Does the penis really need guidance during sex?

[Mellonhead]

I once asked this question somewhere else in cyberspace, and someone responded that "the penis is not a guided missile; the vagina is not an open maw". In other words, a man cannot really have vaginal intercourse unless he guides the penis into the vagina, presumably with his hands. But what if the man becomes sexually aroused at the sight of his naked female partner, which spontaneously creates an erection before the penetration? Will the penis go in by itself? Do people really have to see the coitus in order to make sure that the penis is in the desired target, or will the erect penis be able to find the vagina by itself? Can coitus happen when a man is lying on top of a woman in bed, at least half naked so the genitals are exposed, and just waiting for the penis to become erect? Once the penis becomes erect, the man moves forward and hopes that the penis is inserted into the vagina, asking the partner whether it is inside. Then, the couple waits for a while until the man ejaculates.

I've read that in rodents, the male rodent's penis would simultaneously touch the clitoris, causing a chain of biochemical pathways and the lordosis reflex. So, perhaps, in humans, the male body has to press against the female body while the penis is inside the vagina, hopefully stimulating the clitoris at the same time in order to make the female sexually aroused and lubricated.

From the female perspective, can the labia majora and minora reveal the vagina during sexual arousal? Or does the female have to widen her legs in order to envelope the penis?

Narrowly speaking, how does penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse during the missionary position work in real life?

[Jacob]

Hi Mellonhead, hope I can help,

I think what's missing here is perhaps recognising massive the variation in how people have sex, and the ways that are comfortable for them. So rather than there being 'the female' or 'the male' we tend to talk more about the specific people involved, when we're giving advice. So with some people, sure, if they're trying to have penis-in-vagina sex someone might spread their legs more to make that possible, but then for others not. For some people their coordination, or experience might mean they don't necessarily need to use their hands, whereas for others that could sound like a disaster where stuff just doesn't go where they want it to.

What about just checking out some of our articles showing sexual anatomy?
Innies & Outies: The Penis, Testes and More
Innies & Outies: The Vagina, Clitoris, Uterus and More

[Heather]

I'd also add that you probably just want to figure that the idea you seem to have -- based on a few things you've said in chats and here on the boards -- that you can know everything there is to know about sex without any personal experience isn't a sound one.

That doesn't mean you have to seek out experience if and when it isn't something you want. But what you probably do want to do is just recognize that, and work towards a little less attachment to the idea you can know all there is to know without any personal experience. It's not like should the time come that engaging in sex with a partner or partners you can't walk in -- as we always do, with any new partner, even with a lot of previous experience with others -- having things to learn, even a lot of things. We all walk into sex with a partner having things to learn, and that's actually a lot of the fun part.

[Mellonhead]

I think it's just easier to do in vitro fertilization. Sheldon Cooper on the Big Bang Theory may have proposed that instead of coitus, he would simply go through in vitro fertilization. It may sound ludicrous, but I actually think that is a very good idea. At least coitus wouldn't be an issue any more.

[Heather]

You may want to consider that IVF isn't cheap, and the cost alone puts it well outside the reach of most people. It also isn't so easy (most often, it involves estrogen injections for long periods of time, and those added hormones alone tend to do a real number on people whose bodies they are going into), and perhaps someone -- someone who can't themselves become pregnant, no less, and won't have to do all the things required with in vitro save masturbating to ejaculation -- on TV saying that seems the easiest isn't exactly the most reliable source of information about this.

[Mellonhead]

There is always adoption or having a surrogate. Those are the same options that same-sex couples use.

[Heather]

Adoption and surrogacy also often come with big price tags, and aren't "easy" in numerous ways most of the time for everyone involved. (Those also are not the only options for same-sex couples, by the by.)

I'm not sure what the point of this particular line of conversation is, but honestly, I'm starting to find it pretty offensive in a few different ways, particularly with a cismale person talking about how "easy" any of this is when it doesn't sound like they're considering the person who themselves is actually pregnant, and the fact that alternatives like IVF, adoption and surrogacy are often very emotionally challenging for the pregnant person involved in a way they just can never be for someone without a uterus.

I'm going to ask you please step back from this now here. I know all of this feels primarily academic or esoteric for you, but please remember that it's not just that for people actually having or who have had any of these experiences.