I can’t imagine missionaries were out and about “demonstrating”, as it were.
actually missionaries did espouse that particular position especially over a rear “doggystyle” approach that is the most common position.
They insisted that the missionary position was the only acceptable means of fornication as far as the church was concerned.
Thanks for that - have you any reasons / work-safe websites that explain ?
Many thanks
I know that’s the accepted/general/probably true explanation, but…
Didn’t it ever occur to those missionaries that when doin’ it doggie-style, both fornicators are on their knees? From a religious viewpoint, one would think that would be preferable, right? I mean, what’s holier than a double double genuflection?
From the Master:
I’ll consider it done and done.
Just an addition on the “why” of the missionary position:
Oddly enough, no citations in that article.
I’d go with Cecil on the matter–the term was probably made up in the 20th century to make fun of a purely fictional characature. It’s another bit of pseudohistorical rubbish like Jus Prima Noctis–a lie invented to promote disdain for the bad old past.
Can’t you imagine 19th century missionaries demonstrating it
John Cleese-style (Meaning of Life).
“Robert, are you sleeping?! Pay attention!”
This is the first print cite, from the OED.
Bronislaw Malinowski was a pretty neat fellow in anthropology in the early days. The ‘Tobriand Islands’ where he did this research are New Guinea. And, from the cites in his work, you can surmise that the natives certainly considered the position favored by the Europeans as not their first choice.
But I would like to hear more about Alice’s suggesting that St. Paul talked about fucking in the Bible. 
samclem, where in the OED is the quote that you give? It’s not listed in my copy of the OED under “missionary position” nor under “European position” (which isn’t given at all). What edition of the OED are you using?
It’s in my OED, but not as a listed term. It’s a compound in the “Missionary” heading. However, the 1929 usage is not “missionary position” but “European position”. “Missionary fashion” is not documented until 1948. The Kinsey Institute refers to it as the “Anglo-American”. I’ve a feeling that the position was far more likely to have been spread by European sailors than by European missionaries.
I know that “missionary position” is listed in the OED. The first cite for it is in 1969. That doesn’t answer my question. Where in the OED is the quote that samclem gives? It’s not listed anywhere under “missionary” or “European” or any compounds of those words. I also don’t see “missionary fashion” either as a separate entry nor listed under “missionary” as a compound in the OED.
Retrocopulate.
Cool. 
On-line OED.
This entry was added as of June, 2002.
It’ll be in the next hardbound edition in the next 3-5 years.
It’s under missionary in the new listing.
So this is actually an important new fact about the origin of the term “missionary position.” At the time that Cecil wrote the column (presumably before June 2002), no written mention of the term “missionary position” before 1969 had ever been found. Now, though, we know that there was a mention of “European position” and “missionary fashion” in an anthropological text as early as 1929. samclem, does the online OED give any citations for “missionary position” between 1929 and 1969? So we ought to inform Cecil of this so he can update his column on this subject. So what’s the best way to tell Cecil of this? I presume he doesn’t read every thread on the SDMB.
What I found interesting in the Malinowsky quote is that the condemnation was directed at the missionaries, not by them. In other words, it does not seem that the missionaries went out and tried to dictate the “correct” position to the locals, but that at some point a member of a missionary group demonstrated that position* and that the locals decided that it was a bad thing. In other words, the story has been completely reveresed to make the missionaries the bad guys while the real prigs were the locals rejecting the “new” position.
*The demonstration could have occurred in any number of ways, from some wayward missionary having a fling with a local to a missionary actually marrying a local. In a society where sex is more openly discussed, the local partner would have talked about it, incurring the condemnation of the locals who knew the “right” positions for sex.
I don’t think that any kind of fornication is acceptable to the church. Fornication is, by definition, a sin.
I’d imagine that wholesale adoption of the missionary position could not proceed until first the toothbrush was invented.