The Missionary Misnomer: How Colonialism Rewrote the Global Language of Sex

Why the “Missionary Position” Says More About Empire Than Intimacy

The term “missionary position” sounds ancient and moralistic, as if it originated from a timeless religious code. In truth, it’s a relatively modern invention—and a deeply colonial one. The phrase was popularized by Western observers during the 19th century who, encountering the sexual customs of non-European cultures, reacted with shock, fascination, and judgment. The label reflects not universal morality, but the worldview of those who sought to impose one.

According to anthropological research summarized in Nature, the position we now call “missionary” was not seen as morally superior in most precolonial societies. Many cultures—African, Polynesian, South Asian—embraced a wide array of sexual practices that prioritized mutual pleasure, variety, and spiritual symbolism. It was European missionaries, traveling with colonial expeditions, who documented these customs with disdain. To them, anything other than face-to-face heterosexual intercourse seemed primitive or sinful. Thus, “the missionary position” became shorthand for what they believed to be the only “civilized” way to have sex.

This moral framing had political weight. As Scientific American notes, the 19th-century colonial project often used sexuality as a tool of dominance. By labeling certain practices “deviant” or “animalistic,” colonial powers justified their rule as a civilizing mission. The policing of erotic behavior became part of the broader control over bodies, labor, and identities. In this way, sexual norms were exported alongside religion, language, and law—reshaping entire cultures to fit Western ideals.

Ironically, what the missionaries preached as “natural” was far from it. Anthropological evidence from the Kama Sutra, ancient Egyptian art, and Chinese erotic manuals reveals that humans across civilizations have always expressed sexuality in diverse, creative ways. As Psychology Today points out, variation in sexual positions was often symbolic: reflecting cosmology, status, and emotional connection. Only in the prudish climate of Victorian Europe did a single position become elevated as “moral” and “proper.”

Even language reflects this bias. The idea of the “right” position mirrored the hierarchy of colonial order—male over female, European over indigenous, mind over body. The missionary position, in this sense, was both sexual and ideological: it embodied submission, control, and predictability. For colonizers, to reform the sexual customs of others was to assert superiority not only over lands but over desires.

In contemporary times, the term has lost much of its moral baggage, often used casually or even humorously. Yet its origins linger as a reminder that even intimate acts can be politicized. When we call something “missionary,” we invoke centuries of cross-cultural misunderstanding—a legacy where pleasure was disciplined and diversity suppressed.

Reclaiming sexual diversity, then, is not simply about experimentation; it’s about decolonizing intimacy. By recognizing the arbitrary moral hierarchies imposed on our most personal behaviors, we make space for freedom, equality, and authentic connection. The true lesson is not about which position is “right,” but about honoring the variety that has always defined human sexuality.

Far from being a symbol of purity or restraint, the so-called missionary position is a linguistic fossil—a relic of empire that reminds us how power once reached even into the bedroom. To understand it is to see that sex, like history itself, has always been written by those in control.

Source: sexnews.eu

SOURCE: sexual history, colonialism, cultural anthropology, sex positions, erotic diversity.

By: Ingrid Gustafsson.

Originally posted 2025-09-29 00:00:00.