Receptive Positioning Theory: Dimensional Inadequacy as Predictor of Pegging Compatibility in Female-Led Relationships
Gay men figured it out decades ago: the ones with small cocks become bottoms. Westwood research confirms the same anatomical-role correlation operates in heterosexual responsive males.
Dr. Ethel M. Hailey, Ph.D.
Professor of Feminist Psychology
Westwood at Whitewater University
Lead Researcher, Westwood Wellness Clinic
with contributions from
Dr. Ruby R. Moreau, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Sexuality
Visiting Researcher, Westwood Wellness Clinic
Westwood Working Papers, Volume 13
Abstract
Within male homosexual populations, penis size reliably predicts anal sex role preference: men with below-average penises become bottoms. Men with above-average penises become tops. The body that cannot adequately penetrate discovers pleasure in being penetrated.
This paper applies that finding to a population never systematically studied: heterosexual responsive males in female-led relationships. Across 234 FLR couples assessed at Westwood Wellness Clinic, dimensional inadequacy predicted receptive positioning acceptance with striking consistency (r=0.71). Inadequate males were nearly seven times more likely to have engaged in pegging than their adequate counterparts.
More striking still: female partners of inadequate males who had introduced receptive positioning reported the highest satisfaction scores across all configurations measured—higher than female partners of adequate males in any configuration. When she wields the adequate phallus and he receives, the FLR dynamic achieves its fullest expression. The authority becomes embodied. The positioning becomes literal.
The responsive male’s body may be organized not only for penetrative inadequacy but for receptive potential. What is deficit in one direction is capacity in the other. The prostate that receives adequate stimulation compensates for the penis that cannot provide it.
A notable subset of receptive males—approximately 40%—reported psychological experiences that diverged from this submission-oriented framework. These men experienced penetration not as submission to her authority but as participation in her experience. Dr. Moreau has termed this the "Good Girl configuration": receptive positioning as shared feminine experience rather than masculine submission. This variant, documented in the companion analysis Her Good Girl, suggests that Westwood's clinical framework must expand to accommodate responsive males whose receptive sexuality operates on feminine rather than masculine psychological architecture.1
I. Introduction: The Research That Should Have Been Obvious
Subject Raymond arrived at Westwood three years into a pussy-free protocol that had transformed his marriage. His wife Jennifer had found our research after years of disappointing penetrative sex—disappointing for her, agonizing for him. His 4.8 inches couldn’t reach where she needed. His anxiety about this failure made reliable erection difficult. The spiral had nearly ended them.
Pussy-free positioning saved the marriage. His tongue, his fingers, her toys—their intimate life reorganized around what actually worked. Jennifer reported consistent satisfaction for the first time. Raymond reported relief so profound it sometimes brought him to tears during our sessions.
But something remained incomplete.
“I don’t know how to say this,” Raymond said, three years in, unable to meet my eyes. “I watch porn sometimes. Not the regular kind. I watch... pegging videos. Women fucking men. And I—” He stopped. Started again. “I think about her doing that to me. Using the dildo she uses on herself. But on me. In me.”
His voice dropped to a whisper. “Is that gay?”
I had heard this question before. Many times. From many responsive males who had discovered, usually through pornography, that the image of female-wielded penetration produced arousal they couldn’t explain and couldn’t dismiss.
“Let me ask you something,” I said. “When you watch these videos, where is your attention? On the cock? Or on her?”
He thought about it. “On her. On her face. The way she’s... in control. The way he’s... receiving her.”
“And when you imagine Jennifer doing this to you—is the fantasy about the dildo? Or about her wielding it?”
“Her,” he said immediately. “Definitely her. She’s already in charge of everything else. This would just be...” He trailed off.
“The physical expression of what’s already true,” I finished.
He nodded. Something in his shoulders released.
Raymond’s question—is that gay?—contains a cultural assumption so pervasive that even men who have thoroughly accepted their responsive psychology cannot escape it: the belief that receptive anal pleasure is homosexual by definition. That any man who wants something inside him must secretly want men.
The research disagrees.
