odd sex questions that starts with some sort of complaint about previous threads (edited title)

I have beefs about treating things without equal consideration. On another forum, I posted an inquiry about whether or not the pelvic thrusting motion during sexual intercourse was required, and one moderator accused me of trolling through private message. The thread did not go well. People refused to take the inquiry seriously and questioned my motives. Then again, the thread was ultimately about sex. Anything about sex was going to be controversial or badly received, because sex is usually a private matter that people do in their bedrooms, behind closed doors, and because it is assumed that people would just know it eventually. I attempted to contact a participant of the thread and explained my reasons for the thread: that the pelvic thrusting motion behavior that occurred in sex was learned and cultural. That person agreed with my speculation that much of human behavior - including sexual behavior - was cultural. On a different website, I posted an inquiry about whether or not a human being would be able to walk upright without any external guidance. I felt the question was well received, and one person commented that the question was “interesting”. Others appeared as if they took the question seriously and provided depressing examples of known cases where a child was not reared to walk upright. For the pelvic thrusting question, I was unsatisfied with the responses I got, so I decided to re-post the same question in a different form on this StraightDope forum. The reception was even worse than the other forum, because some people took it personally rather than treating it as a serious inquiry. I suspect that I misspoke in the title, because I used the term “multiple penetrations”. At the time, I knew about thrusting; however, I felt that the term “thrusting” was not explicit enough or too vague, and the motions of sex, well, looked like a series of penetrations to me. Bad idea. If the first person had made a dispassionate, serious, non-sentimental reply to my inquiry, then the others would probably follow in the same manner, but some members were just judgmental and cynical. But I probably have myself to blame for choosing the incorrect terminology. I asked a similar question on Quora, but it was phrased in terms of whether the pelvic thrusting that occurred during sex was controlled by the autonomic nervous system or the somatic nervous system. I appreciated the fact that the responder took the question seriously and answered informatively: that the pelvic thrusting motion was actually caused by the somatic nervous system. I do not believe that my intention for posting the sexual question about pelvic thrusting was any different than my intention for posting the non-sexual question about walking. Both of them were concerned with the nature vs. nurture debate about human behavior. Why should one be brushed away or questioned with unhealthy skepticism while the other would be welcomed? In any case, I now have a satisfying explanation to this subject, and I do not feel there is any more to be discussed. However, I wish that the people involved in the inquiries actually gave the inquiries some serious thought rather than being so distracted by the perceived implications of the person behind it.

Do you understand how paragraphs work, or are they as mysterious as sex?

The obnoxious wall of text in the original post was intentional, and it was supposed to make the post appear like a long rant about some people not treating things with equal consideration. That said, the uninviting posting format was supposed to decrease the readability, making it seem more mundane and pointless.

Mission accomplished!

In some states (California springs to mind) thrusting is not necessary. A couple merely gets naked, assumes the position and awaits an eartquake.

I recently learned that the erection of the penis is actually controlled by the parasympathetic nervous system, while the ejaculation is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system. The pelvic thrusting, as said in the OP, is caused by the somatic nervous system. Hence the ability to voluntarily control the pelvic thrust’s speed and rhythm and the inability to voluntarily control erection and ejaculation. Involuntary erections have been reported to be common occurrences among males, and sometimes males may have wet dreams. Given that the thrusting behavior is controlled by the somatic nervous system, I speculate that a plausible explanation why some men report that they fail at impregnating their wives is they lack the critical knowledge to do the pelvic thrust voluntarily. Meanwhile, other men probably take the knowledge for granted and assume everyone knows it.

There is an interesting behavioral phenomenon among female rodents, and that is the lordosis reflex. Although humans can certainly have sex in the “doggy-style position”, movements into and during this position are voluntary. I have heard reports that women do the pelvic thrusting too. If that is true, then it’d be interesting to know what function the female “pelvic thrust” performs and how that may aid reproduction.

I rememeber wrestling with a girl one time when I was about 10 years old. I knew nothing about sex. I didn’t even know what sex was. I was holding her from behind and I started the thrusting motion almost involuntarily. It stayed with me because I realized something kind of significant was happening. I don’t know what I was thinking but I do know I never forgot it.

I’ll repeat what others before me have said: are you an alien?

You should actually have sex. It will unequivocally answer your doubts as to the biological origins of thrusting.

