Dear Scandalous (Pleasure),
Being sodomized for a girl (in terms of her receptive feelings) might not differ substantially from a boy's receptive feelings when being sodomized, but ... beyond the "internal tactiles" (sodomizing partner's arched erection inserted "with" the rectum's "curve" [girls and boys on their backs] and arched erection inserted "against" the internal "curve" [girls and boys on "all fours" or some variant]), I believe there might be a very significant psycho- sexual feeling distinguishing girls' fulfillment from the act. Granted that both girls and boys experience submission (willing or otherwise), and granted that both experience a near requirement for focus on physical control of their respective sphincters, and even granted only the girl might receive physical pleasure (potential orgasm) from indirect stimulation of her "G-spot" (Granffenberg spot.), and further granted only the boy receives direct stimulation of his prostate. Granted all of these, it seems that only the girl (whose sexual organs offer side-by-side the penetrator two different apertures of substantially different pleasure) "compares" in her mind the distinctions between one "type" of penetration within her vis-a-vis the other different type.
And herein, in my view, lays part of her unique psycho-sexual comprehension of anal penetration. When she submits to sodomization she doesn't mere submit in a "role reversal" in the only manner possible as does a boy (oral intercourse aside as combining some sort of assertiveness by the "submitting" party). Quite the contrary, the girl submits regardless of whether her penetrators elects to "use" her vagina or her sphincter/rectum aperture and canal. For the girl then it would seem a matter of "election" between one or another submission rather than a role reversal, and in voluntarily submitting to anal penetration the girl's election would seem one of selfless self-denial (Perhaps it is part of the symbolism in "O" having been rendered so often a "0" [zero] by Sir Stephen.). In her self-reduction to zero the girl almost certainly comprehends that her unique ability to become pregnant (As well as that little "inducement", her clitoris!) are co-opted, indeed "relegated" to meaninglessness, as she offers herself in selfless and pure "sacrifice" to the male's pleasure and her penetrator's ultimate liberation to masturbate himself with her body's most intimate place without thought of any reciprocity. Indeed, "reciprocity" by sodomizer to the one submitted to sodomy, while not impossible, is without artifice and contortion a practical improbability. (Really, only in staged pornography does there seem to be the "rabid" and desparate manipulation of the submissive's clitoris ... as if such is actually supposed to facilitate "relaxation", or even more rediculously the simulated forced entry of unlubricated erections!)
Wherefore my postulate: that only the girl "elects" to deny her very being's "raisson d'etre"; that only the girl makes this "election" without substantially altering her sexual "role" and without employing role reversal; and that only the girl has a psycho-sexual realization of utter selfless self-denial and sex objectification almost entirely without a pleasureable inducement analogous to the boy's prostate. Herein then, if my postulate proves meritorious, lies a profound epiphany: in this one act, where her physical purpose remains the same without role reversal, the girl entirely reverses her purpose from generative being who "employs" males to objectified being who is "employed" by males. (It is a theory.)
Respectfully submitted,
... Marco.