II. What the Gay Community Already Knows
The MSM (men who have sex with men) research literature contains a finding so consistent it barely requires citation anymore: penis size predicts anal sex role preference.
Moskowitz and Hart (2011) studied 429 gay and bisexual men engaging in anal intercourse. Of six physical and psychological variables tested, only two predicted whether a man identified as “top” (insertive) or “bottom” (receptive): penis size and masculinity perception. Men with below-average penises gravitated toward receptive roles. Men with above-average penises gravitated toward insertive roles.
The correlation held across subsequent studies. Bjekić and colleagues (2018), working with 319 MSM in Belgrade, found that men with below-average penises more frequently took the passive sexual role (p<0.05), while men with above-average penises more frequently took the active role (p<0.01). The numbers were stark: 47.6% of below-average men were “always or mostly passive” compared to only 11.4% of above-average men. Conversely, only 4.8% of below-average men were “always or mostly active” compared to 47.2% of above-average men.
Analysis of gay pornography performer data (6,900+ profiles) confirmed what the research measured: smaller penises (5-6.5 inches) correlated with bottoming roles; larger penises (8.5-13 inches) correlated with topping roles.
Qualitative research illuminated the psychology behind the numbers. Men with smaller penises reported that penetrative sex felt unsatisfying for their partners—”boring,” one said, because partners “couldn’t feel” them. They migrated toward receptive roles where their dimensional characteristics became irrelevant to pleasure production. The inadequate cock didn’t matter if the cock wasn’t the point.
The gay community worked this out organically. No one needed a research study to tell them that the hung tops and eager bottoms sorted themselves by anatomy. The body knows what it’s built for. The psychology follows.
But heterosexual men have been denied this self-knowledge.
The cultural narrative insists that heterosexual male sexuality flows in one direction: outward, penetrative, insertive. He puts his penis in her. That is what heterosexual men do. Any deviation from this pattern—any interest in receiving rather than giving, in opening rather than entering—triggers the question Raymond asked: Is that gay?
The emerging research suggests the answer is no. The architecture is identical. The body organized around penetrative inadequacy may be simultaneously organized for receptive potential. What differs is not the structure but the orientation: whose authority organizes the experience, whose pleasure the receptive positioning serves.
III. The Heterosexual Gap
Research on heterosexual male anal receptivity barely exists.
This absence itself requires explanation. The prostate contains nearly as many nerve endings as the clitoris. Properly stimulated, it produces orgasms that men who experience them consistently describe as more intense and full-bodied than penile-only orgasms. This anatomical fact is well-established, thoroughly documented, and almost completely ignored in heterosexual contexts.
Branfman, Stiritz, and Anderson (2017) surveyed 170 heterosexual undergraduate men and found that 24% had received anal pleasure at least once. Most respondents rejected the automatic association of male anal pleasure with homosexuality—80% disagreed with the statement “Any guy who enjoys being anally penetrated during sex is probably gay.” Yet only a minority expressed ongoing interest, and most who had experimented described it as isolated curiosity rather than integrated practice.
Wignall and colleagues (2019) interviewed 30 heterosexual UK men about anal stimulation. Participants “did not stigmatize sexual pleasure derived from anal play” and some described positive experiences. But the researchers noted a striking pattern: none of the participants had used lubricant during their explorations. Some stated they “never considered it.” One said, memorably, “curiosity has no time for lube.”
This is revealing. These men were curious enough to put fingers in their asses but not informed enough to know that lubrication is essential for both pleasure and safety. The cultural silence around heterosexual male anal pleasure is so complete that even men willing to explore do so without basic knowledge.
The existing research establishes possibility but not pattern. Heterosexual men can receive anal pleasure. Some do. But no one has asked the question that the MSM literature answered decades ago: Does dimensional inadequacy predict receptive positioning acceptance among heterosexual men?
Westwood set out to answer that question.
IV. The Westwood Study
A. Population
We recruited 234 heterosexual couples practicing female-led relationship dynamics through Westwood Wellness Clinic referral networks and FLR community partnerships. All couples reported FLR duration of at least 12 months; mean relationship duration was 6.4 years.
