Do people really do this?

[TiberiusPrime]

You mean all men don't have a penis that's 14 inches long and too thick to wrap a hand around? That's a relief, I thought I was really, REALLY lacking. Turns out, just a little lacking!

Look, I only write what I know!

 

[Djmac1031]

My GF and I definitely find a rhythm early on, but generally in missionary and when we take it slow.

Her on top works too; I can thrust upwards slightly as she's moving down.

Again we're not "slamming" body parts here. Slow, steady, rhythmic. Yes, it can and does happen.

 

[alohadave]

Well writers need to carry out research, the average equine is 26 inches with a five inch girth.

The joke is that a horse weighs about 50 pound per inch of penis length. So a man weighing 200 pounds would need a 4 penis to be hung like a horse.

 

[TheLobster]

The joke is that a horse weighs about 50 pound per inch of penis length. So a man weighing 200 pounds would need a 4 penis to be hung like a horse.

If there is a causal relationship between those two metrics, then perhaps the obesity epidemic has some silver lining…

 

[ElectricBlue]

If there is a causal relationship between those two metrics, then perhaps the obesity epidemic has some silver lining…

It might, but they'll never see it.

 

[jlightfoot75]

I've long puzzled over descriptions of intercourse where both parties are moving in rhythm. In my experience, if both parties move face to face, then you have bumping pubic bones in the one direction, and risking coming apart in the other (more and more of a risk as time marches on.)

Do people really move together during intercourse? How does it work?

Or is this just a conventional flourish in descriptions of hot sex?

I've long puzzled over descriptions of intercourse where both parties are moving in rhythm. In my experience, if both parties move face to face, then you have bumping pubic bones in the one direction, and risking coming apart in the other (more and more of a risk as time marches on.)

Do people really move together during intercourse? How does it work?

Or is this just a conventional flourish in descriptions of hot sex?

I think this is really position and level of excitement dependent. I find when my partner is really hot and bothered she will tend to try and match my thrust to make sure she gets every mm inside her with every thrust. Especially if she is on top and already had an orgasm or two I will lift my hips as she grinds down so she can get a little extra pressure against her clit.

In doggy she doesn't generally push back unless she is super excited, you can bump the cervix by accident and my partner really doesn't like that (over heard some women get off on that, but I don't think I've ever met one personally). If she is excited enough and the timing is right will slam back into you with every thrust and it's great.

 

[jlightfoot75]

Well, well, look at Mr. Realism here. Lemmie guess, next thing you’ll say will be something like “she didn’t come the moment his cock entered her,” or maybe even that said cock was measured in (gasp!) single digits?!

I know no one is looking for realism in porn (I'm definitely not) and having spent a lot of time in locker rooms and attended a few orgies, gangbangs and a lot of three somes I can appreciate the broad spectrum of penis sizes.

I think the key factor in a lot of porn though is how small the ladies are. I was with a very petite girl years ago (150cm/4'11" and under 45kg/100lbs) and she would make any cock look huge. Tiny hands, narrow hips and a petite ass made even the most meagerly endowed men looked like Ron Jeremy.

 

[AG31]

I know no one is looking for realism in porn (I'm definitely not)

Au contraire. I'm definitely looking for realism. It matters a lot that every detail sounds authentic.

 

[jehoram]

Jeez, haven't you guys ever danced? Fucking is like dancing. (In fact, I remember dancing being defined as a "vertical expression of a horizontal desire.")

It works as long as you figure out, at a particular session which one of you is leading and which one is following. If you haven't figured it out, it won't work. I'm not saying that one person has to do the work and the other one just has to lie there, any more than dancing is one person moving and the other staying still.

The best fucking I've done was where we switched leads, like musicians do in a jam session. After a while, I could intuit where the change in lead was going to be.

 

[NotWise]

Jeez, haven't you guys ever danced? Fucking is like dancing. (In fact, I remember dancing being defined as a "vertical expression of a horizontal desire.")

Or the other way around. In 1920's slang, sex is a "horizontal tango" or "horizontal jig."

 

[Lifestyle66]

Jeez, haven't you guys ever danced? Fucking is like dancing. (In fact, I remember dancing being defined as a "vertical expression of a horizontal desire.")

It works as long as you figure out, at a particular session which one of you is leading and which one is following. If you haven't figured it out, it won't work. I'm not saying that one person has to do the work and the other one just has to lie there, any more than dancing is one person moving and the other staying still.

The best fucking I've done was where we switched leads, like musicians do in a jam session. After a while, I could intuit where the change in lead was going to be.

I think that was Jennifer Lopez's character saying it in the movie "Shall We Dance."

Yeah, fucking is like a dance. Some people just do "club dance," which is a free form having little or no connection between the partners, each doing their own thing when bumping into each other. I prefer "West Coast Swing", where I lead 60% of the time, but often pause to allow her to do her own styling.

And just like lead-follow dance, sex is all about "practice, practice, practice" for the best results in that team sport!

 

[jehoram]

I think that was Jennifer Lopez's character saying it in the movie "Shall We Dance."

