In coital alignment technique, the man lies on top of the woman, but moves upward along her body, until the upper side of his erection is pressing against the clitoris. Instead of the thrusting of the missionary position, there’s a kind of rocking. Movement is focused on the pelvises. There’s no leverage from the arms or legs. The man’s weight is mostly on the woman, rather than resting on his arms. The woman leads the upward stroke and the man leads the downward stroke.
The technique is now about 30 years old, and there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that it’s a significant improvement for women’s sexual experience. But I fret that it fits into a set of assumptions that don’t serve any of us – men or women – well.
The principle assumption of course is that woman’s sexuality is just like men’s, and if only that pesky clitoris could be engaged, then women would enjoy sexual intercourse as much as men. The secondary assumption is that what men want from sex is the build up of erotic energy and subsequent orgasmic release.
What if the first assumption was true, but the second assumption was false?
What if the reason why coital alignment technique “works’ is that it fosters intimacy? The giveaway is that there’s lots of skin contact, and it’s very yin. In fact, it’s a bit like a horizontal version of the tantric practice of Yap Yum.
Isn’t there a risk that we’re constantly making better versions of the same car, but it still takes us to a place that isn’t quite where we want to go?