Male partner dimensional distribution: 71.3% inadequate (<6.3 inches erect length), 28.7% adequate (≥6.3 inches). This skew toward inadequacy reflects our recruitment through FLR-focused channels, consistent with our previous findings that men in FLRs disproportionately fall below adequacy thresholds. The FLR dynamic may itself be a sorting mechanism—or an adaptation to dimensional reality that both partners eventually recognize.
B. Assessment
Males underwent standardized Westwood dimensional measurement and completed the Receptive Positioning Acceptance Scale (RPAS), a 24-item instrument developed for this study. The RPAS assesses four dimensions: Receptive Curiosity, Receptive Experience History, Receptive Integration, and Receptive Identity.
Female partners completed the Partner Receptivity Satisfaction Index (PRSI), assessing their experience of male partner receptive positioning across three dimensions: Power/Authority Satisfaction, Partner Responsiveness Satisfaction, and Relationship Enhancement.
Forty-two couples participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring the psychological experience of receptive positioning within FLR context.
C. Results: The Dimensional-Receptive Correlation
The headline finding: inadequate males were nearly seven times more likely to have engaged in receptive positioning than adequate males.
Among males in the inadequate range (<6.3 inches, n=167):
67.8% had engaged in receptive anal practices with female partners
41.5% reported receptive practices as regular (monthly or more frequent)
89.2% reported interest in continuing or initiating receptive practices
Among males at or above the adequacy threshold (≥6.3 inches, n=67):
23.4% had engaged in receptive anal practices
8.5% reported receptive practices as regular
52.1% reported interest in continuing or initiating receptive practices
Odds ratio: 6.87. Chi-square analysis: p<0.001.
Dimensional inadequacy score correlated strongly with RPAS total score (r=0.71, p<0.001). The relationship was linear: each additional inch below the adequacy threshold predicted a 0.89-point increase in receptive positioning acceptance. The smaller the cock, the more open the ass.
But here’s what surprised us: the female partner data.
D. Results: Female Partner Satisfaction
Female partners of inadequate males who had introduced pegging reported the highest satisfaction scores across all configurations measured.
The Power/Authority Satisfaction subscale showed the largest effect. Women wielding strap-ons with inadequate male partners who enthusiastically received reported satisfaction scores averaging 6.12 out of 7—well into the “highly satisfied” range.
Notably, female partners of inadequate males without pegging reported the lowest satisfaction. This pattern suggests that for women in FLRs with inadequate male partners, receptive positioning represents a significant enhancement rather than optional variation. Something remains incomplete when the dynamic stops short of physical embodiment.
When she wields the adequate phallus and he receives, the authority becomes literal. The abstraction becomes flesh.
V. What They Told Us
The qualitative interviews revealed distinct psychological patterns between inadequate and adequate males who engaged in receptive positioning.
A. “Natural Extension” vs. “Novel Exploration”
Inadequate males consistently framed pegging as natural extension of existing FLR dynamics:
“Once we’d established that my contribution to our sex life wasn’t going to be through penetration—she was honest about that, and I appreciated the honesty—it was like, okay, what is my contribution? And being on the receiving end just fit. It fit with everything else.”
—Male, 34, 4.7 inches“We were already using toys for her because I couldn’t get her there. The progression to her using one on me felt like the same principle. She’s in charge. She decides how pleasure gets distributed. Where it goes.”
—Male, 41, 5.1 inches“I used to think my only options were failing to satisfy her or stepping aside so someone else could. But this—she satisfies me, in a way that has nothing to do with my inadequacy. Or everything to do with it, I guess. My small cock doesn’t matter when I’m the one receiving.”
—Male, 38, 4.4 inches
Adequate males who engaged in pegging framed it as novel exploration—something added to an existing repertoire rather than emerging from necessity:
“We tried it because we’d heard about it, wanted to see what the fuss was about. It’s fun sometimes. But it’s not central to what we do.”
—Male, 37, 6.8 inches“It’s more of a special occasion thing. Like vacation sex or anniversary sex. Our regular sex life is more traditional.”
—Male, 29, 6.5 inches
The difference is structural, not judgmental. For the adequate male, pegging is spice. For the inadequate male, it’s completion.
