Missionary style is the best way to have sex.

First off, I have yet to see this alleged study confirming that women like being on top the most. So I started searching the web and I actually found that 30% of women favored missionary the most compared to 21% preferring being on top. This was done in the form of a poll where 41,000 people were surveyed! (http://www.sexinfo101.com...) "the male partner was unconcerned about the position of which the intercourse took place. " Really? So anything goes? I have preferences and positions I prefer. I think most guys do. Again, your referencing some study that I don't really think could have possibly come to that conclusion. Perhaps that guys enjoy sex in any position but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't enjoy it more in a different position. This is a blanket assumption about males and their sexual preferences and I don't think really belongs in this debate. "Now, although there may be more favorable positions that cater to the "comfort" of each partner, your debate does not single out this issue. The debate topic states "best" way to have sex. " True. But isn't comfort an important component of good sex? I used the first round to present some of the criteria that were used to assess whether a position was good or 'the best'. You seemed to accept this criteria and were debating accordingly but now you've seem to attack the criteria itself! The irony is that you continue to debate and defend the comfort of cowboy style regardless of this comment: "If the male supports the female with his hands, this takes the strain off the female so that both partners are equally having to sustain gravity." Good point but by doing this you're shifting the weight of a woman into the forearms of a man. This is a relatively weak muscle group compared to the core muscles and abdomens which is where missionary relies on muscle power and endurance. Because lets not forget that good sex should last a while and this kind of set up lends itself to exhausting the male and the female too quickly (b/c I assume you concede that this is indeed a more uncomfortable position then missionary for the mere fact that the woman must support herself and hold a position). Missionary on the other hand, uses muscle groups that are bulky and strong by nature and can therefore prolong sex. "2) This is subjective. Depending on the relationship, that might not be the desired goal." Its not really subjective at all. The emotional content is as much a part of sex as the mechanical aspects of it. To share in this experience is the whole point of good and meaningful sex. I concede that people might appreciate this in varying degrees but with missionary this too can be controlled. The physical distance can be as close or as far away as you want depending on how you do missionary style (this can involve the guy holding the girl's legs up vertically and being further away (Some illustrations: http://en.wikipedia.org...). "3) No justification besides personal opinion, which is undebatable and not on topic with the beginning topic of debate." Well at least I set up criteria for measuring and assessing good sex. You both rejected and accepted my criteria without creating any standards for your own judgement. The third point applies for both positions which is why I reverted back to personal opinion because although this set of criteria is sufficiently met by both positions it in no way suggests that Cowboy is somehow better then missionary. It's funny you also claim that personal opinion is undebatable but you chose to join a debate that was entirely subjective (I even admitted this in the introduction), what did you think we'd be doing in here? Calculating the best sex with an algorithm? "This country, although more open then anytime in the past, does not need to debate issues such as sexual positions. There are other "positions" that have greater magnitude on the well-being of the country as a whole." This website is called debate.org. We certainly can and we certainly are debating about sexual positions, who cares if there are bigger things going on out there? My other debates center around far more important issues. Does that somehow mean that this subject is "not worth" being discussed? I don't think so. I still don't understand why this is perverted? Perverted is used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or excessive. This is neither. I also don't understand why you chose to debate with me over this topic if you 1.) thought it was perverted. 2.) think that the constituents of this country should be talking about more important things. 3.)Knew that this was entirely subjective! Thanks for the debate RMK! Although you don't appear to be convinced of the value of these kinds of discussion, I enjoyed it and I hope we can debate again soon. -connor