt there is some technical term that is not leg part.

This is TMI, but I have a lot more g spot sensation since I was stitched up following child birth. I am assuming that it has somehow moved everything around a bit. So I would think that part of it is differences between bodies and how everything is laid out.

LRD Your 'posting history' most recently includes several hours of giving me a complete battering in which you state you are brighter, better informed, your misreading of my posts is based on my poor vocabulary, I am just here to take the piss and a variety of other things. What you haven't done is talk about the link between PIV and manslaughter which is the post I made.

My posting history reveals that I think some extreme feminism is a 'lunatic fringe', Prolesworth only seems to appear to defend Sakura and will split hairs to the nth degree to do so and that you have often taken the worst possible transaltion of what I have written - no matter if it is nonsensical- and used it against me.

It is certainly true to say that it is easy to phrase something badly and easy to misread something - how busy we all are with what we are concurrently doing in RL has a huge bearing I am sure. I can't see where you have made any allowance for this, but I do see how you believe yourself to occupy the moral high ground and be the one displaying patience despite being just as guilty - if not more so - of imagining personal slights where there are none.

If you are as keen as you say you are to discuss the issue of the OP and avoid personal attacks, then I do not see, firstly, why you have not engaged with the issue of PIV and just attacked me. Secondly, I do not see why you are still here continuing the point-scoring when you said you were going.

UMS - as far as I know, that punishment is rare in England. You're quite liable to be forced to marry someone if you've slept with them, and people get jailed for rape or made to do public penance, but usually people get put to death for fornication only if it's also treason (as with Anne Boleyn/katherine howard later on). If that helps?

I do wonder a lot about medieval sex, I must admit.

This might be a TMI post (excuse me if so), but can anyone help me with this one?

I went for my smear the other day and the nurse pointed out how, because it's basically a ring of muscles, things like your cervix can actually move around a whole lot depending on what you do with your muscles. And I was thinking about lots of posters - mal and me in particular, I guess - saying PIV really works for us. But then, if it's all muscles being trained, is it possible PIV works well for people who have a lot of PIV? If you see what I mean? So maybe one of the reasons this thread keeps digressing into 'what I like about sex' (not that I mind too much ) is because we all train our bodies differently according to what we start off doing and liking?

jenny No, I'm not into point-scoring. Check my posting history and you will see that. I spent a lot of time being very patient with you and actually defended you on one thread when I thought you were putting your foot in it by accident, so I am annoyed at this.

I'm interested to see you now admit it was 'tongue-in-cheek' when you pretended great outrage at the idea you might be posting as a deliberate 'lunatic fringe', mind.

milly - thanks for replying, it isn't boring at all!

Now you say it I remember the thread where you talked more about evo psych - I must go dig it out and remind myself. Thanks!