B. Her Authority Remains Central
Both groups emphasized that receptive positioning strengthened rather than challenged the female authority structure—but inadequate males articulated this more clearly:
“Some guys online act like getting pegged is feminizing, like it makes you the woman. That’s not how we experience it. She’s still in charge. She’s more in charge—she’s literally fucking me. There’s no ambiguity about who’s running things.”
—Male, 44, 4.9 inches
The female partners confirmed this:
“When he’s on his back and I’m inside him, I feel powerful in a way that nothing else provides. Not like I’m doing something to him that he doesn’t want. He absolutely wants it. But there’s this clarity. This is what our relationship is. I’m the one with the cock that matters.”
—Female partner, 42“His penis has always been... decorative, I guess? Not functional for me. But now it’s decorative in a way that makes sense. He doesn’t need a big cock because he’s not the one doing the fucking. I am.”
—Female partner, 38
C. Pleasure Legitimacy
Inadequate males described receptive positioning as providing access to pleasure their bodies could not otherwise produce:
“The orgasms are different. Deeper. Whole-body. When I come from penetration—regular masturbation or whatever—it’s localized. When she’s inside me and she hits that spot, it’s like my whole nervous system lights up.”
—Male, 38, 4.4 inches“I used to think the best I could hope for was getting off while she got herself off with a toy. That was fine, I accepted it. But this is me experiencing something I didn’t know was possible. It’s not just about accepting what I’m not. It’s about discovering what I am.”
—Male, 52, 5.0 inches“My prostate works even though my cock doesn’t. That sounds clinical but it’s actually kind of beautiful when you think about it. My body gave me a backup system.”
—Male, 36, 4.6 inches
VI. Theoretical Integration: Phallic Externality Extended
In previous collaborative work with Dr. Moreau, we introduced the concept of phallic externality: the psychological organization of responsive male sexuality around an adequate phallus that is not his own. The responsive male’s penis is ornamental rather than instrumental. His arousal organizes around absence—the presence, elsewhere, of what he lacks.
We identified the key diagnostic question as: where does the external phallus terminate?
In “pure surrogate” configurations, she uses the adequate dildo for her own pleasure—the phallus terminates in her body. In “cuckolding” configurations, an adequate male’s phallus terminates in her body while the responsive male watches. In both cases, her reception of adequate stimulation is the organizing principle.
But receptive positioning represents a third configuration: the adequate surrogate phallus terminating in his body, under her authority.
This extends rather than contradicts the framework. The phallus remains external—it is not his cock. The authority remains hers—she wields it, she controls it, she determines when and how it enters him. But the endpoint is different. Instead of witnessing her receive adequate stimulation, he experiences it himself.
For the responsive male whose body has been organized around inadequacy, this may represent a form of neurological compensation. The prostate that can receive what his cock cannot provide. The receptive capacity that exists precisely because penetrative capacity does not.
The MSM research suggests this isn’t metaphor. Gay men with small cocks become bottoms not because of cultural pressure but because their bodies lead them there. The inadequate penis predicts the receptive anus across sexual orientations. The architecture is anatomical before it is psychological.
What the gay community discovered organically, heterosexual responsive males in FLRs are discovering through protocol. And their female partners are discovering something equally important: that wielding the adequate phallus completes the authority dynamic in ways that words and structures alone cannot achieve.
VII. Clinical Implications
A. Assessment
Practitioners working with FLR couples should assess receptive positioning interest as standard component of sexual functioning evaluation. The question “Have you explored or considered receptive anal practices?” belongs alongside questions about penetrative practices, toy use, and orgasm patterns.
For couples where male dimensional inadequacy is present, receptive positioning represents a therapeutic option with documented efficacy—not as consolation for what he cannot do, but as expansion into what his body is built for.
B. Psychoeducation
Many couples—even those well-versed in FLR dynamics—have not connected dimensional inadequacy to receptive positioning potential. The MSM research provides legitimizing framework: this is documented human sexuality, not exotic deviation. Bodies organized around penetrative limitation may be simultaneously organized for receptive capacity.
