Posting this in GQ because I want a medical/anatomical answer. I’m looking for an explanation for a disconnect between what I’ve read and what I’ve seen.
Waaaaaay back when I was a young teen (like, early 1980s), a friend snuck out his parents’ copy of “The Joy of Sex”, and we amused ourselves reading it. I distinctly recall that the entry on heterosexual anal sex advised against penetrating any deeper than one inch. Even as a young teen, I thought that was a bit odd, but who was I to argue, what with being a virgin?
Some years later, in my late teens or early 20s, I read an article in Hustler (I think) that warned against penetrating too deeply. As the article explained it, penetrating too deeply risked the penis bumping against the ovaries. As the article put it (paraphrasing), “Getting hit in the ovaries is just like getting kicked in the nuts.”
Fast forward to my 30s & 40s, with access to the vast trove of Internet porn, and having viewed plenty of heterosexual anal sex scenes, what I’ve seen has flown in the face of what I read way back when. I’ve seen any number of 8-inch and longer penises shoved all the way into female behinds, without a bit of protest from the woman involved.
Was what I read in my youth incorrect, or is the anal porn I’ve seen simply a case of “these people know what they’re doing”?
I’ve never heard the one inch thing, just the usual advice of lots of lube and take it slowly.
Based on this diagram here:
I don’t see how anal would be any more likely to hit the ovaries than vaginal.
Being that most guys can barely hit their partners cervix with their cock (using it for scale on the diagram) - you’d have to be elephant size to have any risk of hitting those.
This is all guessing - as I am not sure hot all the stuff gets shifted around mid coitus.
No guy is going to be satisfied going in one inch - unless he has a one inch cock.
It’s possible that I misremember, or that I misread. I think that, until I read that Joy of Sex entry, I’d never heard of hetero anal sex. I was probably 13 at the time. I knew there were homosexuals who did it, but my 13-year-old brain probably figured, “Why would straight people do that when there’s a perfectly good pussy there?”
I should order myself a copy of The Joy of Sex from Amazon. If for no other reason than to read what it says now (hey, The Joy of Cooking has been updated over the years; why not The Joy of Sex?
I suppose it’s possible that the “1 inch” thing I read was simply pointing out that the anus/rectum doesn’t have any pleasure-feeling nerves beyond one inch or so, and that I just misremember the details of what I read.
I have the 1972 illustrated edition. (Very hairy.) It says, “Go in slowly, never more than glans-deep…” No reason why you shouldn’t or dangers if you do, other than implied discomfort.
It also says that anal rape is impossible, which seems more like wishful thinking than medical fact.
Well, The Joy of Sex isn’t exactly a medical textbook is it? It’s just a book, right? So why should it be held to standards of including only medical fact?
Wouldn’t you be a bit put out if The Joy of Cooking told you that pancakes are made by stirring raw eggs and flour together and drizzling maple syrup on top?
Oversized male porn stars like John Holmes (9.75") and Ron Jeremy (9.5") were never able to put their entire penis into a vagina, both of them had to hold their hands around the base to avoid going too deep and hurting the woman. But both were able to go full depth into a rectum.
The IgNobel prize winning MRI imaging of vaginal coitus clearly showed that penis pushed under the cervix (link to British Medical Journal article).
Because it’s supposedly non-fiction, and it’s assumed that anything in it is factual.
Most guys with tiny cocks are fairly obese, and most of the penis is surrounded by fat. There are even some guys whose entire penis is surrounded by fat. They have trouble getting into any opening.
The exact phrasing is “it can cause injury… anal rape - even with a willing partner - is accordingly out”. He’s not saying it is physically impossible, he’s saying you should not do it (because of the risk of injury), not even if your partner wants to act out an anal-rape fantasy.
So maybe before we start discussing what standards we are holding the author to, we should look at our own reading skills?
Yes, that’s a valid reading of it. However, I don’t remember that he discusses vaginal rape as a sexual technique at any point. And his short paragraph under Rape is somewhat odd as well.
He may just be saying “don’t anally rape your partner.” But in context it seems to me to be a larger statement if he doesn’t make a point of not raping your partner in any other situation.* The difference between “go slowly” and “rape is out” is an enormous one.
Rape fantasies are mentioned in the bondage section, but the context there is clearly about enjoying a bound and gagged partner, not violently thrusting the penis. If there are other mentions of rape I missed them. I can’t find a searchable edition online either.
Did you read the part about acting out an anal-rape fantasy…?
Otherwise, if it please you to assume that Dr Comfort was making some point about the physical impossibility of anal rape, be my guest. I’ve pointed out what I think the correct reading of the extract, but it’s entirely possible that a published sex therapist could be shockingly ignorant on a point of simple fact.
Yes, I read the part. It says in its entirety, don’t do it.
I’d also like to see your cite that Comfort was a sex therapist, published or otherwise. His medical specialty was aging. Most of his published works were poetry and he was upset that because of The Joy of Sex people no longer considered him a poet.
As many people have pointed out in talking about later editions of the book, the messages in that edition were very much of their time. No shaving - not even of armpits! It is written entirely from a man’s point of view, and even though that was an extremely enlightened pov for the time later editions had to add much more detail about women’s wants and needs. A lot of what he wrote was based on his sex life with his mistress, whom he married soon after the book was published. There are no citations in the book, no bibliography, no references of any kind that I see.
You may be completely right in your interpretation. But the rest of your argument is conspicuously lacking in facts.