Your story reminds me of the children’s book, The Prince of the Pond, by Donna Jo Napoli. In it, the protagonist, a human prince, is turned into a frog by a witch. He meets a female frog and adapts to his new life as a frog. Somehow, the female frog shows him how to mate frog-style, and the two produce lots of offspring. The frog-prince has human sensibilities despite being a frog, so he can’t bear seeing most of his offspring succumbed to natural forces. What he does is something unfroglike: he protects his offspring from death. And he is rewarded with seeing all his offspring reach full maturity in later books of the trilogy. I can see a parallel between your narrative and the novel’s: you are basically engaging in the motions of sex without realizing it.

Is this a joke? It’s not very funny.

Thrusting is generally a behavior that men do. As far as I know, the woman does not have to do anything during sex but stay still.

On second thought, DON’T have sex.

Seriously though, what’s the deal with you? How does someone get to (I assume) adult or near adult age without knowing this stuff? (Either first hand, or through conversations with peers, or watching films or reading a book).

Am genuinely interested, I’m struggling to think of a situation that would allow this kind of inexperience/lack of education.

The above is absolutely not supposed to be a dig - as a lurker on here I’ve read a lot of your posts about lots of different subjects (sex, cycling) and I think it would help people give you a satisfying answer if we knew the context in which the questions are asked. E.g it would be easier to answer the sex questions if we knew we were responding to a curious child or an inexperienced adult.

… Also your life experience appears to be very different to my own, and most of the people on this forum. That’s interesting.

Read the original post. Stop making assumptions.

Sometimes, I wish I had thought of these sex questions earlier or when I was an adolescent, or at least had been on the Internet at that age. During my teen years, I would mostly watch my favorite children’s TV program (Arthur), have a snack, and do my homework after school. I had known about and used the Internet sparingly since I was seven years old. I was a kid, and like other kids, I only visited interesting kids sites. But truthfully, sex was rarely on my mind, even when I underwent puberty. If sex had been on my mind earlier, I would have used the Internet as a resource to ask these questions, and they would be expected. I would have probably known about Scarleteen sooner or that homosexuality existed as a normal but alternative sexual expression.

I had thought about posing as a child to reduce the embarrassment, but that would have been disingenuous, and the truth would eventually get out when I might reveal college-level knowledge like calculus or neuroanatomy.

Her responsibilities include cleaning up as well, see tidying up reflex.

I suppose TECHNICALLY the woman doesn’t have to do anything apart from lie there, but this would be off putting enough for most men than we’d likely give up before it was over. Also, if the woman’s that uninvolved, I’d expect there might be a little bit of a problem with friction…

That woman probably wouldn’t be getting any repeat business from that particular partner again.

Sex is one of those things where you get out what you put in (and then out, then in, then out, then in… Heh). The more involved both parties are, the better it is for everyone.

(Your questions are interesting to me. Interesting because I’ve never encountered an adult with so little life experience in this regard and also interesting because it makes me reflect a little on my own life and experiences.)

To add, equally, in the same way the man can just lie there. As long as one of the pair is enthusiastic enough, sex can “happen”. But most of the time, unless parties are equally involved it’ll be pretty rubbish for both.

I think this is where it would be crucial to be married to the person you have sex with. That way, they are more likely to be committed to you forever, or face a difficult divorce/annulment.

That reminds me of The Handmaid’s Tale, a novel that I discovered on NoveList one day. One excerpt was about the Ceremony.

I didn’t get the copulation involving two people part, and asking would be too embarrassing. So, that part just went over my head. I thought, even in consensual sex, only the male would be concerned and actively doing the motions, so I didn’t exactly understand how the narrator could distinguish fucking and copulating.

Got to admit, bit confused as to how you got to that conclusion. There’s absolutely no reason that you need to be married to the person you’re having sex with.

I think what you’re missing from the equation is that sex is great. It’s great fun, it can be passionate, romantic and sometimes very funny (as well as a million other things).

There’s no need to be married, or even be in any kind of ongoing relationship - you just need two people who want to have sex for sex’s sake.

(The very idea of waiting until you’re married before having sex terrifies me. Some people just aren’t sexually compatible, it’s nobodies fault, it’s just one of those things. It’d be awful to find that out once you’re already married).

The woman-on-top sex positions are riskier, because there is a chance of penile fracture or penis fracture. If the sex is too rough or acrobatic, then the woman’s weight may accidentally land inappropriately on the man’s body, fracturing the erect penis. Therefore, man-on-top positions (especially missionary sex) are safer and more conducive to conception. Anal sex is a highly risky sex act, because it involves the part of the body where feces will be excreted. Oral sex is putting the mouth at the genital area and stimulating the region where the urinary tract will be very close (female) or the same organ involved in reproduction and urination (male).