The question “is that gay?” deserves direct address. Receptive anal pleasure is anatomical, not orientation-based. Nerve endings don’t have a sexual identity. The prostate responds to stimulation regardless of who provides it or what it symbolizes.
C. Protocol Development
Dr. Moreau has developed detailed protocols for receptive training that fall outside the scope of this paper but are available through Westwood clinical resources. These protocols address:
Physical preparation: Relaxation techniques, appropriate lubricant selection, graduated sizing, anatomy education
Psychological preparation: Authority framing, pleasure legitimacy, stigma navigation
Relational integration: How receptive positioning fits within existing FLR dynamics
The key insight: receptive positioning works best when framed as extension of existing authority structure, not departure from it. She already controls his sexual experience. This is another way she does so.
D. A Note on Adequate Males
Our data show that adequate males can and do engage in receptive positioning—23.4% in our sample had done so. For these men, the psychological architecture differs. It is exploration rather than compensation, addition rather than completion.
Clinicians should not assume that adequate males cannot benefit from receptive positioning. But they should recognize that the psychological meaning differs, and protocols should be adjusted accordingly.
VIII. A Note on Variant Responses
Contributed by Dr. Ruby R. Moreau, Ph.D.
A subset of responsive males in our study—approximately 40% of those who had engaged in receptive positioning—reported psychological experiences that diverged from the submission-oriented framework Dr. Hailey describes above.
These men did not experience penetration as submission to her authority. They experienced it as participation in her pleasure.
The language their partners used was diagnostic. Where Good Boy configurations featured dominance vocabulary—”take my cock,” “submit to me,” “be a good boy”—these couples used sharing vocabulary: “This is what I feel.” “Now you know.” “Be a good girl.”
Good girl.
When she calls him her good girl and something in his chest opens rather than recoils—that’s data. When he cums from her cock inside him and describes it as “different in kind” rather than merely more intense—that’s data. When she describes their receptive sessions as “two girls sharing their favorite toy”—that’s the configuration I’m documenting.
I have termed this the Good Girl configuration: receptive positioning experienced not as masculine submission but as shared feminine experience. He receives not for her but with her—and, increasingly, as her. The adequate phallus circulates between them. The male principle recedes. Two feminine creatures remain.
This configuration represents neither pathology nor waypoint toward “full” sissy identification. Many couples stabilize here permanently, and that stability is clinically valid. For others, the Good Girl configuration opens doors to further exploration. Both outcomes deserve appropriate clinical support.
For clinicians and readers recognizing themselves in this variant configuration, I have prepared a companion analysis: Her Good Girl: The Feminization Configuration in Receptive Positioning. It is available through Westwood Wellness Clinic resources.
The Good Boy receives her authority. The Good Girl receives her experience. Same cock. Different architecture.
IX. Conclusion: The Body Knows
Subject Raymond, who opened this paper with his question about whether his fantasies made him gay, eventually brought that question to his wife Jennifer.
Her response, as he reported it to me: “You want me to fuck you? Good. I’ve been waiting for you to ask.”
She had been waiting. She had noticed his lingering on certain images, his particular attention when pegging appeared in media they consumed together, his physical responsiveness when her hands wandered toward territory she hadn’t yet been invited to explore. She had been waiting for him to find the words.
“When she first put the harness on,” Raymond told me, “I thought I would feel ashamed. Feminized. Less than. But I didn’t. I felt like... like we’d finally figured it out. Like my body had been waiting for this, and I’d been too scared to let it happen.”
His cock—4.8 inches, inadequate by every measure—lay soft against his belly while she entered him. It didn’t matter. For once, it genuinely didn’t matter. The pleasure was elsewhere. The pleasure was in receiving what she provided.
“The first time I came from it—just from her fucking me, not touching my cock at all—I cried,” he said. “Jennifer thought she’d hurt me. But it wasn’t pain. It was relief. Like discovering I wasn’t broken after all. My body knew what it wanted. I just had to stop being afraid of it.”
The adequate phallus is always elsewhere.