I first heard it in the army, before Jennifer Lopez was even born.

 

[tenyari]

Well, well, look at Mr. Realism here. Lemmie guess, next thing you’ll say will be something like “she didn’t come the moment his cock entered her,” or maybe even that said cock was measured in (gasp!) single digits?!

What kind of man only has a cock that's less than 9-feet long?

/pornfail

 

[Britva415]

Jeez, haven't you guys ever danced? Fucking is like dancing. (In fact, I remember dancing being defined as a "vertical expression of a horizontal desire.")

It works as long as you figure out, at a particular session which one of you is leading and which one is following. If you haven't figured it out, it won't work. I'm not saying that one person has to do the work and the other one just has to lie there, any more than dancing is one person moving and the other staying still.

The best fucking I've done was where we switched leads, like musicians do in a jam session. After a while, I could intuit where the change in lead was going to be.

This guy gets it!

 

[Paul_Chance]

Jeez, haven't you guys ever danced? Fucking is like dancing. (In fact, I remember dancing being defined as a "vertical expression of a horizontal desire.")

It works as long as you figure out, at a particular session which one of you is leading and which one is following. If you haven't figured it out, it won't work. I'm not saying that one person has to do the work and the other one just has to lie there, any more than dancing is one person moving and the other staying still.

The best fucking I've done was where we switched leads, like musicians do in a jam session. After a while, I could intuit where the change in lead was going to be.

Bingo!

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I know no one is looking for realism in porn (I'm definitely not) and having spent a lot of time in locker rooms and attended a few orgies, gangbangs and a lot of three somes I can appreciate the broad spectrum of penis sizes.

I think the key factor in a lot of porn though is how small the ladies are. I was with a very petite girl years ago (150cm/4'11" and under 45kg/100lbs) and she would make any cock look huge. Tiny hands, narrow hips and a petite ass made even the most meagerly endowed men looked like Ron Jeremy.

Ron doesn't have a huge dick, he's said so himself. So many folks act like he's Lexington Steel(who has a 14" dick), and he's not.

 

[OldDog_NewTricks]

^^^
Yep. Broke Dick Disease and Ooops Wrong Hole situations are never good.

When my wife and I were younger and more active we had our most passionate and intimate love making when we took turns being the one being in charge of the "moving".

Missionary meant I was I was in charge. Cowgirl...she was. She enjoyed me being behind her because we could change who was moving without changing positions. If we were careful and moved slowly, we could both move at the same time, but it made us both nervous.

I alway assumed that lovers "moving in unison" was more like their bodies never lost contact with each other rather than separating in opposite directions. More like the ebb and flow of the tide rather than two hands clapping.

 

[TheLobster]

I found this thread again and realized that OP is probably just having a linguistic confusion because English 1) sucks and 2) loves being ambiguous.

There are (at least) three separate meanings of "move" that are relevant when we're talking about "moving in rhythm" or "moving in unison."

1. You can move (yourself) out of your own volition, such as when you walk, jog or swim. Here, you are both the subject and the object of the action
2. You can move because of something or someone else acting on you, e.g. when you are shoved out of the way or being fucked by someone else. Here, you are the object of the action.
3. You can move something or someone else, like when moving a box, or a cart, or your partner to a different position. Here, you are the subject of the action.

Some languages, including mine, mandate the distinction between those meanings (reflexive, passive, and active) through grammar or vocabulary. English doesn't; you can do it if you want to, but it is not technically wrong to e.g. use active voice when talking about something that's clearly being moved through an external force. You can totally say that "X is moving" and mean that something else is causing X to move.

Now, when authors use expressions like "moving in rhythm", they probably mean those different meanings of "move" for each participant. So even if one partner is passive, she is still moving because of what the other person is doing; hence both of them can still "move in unison" even if just one person is doing the fuckin'.

 

[AG31]

I found this thread again and realized that OP is probably just having a linguistic confusion because English 1) sucks and 2) loves being ambiguous.

There are (at least) three separate meanings of "move" that are relevant when we're talking about "moving in rhythm" or "moving in unison."

1. You can move (yourself) out of your own volition, such as when you walk, jog or swim. Here, you are both the subject and the object of the action
2. You can move because of something or someone else acting on you, e.g. when you are shoved out of the way or being fucked by someone else. Here, you are the object of the action.
3. You can move something or someone else, like when moving a box, or a cart, or your partner to a different position. Here, you are the subject of the action.

Some languages, including mine, mandate the distinction between those meanings (reflexive, passive, and active) through grammar or vocabulary. English doesn't; you can do it if you want to, but it is not technically wrong to e.g. use active voice when talking about something that's clearly being moved through an external force. You can totally say that "X is moving" and mean that something else is causing X to move.

Now, when authors use expressions like "moving in rhythm", they probably mean those different meanings of "move" for each participant. So even if one partner is passive, she is still moving because of what the other person is doing; hence both of them can still "move in unison" even if just one person is doing the fuckin'.

Very interesting. Thanks. If the authors always meant #2, then it works fine. But we're stuck with English and ambiguity and that's never good for my enjoyment of a story.