Why Is Missionary Position Called Missionary?

Did Christians make sex boring because they were bad at it (and didn’t want women to know)?

If this seems like an odd topic for a blog about food preservation and food insecurity to write about—well, I never promised to stay on topic. In fact, I was quite explicit that I would write about weird and random things. My writing is more a “flow of consciousness” of all the thoughts and things I think about. I’ve been told my opinions are interesting. The proverbial jury is still out on that count.

First published on Medium, January 2024, in the Deconstructing Christianity publication.

---

If reading about sex makes you uncomfortable, please understand this article may make you uncomfortable and please feel free to stop reading now.

As a clarifier, if the reasons it makes you uncomfortable are due to trauma or personal sexual orientation, make a judgment call if you want to read more. You know you best. If the reasons it makes you uncomfortable is because of religious beliefs and because you have been told “sex isn’t something we talk about,” then I personally believe this article may be of value to you, but ultimately that is a choice you need to make for yourself.

Disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist, trained or otherwise. Where appropriate, I have leaned on the knowledge of those trained in the field. This should be viewed as an observational, opinion piece.

Anyone who has been in a long-term heterosexual relationship that has sex as a component knows that if you are going for a “quickie,” you are probably going to opt for missionary position in some form.

So, yeah, that is where this got started. TMI much? But you were warned.

“Why is it called missionary?”

The thought was still with me this morning. I mean, I can guess, but it can’t be that simple, right?

My guess, missionaries to indigenous populations — primarily male missionaries, of course — found populations of people where the women had some degree of sexual agency and (gasp) actually cared about their own enjoyment during sex.

But no, it can’t be that obvious.

So, off to the search engine I went — Google, because I’m a well-trained cog in the machine. I’m still trying to break myself of Google dependence because I’m well aware there are better search engines available, but it is still my mental default.

Search query: Why is missionary called missionary?

A fraction of a second later, right at the top.

An excerpt from the perhaps ironically named Robert J. Priest’s article “Missionary Positions: Christian, Modernist, Postmodernist” reads: Random House Unabridged Dictionary (second edition) explains that it was “so-called because it was allegedly favored by Christian missionaries working among indigenous peoples, in preference to positions in which the man approaches the woman from behind.”

Okay, I’m intrigued. Off I went to read more of the full abstract.

The more I read, the more I sat in a form of shock. There’s no way it could be that obvious.

South Pacific populations to which missionaries had been deployed found that indigenous populations did not limit themselves to a single “coital position.”

In other words . . . they actually knew how to enjoy sex? Really?

Oh, well, we can’t be having that, now can we?

When you’ve only got one tool in the box, deploy it for everything. Any position other than missionary is a sin!

The fact that missionary position completely favors male pleasure and requires next to no skill? Oh, well, that’s just a bonus.

So here we venture into complete speculation and opinion on my part.

Missionaries, coming from cultures in which the patriarchy was well established, and women were already thoroughly repressed, arrive with lofty ideals in mind, having been taught their entire lives to believe that their religion and their culture are the only valid and “correct” ones, and find indigenous populations where people are living apparently happy.

How is this possible? These people should be miserable. They are “savages” who have not had the opportunity to hear the “word of God,” without which life is utterly lacking in meaning. Further, upon closer examination, women in their culture (depending on the specific culture in question, but generally) are free to speak their opinions, choose partners, have rights.

This doesn’t fit with the doctrine the missionaries have been fed their entire lives. This is completely outside of any world view that “makes sense.”

Early missionaries interacting with indigenous women may have found themselves initially rejected or even ridiculed over their lack of sexual expression. If sex were seen as a natural, normal part of life and missionaries treated it as dirty and secret? It only follows that they would be seen, at least at first, as the ones with something wrong with them.

But you are there to bring “civilized ways” to them. Don’t they know you know better than them?

How dare they criticize you? And about such a crude topic?! Unthinkable really!

It becomes clear that sexual repression is a necessary prerequisite to any other goals you might have with these people. For one thing, these women have entirely too many opinions and . . . well, even if they have them, they shouldn’t be saying them!

Sex is sinful.

Sex is only for reproduction. You should not enjoy sex. Sex should take as little time as possible and focus on only ejaculation of the male into the female. After all, that is the only part of sex that is necessary for reproduction and reproduction is the only valid reason to be having sex.

Anything else is a sin!

If this logic seems to have a lot of commonalities with modern evangelical Christianity . . . is that really a coincidence?

Without deep study into anthropology, and what (most likely biased) accounts of early indigenous culture and habits we do have, I can’t know if any of this is even close to the truth of what happened. However, it does fit with the remaining records we have and what we know of early and mid-Christian missionary efforts.

Ultimately, “missionary position” became a useful tool to decry as sinful any and every sex act that the church did not approve of. Non-heterosexual sex? Doesn’t aid reproduction and therefore more worshipers for the church, more tithing, more money, more ability to send out more missionaries to gain new converts. And, well, missionary position isn’t possible by definition so, obviously a sin.

Again, I will remind, much of this is personal speculation. However, it is speculation that fits the available information to an almost disturbing degree. Sex has long been a tool of religious oppression.

I, for one, think I’ll be retiring the term “missionary position” from my personal vocabulary. No doubt I will find a new term. I think we’ll just call it Basic Vanilla for now?

---

Reference:
Journal Article, Missionary Positions: Christian, Modernist, Postmodernist, Robert J. Priest
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/318433