Photo by Flickr user kjd. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Lux Alptraum of BOINKOLOGY says

I’m reading a cover story from the August issue of Entertainment Weekly of that year, when they reference the “infamous anal sex” episode of Sex and the City. ... What?! I like anal sex. I like Sex and the City. Why had I never heard of this before? ... Turns out it was from the fourth episode of the first season. ... Sadly…our girl decided against the butt sex.
...

At no time is the question of Charlotte’s pleasure ever really a focus of the discussion — among her friends or with her boyfriend. (Although considering that the episode was written by a man, maybe that’s to be expected.) Doesn’t anybody ever ask if Charlotte would have enjoyed a good assfucking? Why does anal have to be something that she “surrenders,” as if it were her chastity and this were the 17th century? For a show that was supposed to be on the cutting edge of sexual enlightenment, it seems to take a pretty back-ass position on anal (pun intended).

Read the quote in context here.

I kind of wonder about that “surrenders” business too. Not that there’s anything wrong with surrender or submission if you’re into it, but… but…

See, here’s the thing. Until really, really recently ass fucking was pretty much about two things in popular culture: a) a really obscure form of androcentric heterosexual birth control found mostly in “Victorian” porn and/or “gritty” 20th-Century “men’s reading,” and b) what them homersexhuls do because (androcentric bias again) it was their substitute for “normal” intercourse. Oh, and I suppose b1) what “latent homosexuals” wanted to do with their hetero partners, but that’s sort of a subset of b.

Notice, though, that aside from the androcentricity there’s (if there’s a man in the picture he has to be putting his cock somewhere or it’s not really “sex” at all) there’s not really much in those suppositions about surrender or submission. Receptivity, sure, and that often implies a lot of dynamics, but it wasn’t the same.

One big misconception in the old conception of assfucking was that all gay men enjoyed it. Instead anecdotally and (can’t find a link right away) statistically speaking about 50% enjoy it enough to make it part of their regular activities and the other half would rather do… all the other non-intercourse-y things two people can do together. Which suggests that maybe more of the gay men who do it do so because… they enjoy it?

Contrast to more common discussions, though, where it really is about domination and submission, capture and surrender.

There’s the conversation Alptraum cites from SITC

...I applaud Charlotte for not doing something she didn’t want to. But on the other, what I find interesting about her decision — and about the earlier discussion with her friends on anal — is how stygmatized the act still seems. Miranda warns her about the loss of power. Carrie gravely asks if she’s thinking of marrying the guy. Only Samantha, she of the allegedly loose mores, speaks out in favor of it. The whole fact that she’s contemplating — egads!— some backdoor action is treated as a DEFCON 5-national-emergency-situation among the ladies.

And I scarcely need bring up that Details Magazine article again.

And while I have no direct experience of it, the common narrative of the “bend over boyfriend” phenomenon seems to be a lot more about women turning the dominance tables rather than returning a favor.

And yet a lot of people — men and women — really do seem to enjoy not just having their asses played with but straight ahead assfucking. (Quite a few people add that penetration with penises feels better than fingers.) That’s not to say it’s not emotionally or physically intense, nor does it mean it needn’t be done carefully. Especially till you get the hang of it. But the same thing’s true of the other major ways to do penile penetration.

So… what is the deal here? As Alptraum asks “Doesn’t anybody ever ask if Charlotte would have enjoyed a good assfucking? Why does anal have to be something that she “surrenders,” as if it were her chastity and this were the 17th century?”

Last tip? I don’t have that much experience but from own androcentric perspective while anal penetration does feel different from vaginal penetration it doesn’t feel enough different to make it a sensory must-do. Therefore from a partner-centric perspective (instead of an androcentric one) the appeal really is about how one’s partner feels about it. It’s actually pretty great if she or he gets a plain old tactile rush from it. And it’s fun if their enjoyment is more about playing with roles of dominance, submission, and surrender instead. But… seriously, why bother if the penetratees aren’t into it enough to suggest it themselves?

[Correction: It looks like Lux Alptraum hosted the post but it was a guest post from Xorn Smith. —fl]