(man) "It's hot in here"
[meaning - turn on the AC, now]
(woman) "Is it hot in here to you?"
[meaning - seeking consensus]
Right, smartass - I wrote a really good series of paper analyzing gay men's speech - Female Patterns, Male Tactics. I interviewed drag queens and compared them to transsexuals, straight women and lesbians. This was 1992, it was good stuff for the times.
Realizing that we've gone wholly off topic, but accepting the fact that OP is probably in the wrong here (which as I said I probably decided before I even read the post.)
As our British friends say, I was just taking the piss. As long as you weren't a dual major in identity politics with basket waving or interpreative poledancing
, that actually sounds fairly interesting, and yeah, probably ahead of it's time as much of that stuff was not as fashionable in 1992 as it is today. Sociological investigation of differences between groups is pretty darn interesting, it's just the politics that comes with it that I can't take
Do you suppose that in this era of "Big Data" we could determine stuff about people's sexual inclinations from their speech patterns?
Cheers.
I do find this a bit of an unfair comparison:
Are you obliged to let her wear a stap on and fuck you just because she let you fuck her?
The anatomical and social implications (viz. the male taking on a submissive/receptive role in quite a different fashion that cunnilingus) are rather different between the two, although this is an interesting case of Puritanism and sexual libertinism kind of reaching a full circle/horseshoe as regards taking oral sex and anal sex as equally depraved types of "sodomy" which can be, well, equated with one another. Interesting, isn't it?
However, in certain cultures, particularly African-American/Afro-Carribean ones, also see that one episode of the
Sopranos the act of cunnilingus is considered particularly degrading for the man, whereas oral sex from the woman is more or less expected. In equalitarian terms make of that what you will, but cultural context is important. I agree with some of the posters here that trauma of some sort might play in, or also, personal taste, but, above all, a relationship is not meant to be transactional, about
quid pro quo, but about sharing and exploring one another's bodies. I'll leave off for the moment the issues that may arise out of non-procreative acts, as that has much more to do with my own personal beliefs, but yes, OP, you are in the wrong, you and your partner need to meet each other where the other one is, if you want transactionality, it's the 21st century and it's never been easier to hire a prostitute, given that we have a thousand websites that we can use to order one right to our door. If you want
quid pro quo, sex for money. It's easy, it lacks entanglement, it can be a lot of fun. If you want a relationship, sex within the context of understanding one another.