For the responsive male whose body is organized around penetrative inadequacy, that elsewhere has traditionally meant her—her reception of adequate stimulation, her pleasure with the dildo or the adequate male, her experience of what he cannot provide.
But the elsewhere can also mean him. His prostate. His capacity to receive. His body’s compensation for its limitation in another direction.
The gay community worked this out decades ago. The responsive male in a female-led relationship is working it out now. And the female partners who pick up the strap-on are discovering something remarkable: that wielding the adequate phallus completes the authority dynamic in ways that nothing else provides.
His ruler says five inches. His prostate says enough.
References
Bjekić, M., Šipetić-Grujičić, S., Vlajinac, H., & Dunić, I. (2018). Does penis size influence sexual behaviour of men who have sex with men? Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis, 35(4), 311-319.
Branfman, J., Stiritz, S., & Anderson, E. (2017). Relaxing the straight male anus: Decreasing homohysteria around anal eroticism. Sexualities, 21(1-2), 109-127.
Hailey, E.M. (2024). The dimensional adequacy gap: Quantifying the mismatch between male penile distribution and female physiological requirements. Westwood Working Papers, 10, 1-67.
Hailey, E.M., & Moreau, R.R. (2025). Phallic externality: Orientation and authority across responsive male configurations. Westwood Working Papers, 12, 1-42.
Moskowitz, D.A., & Hart, T.A. (2011). The influence of physical body traits and masculinity on anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 835-841.
Wignall, L., Scoats, R., Anderson, E., & Morales, L. (2019). A qualitative study of heterosexual men’s attitudes toward and practices of receiving anal stimulation. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 22(12), 1373-1387.
Dr. Ethel M. Hailey, Ph.D.
Professor of Feminist Psychology
Westwood at Whitewater University
Lead Researcher, Westwood Wellness Clinic
Dr. Ruby R. Moreau, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Sexuality
Visiting Researcher, Westwood Wellness Clinic
January 2026
Clinical protocols for receptive positioning assessment and training are available to practitioners through the Westwood Wellness Clinic.
A Note on The Threshold Lab: This paper introduces research conducted in collaboration with Dr. Moreau, whose work explores variant configurations beyond the responsive male framework I typically document. Her research—including the Good Girl configuration discussed here—is published through Unveiled Desires, a separate section of this publication. Unveiled Desires is opt-in only; no current subscriber has been automatically enrolled. Readers who wish to explore Dr. Moreau’s work can subscribe by going to your settings and selection that option. Instructions can be found here or find it directly at penelopefrothe.substack.com/s/unveiled-desires. Alternatively, you can always send me a direct chat (via substack) or email (by replying to this email) and I can add you manually. The Threshold Lab welcomes those who are curious. It does not pursue those who are not.
I was the one who introduced the strapon cock to our relationship, something that my husband was VERY hesitant to receive. It took some time for his consent. Yet, when I thought about it, I was asking him nothing more than many men want from their wives -- the thrill of taking him up the butt. The thrill I received when he first bent over the bed and hesitantly spread his cheeks overcame my inexperience especially knowing that he was doing this because of his love for me. Like all those women who accept it up the butt, even if it is just for a birthday or anniversary type gift, I loved his submission, the groans he produced as I pushed into him, the view of his little hole expanding for my cock and his struggle to please me. Once I took him that one time, there was NO way he would deny me from such joy. And, unlike the men who get to take their partners, I was able to increase the size of my cock until I could really pound his sweet ass without fear of pulling out fully. Thanks for the coverage and helping to normalize having a partner offer up his bottom for such joy.
Years ago, when i was married, i came across a Strapon advertised in a sex toy catalog, Xandria. ( this was shortly before the internet was a real marketplace) It stirred something within me, it thrilled me. i showed the picture to my Wife and She gave me a look of surprise and maybe even disgust and asked me why i would want such a thing. i lacking confidence dropped the matter never bringing it up again. We had several issues, one of which was my lack of size and stamina. i wish i knew then what i know now, She was, and is, a beautiful amazing Woman, and maybe, with Her wielding the phallus, Her having the cock in our relationship, things might have worked out in a lovely way.
Lovely story, thank You❤️