Girls, What do you enjoy about raw, primal "animal" sex - as distinct from "romantic" sex?

[nightdrot]

It's pretty clear what a man enjoys about very primal instinctive sex - the kind when you are like two animals breeding in a field. Also, I know what my girlfriend has said. However, I was wondering what feelings you ladies have about aggressive "aninalistic" sex. What is it that appeals to you?

The stereotype is that women want the romantic sex - but in truth, the stats show that men prefer it more than women - though both prefer romantic sex more overall.

So whether you have to be "in the mood" or just enjoy more primal aggressive sex generally, how does it make you feel?

[MlleCake]

Who says you can't have some animalistic passion AND romance at the same time?

[nightdrot]

Actually, that's what my girlfriend says. Yet, as a general rule, they tend to be defined as opposites. That said, then, what is for you the romance in the animalistic passion?

[MlleCake]

What's more romantic than a lover who is so overtaken by your beauty that he is reduced to his animal self?

[nightdrot]

Good point, but I guess I meant, how does it make you feel? Essentially, not to overstate, you are being used. He is using you for breeding and your naked body is there for his use. Does that feeling of submissiveness make you feel loved? Is it more carnal? Not sure I am making myself clear and I'll leave you alone if I am not, but your answer has been very interesting and I hope you don't mind me pursuing the question with you.

[MlleCake]

Oh no hon. I am never the one who submits. I wasn't submissive in bed even when I was young and inexperienced. I don't make everyone submit to me, necessarily, but if someone is going to in the scenario, it ain't gonna be me.

[nightdrot]

Okay, well you have pointed out an error in the writing of my question - I should have added the word "submissive." That said, then, where is the distinction in your mind? What do you find romantic is dominating the guy? (Assuming that scenario.) For that matter, if you are not going to submit - and you won't ask him to submit - what is left of the romance you found in the animalistic sex?

[MlleCake]

Sex is not war. No one has to submit. It's a thing you do WITH each other, not TO each other. Consensual D/S is only one way of approaching adult sexuality. There are many, and I love many ways of expressing my sexual emotions with certain select people. Primal stuff can be like two beasts at play, not necessarily a power exchange.

[nightdrot]

Agreed, I did not mean to suggest that. Yet, that there is inherent, in the animal sense, a dominant/submissive dynamic - at least in evolutionary terms. Dominant/submissive suggests war only in the context of when it is seen as contravening natural instinct. Where it is simply an inherent part of normal behavior there is no sense of conflict. For example, my girlfriend tends to see being submissive as being protected and loved. She does not see it as a fight for power.

[MlleCake]

And that's her definition of what it feels like to be loved, and that's cool. It just doesn't happen to be mine. And animals do not always have a d/s component to their copulation. There are all kinds of animals in this world.

[nightdrot]

Well, as I say, I was asking you because A) your answer was interesting and B) in one sense problematical. You postulated an equivalence, but then seemed to take it back in the sense that I asked about submissive/dominant - in so many words - and you said you wouldn't and would not ask someone else.

That negated the premise of your reply which was that animal could be both animal and romantic.

By the way, I rephrased the question - in light of your reply - these are the responses so far.

Girls, what do you find appealing about being submissive during sex? ↗

[MlleCake]

Oh, I DO dominate when that's what we're into. I don't just dominate every person I meet, or every person who I love. I have two long term submissives (18+ and 7+ years respectively), and a 2 year power-exchange-neutral relationship. The romance is not necessarily in dominating the other person. I entertain a lot more variety than that.

[nightdrot]

Well, it may be that the format here does not lend itself to clarity. As I say, I was asking ladies what they enjoyed about being submissive. Your answer basically suggests that you don't, although that makes your reply here somewhat confusing - "What's more romantic than a lover who is so overtaken by your beauty that he is reduced to his animal self?" So I assume that means OTHER than you? That's perfectly understandable, but it left me chasing the tail a bit.

[MlleCake]

We can both go into beast mode and still not have it be a case where woman submits to man. Or anyone submits at all. I understand YOU think you were asking about submission, but you really don't indicate that. It's just your assumption that primal, animalistic sexuality is phallocentric and male dominated by definition. It just doesn't happen to be. But it's ok. I think it's great when two people find ways to interact that excite them both.

[nightdrot]

Agreed, which is why I re-posted the question - which you also answered. That said, the one thing that you have not really articulated is how you balance the two to get that fine equality - which is a refined judgment - in what amounts to a spontaneous emotional state. The two would seem to be at variance.

[Kureghooghoo]

Its more exciting? I don't know, I don't have any experience.

[Pamina]

Nothing, to be honest.

[nightdrot]

You mean then that it simply does not appeal at all and that you just want more romantic sex?

[Pamina]

No. I do enjoy romantic sex a lot, yes (with the right person). But that doesn't mean it's the only kind of sex I enjoy. What you described are two extremes of the whole spectrum. I do enjoy rough sex, but not the "aggressive" or "animalistic" kind.

[nightdrot]

That's a really interesting distinction you drew. If I might, what, to your mind, is the difference between "rough" sex on the one hand and "aggressive/animalistic" sex on the other. I would have thought of them as essentially the same. Thanks.

[Pamina]

Rough as in passionate, not as in aggressive.

[nightdrot]

That surprises me. I would equate passionate to romantic and "making love," not to "Rough."

[Pamina]

I didn't say making love. So you think there are only these two extreme ends of the spectrum? Come on.

[nightdrot]

Obviously it blends in practice, however, I also know that you have extremes and some actually prefer one to the other. Again, I don't equate "passionate" with "rough" so much as with "romantic."

[Pamina]

Okay, whatever you wanna call it. I do like rougher sex than romantic as well, just not as rough as you described it.

[nightdrot]

Actually, to refine the point, certainly for purposes of the question, words have specific meanings. Define your terms. If "rough" is not "animal," what would the equivalent of "animal" be in your mind.

[Pamina]

Hope that clarifies it.

[nightdrot]

Honestly, it didn't, but I think we've beaten this horse to death. So we'll let it go. Thanks for taking the time.

[Pamina]

I like rough, but not as rough as you described. I don't know how to better describe it. What would you call it?

[nightdrot]

That's what I am asking you. What does "animal" mean to you? What does it mean if not a synonym in some sense for "rough"?

[Pamina]

It does mean rough I agree. All I'm saying is I like it less rough than that. lol

[nightdrot]

Okay, thanks.