ASH ([info]galerian_ash) wrote in [info]little_details,
@ 2007-08-20 12:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:*merge: homosexuality, sex

Anal sex while under water?
Question: If two men are having sex while under water, is a lubricant necessary? Or would the water itself work as a lubricant?

Setting: Sweden during the Middle Ages, in a lake or deep river.

Search terms: I've tried everything from "water as a lubricant" to "sex under water", but have just found a whole bunch of scuba porn sites. I've also scoured various sites about gay sex, such as "Minotaur's Sex Tips For Slash Writers".

ETA: You guys are too awesome for words; within minutes I got the answers I needed. Thanks a million!


(Post a new comment)


[info]tabaqui
2007-08-20 12:59 am UTC (link)
Water is an awful, awful lubricant. They could try, but...really not something i'd recommend.

(Reply to this)


[info]whatifisaidno
2007-08-20 01:00 am UTC (link)
I wouldn't try it. A- the water would be cold as... as a lake or river in Sweden and B- it would hurt.

(Reply to this)


[info]atalantapendrag
2007-08-20 01:01 am UTC (link)
Does it have to be anal sex? If there's not a plot reason why it has to be, frottage would probably work better.

(Reply to this)


[info]wendelah1
2007-08-20 01:01 am UTC (link)
Water is not an effective lubricant for anal sex, no matter who is having it:)

(Reply to this)


[info]xtricks
2007-08-20 01:03 am UTC (link)
Water will not work (as has been said). However, some heavy duty, solid grease based lubricant *might* remain in the anus/on the penis long enough to get the job done. Something like crisco or (middle ages), rendered animal fat. This type of thing would not be a spontaneous act - or at least not pleasantly so.

(Reply to this)


[info]red_inuzuka
2007-08-20 01:03 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I was gonna say the same, I think it would be miserable.

(Reply to this)


[info]azurelunatic
2007-08-20 01:13 am UTC (link)
If anything, it might make it less lubricated. The cleaner one's bits are, the more friction there is with skin against skin.

(Reply to this)


[info]xxcreamsodaxx
2007-08-20 01:13 am UTC (link)
Yeah, the top could get it in, but it wouldn't be comfortable at all for the bottom. Maybe intercrural (penis between thighs) or frot (penis-to-penis)?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vesperus
2007-08-20 04:15 am UTC (link)
OT- but that is an absolutley awesome Runaways icon :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Personal experience
[info]shanghai_jim
2007-08-20 01:16 am UTC (link)
Water is astringent. The pain is excruciating.

(Reply to this)


[info]slythwolf
2007-08-20 04:07 am UTC (link)
It tends not to be a good idea to have intercourse--vaginal or anal, whichever--underwater because water can be forced into said orifice and cause all sorts of problems.

(Reply to this)


[info]azure15
2007-08-20 02:43 pm UTC (link)
Not really, in fact it would be likely to act the exact opposite. Plus doing so underwater can be forced into you, including nasty ass bacteria, causing an infection.

Maybe they could just fondle and make out rather than full on intercourse?

(Reply to this)


[info]americanleaguer
2007-08-20 06:51 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, if they're in a lake or river in the Middle Ages, aside from the problems associated with lubrication (lack thereof), if the body of water is at ALL close to human habitation, it is probably going to be pretty unclean. While this might be OK to dip your hands or feet in, if that water gets forced into orifices, someone would probably end up with a VERY unsexy infection. If you're going to have them get it on in the water, you should probably make sure it's a body of water that's far away (and upstream!) from any settlements.

(Reply to this)


[info]eriathwen_bob
2007-08-20 07:38 pm UTC (link)
If you were in a lake or river as cold as Sweden's lakes and rivers, how sexy would you really feel anyway?

(If I were you, I'd go for sauna/fireside sex after)

(Reply to this)


[info]lecheporfavor
2007-08-21 03:57 am UTC (link)
i'm seconding the motion for frottage.

less painful, just as sexy, and also people in the middle ages bathed once a year :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]syntinen_laulu
2007-08-26 04:35 pm UTC (link)
Not true. Medieval people loved hot baths and bathed as often as they could. Especially in Scandinavia and Russia where the insitution of the sauna is more than a millennium old.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lecheporfavor
2007-08-26 06:57 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm. Understandable, baths are nice. So wait, are the things like getting married in spring because you dont stink as bad a different time period, a myth, or just null in Scandinavia and Russia?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]syntinen_laulu
2007-08-26 08:36 pm UTC (link)
Total myth. Largely from a spoof essay called "Life in the 1500s" or "The Bad old Days" that started to circulate on the internet around 1999. Nobody seems to know who wrote it or why, but it is a collection of total nonsenses. See here for a debunking:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/dailylifesociety/a/bod_weddings.htm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lecheporfavor
2007-08-26 09:08 pm UTC (link)
ahahaha, oh wow. i actually heard about that from my history teacher...he's got some explaining to do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]syntinen_laulu
2007-08-27 02:22 pm UTC (link)
Yes, he certainly has! It's true that "Life in the 1500s" has (aargh!) found its way on to quite a few "educational resources" sites, but anybody with any historical training at all (even in a quite different period) should instantly have been able to suss it out as rubbish. Give him a hard time; if he tells you stuff like that, why should you believe anything he says to you? Why should you waste time coming to his classes at all, if they're actually going to make you more ignorant, not less?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…