|
性行為的基本類型
|
|
2.
異性性交
|
|
并無二致？
|
|
 |
|
印度中部村莊克久拉霍（Khajuraho）的古印度性愛雕塑（西元10世紀）蒙Sudheer
Birodkar惠允。
|
|
Erotic sculpture from an ancient Hindu temple in Khajuraho, central India,
10th century A.D.,
Courtesy of Sudheer Birodkar |
|
|
性交的4種基本類型並不意指它們在實際發生過程中涇渭分明、各自分隔和獨一無二。區分出這4種性交的基本類型的真正意圖在於要說明一些男女把自己只限定在性交的其中一種類型；而現在大多數夫妻喜歡在做愛時，從一種性交方式到另一種性交方式自由地轉換。因而，他們的性交起初可能是用手，然後用口，最後用生殖器官。當然，如果有人願意就定義性交方面講求事無巨細、面面俱到，他可能會劃分出更多的分類和說法，例如，當性伴通過相互觀看對方來強化他們的性反應時，有人也許會說這是“視交（visual
intercourse）”；當一個男人把他的陰莖置於其性伴的大腿或乳房時，有人也可能會認為是“腿交（femoral
intercourse，拉丁語
femora：大腿）”和“乳交（mammary
intercourse，拉丁語mamma：乳房）”。畢竟，一對夫妻在達到性高潮之前，他們可能會花數個小時相互運用他們的肢體，以嘗試所有可能的性交方式來做愛。在其它的時間或場合，他們也許根本就不達到性高潮，只是相互品味性刺激本身的過程。就我們定義的實效來看，這並不會產生任何的歧義。
另一方面，我們必須謹記，此處所定義的這種交互行為只涉及性的特徵。例如，我們所定義的手交（manual
intercourse）不適用於醫生檢查病人的性器官時所進行的操作。一個人的性器官去和另一個人的手、口、性器官或肛門接觸這一純粹的事例，就本質上看，沒有理由說成是性交。只有至少其中一人出現了明顯的和由他人所激發的性反應時，這個術語才證明是合適的。換一句話說，這同樣意味著兒童出於好奇相互觸摸性器官並不是正在從事性交。 |
|
Basic Types of Sexual Behavior |
|
2. Heterosexual Intercourse |
|
Not exclusive |
The 4 basic types of sexual intercourse do not represent clear-cut alternatives or separate and exclusive approaches. It is true that some men and women restrict themselves to only one type of sexual intercourse, but most couples today prefer to make love by freely switching from one approach to another. Thus, their intercourse may first be manual, then oral, and finally genital. Indeed, if one wanted to be pedantic about it, one could introduce several more distinctions and speak, for example, of “visual intercourse” when the partners mutually intensify their responses by looking at each other. One may also speak of "femoral intercourse" (lat. femora: thighs) and "mammary intercourse" (lat. mamma: breast) when a man places his penis between the thighs or breasts of his partner. After all, a couple may spend hours in each other's arms trying all possible variations of lovemaking before they reach orgasm. At other times, they may simply relish the process of mutual stimulation itself without reaching any orgasm at all. None of this makes any difference for the purposes of our definition.
On the other hand, we have to remember that it is only the sexual character of this interaction that concerns us here. For example, our definition of manual intercourse does not apply to the manipulation of a patient's sex organs by an examining physician. The mere fact that the sex organs of one person come in contact with the hands, mouth, sex organs, or anus of another is, in itself, no reason to speak of sexual intercourse. The term is justified only if at least one of them shows a sexual response which is noticed and encouraged by the other. This also means, among other things, that children who touch each other's sex organs out of sheer curiosity are not engaging in sexual intercourse. |
