I'm cumming at this from the other side of the fence. From point of view of penetration (anal and vaginal) there is nothing that feels better than vaginal sex. Your rod is squeezed and caressed in all the right ways no matter how far in you go. And orgasm always feels more complete this way.
Orally, cunnilingus is probably more work; your neck is always at an awkward angle. It's always tasted good to me. but getting her to drip those lovely juices is also alot of work if you get any at all. The effort is always worth it, but can't always get what you want.
Now I'm always leaking juice it seems, and I know it tastes good. The anatomy isn't quite as intersting perhaps, but it's always ready to give. So I guess it comes down to quantity versus quality. And I tend to lean toward quantity!
I would say it would be pretty easy to set it up so your neck weren't at an awkward angle during cunnilingus if your strategized. Think about it, pull her to the edge of the bed or couch and sit on the floor. I've seen it before in porn and American Pie. I would've thought it'd be a popular topic around how to bes tot have sex or something.
Why was it insulting to you? Elaborate further. You have spoken your mind before. Gimme details. Please.

He clearly is not respecting the men he is talking about. He refers to their marriages and romantic ties as if they are merely representations of the men's sexuality and not the serious relationships that they clearly were. He has a focus of questioning the legitimacy of these men throughout the article.
He is also quite sexist, implying that the women who couldn't "bag the fag" like other women did are failures and fools. With other women he perceives as really hot who do sleep with the "gay man" in question, he also objectifies. On top of that, he says they must have been even more manipulative than the women who tried and failed. The implication is that real men are not manipulated by men, and in fact it is the other way around.
He starts the article by saying only those who say they are gay count. It's as if a guy has a straight identity, he doesn't deserve the negative judgements he concludes in this article about these men.
The main theme, I absorb, are two points which he seems to think are contradictory. (1) Identifying as homosexual somehow negates any male identity (masculine identity). Sleeping with really hot and objectified women builds any male identity (masculine identity). His fascination is how "gay men" seemingly "tricked" these women into thinking they were "real men" long enough to "bag them" or marry them. It is riddled with hegemonic masculinity, and as such I severely disapprove.
The only person he gives full respect to is David Bowie, his reasoning being he slept with a lot of women (many more than the amount of men he slept with, which means that part doesn't matter [cause he was wicked straight!]) and he was married to a supermodel for 20 years. This is huge, only "real men" could be actually marry a supermodel and
keep it that way *rolls eyes*. That also STARTS his article, and is presumably the most important.
Look at the way he ends it, practically mocking Shakespeare by calling him a "theater whore": a "fifth category" of sexuality "unique to theater". Regardless of that claim, his clear goal is to demote respect for Shakespeare only through the writer's personal notion of the poet's sexual contact with other men.His first 20 sonnets don't mean anything; they weren't all addressed to one man he was in love with. That doesn't matter, because he sept with men, and so clearly shouldn't be thought of as a "real man".
Overall, I spent most of the time rolling my eyes and becoming increasingly annoyed t the writer of this article for being so insulting and idiotic. He has no right to pass such judgements on people, or to imply that homosexuality negates a masculine identity. He almost directly states that with his description of Rock Hudson. His first paragraph runs something like this:
"Rock was thought of as super straight. People thought he was INSANELY masculine. Even men turned gay by looking at him because they thought he was so manly. You don't even realize how manly people thought he was. I mean, they thought he could spontaneously grow penises wherever cause they thought he was so fuckin manly. But, OH SHIT, he was actually gay! How did he ACTUALLY get people to think that he was a 'REAL MAN'?!?"
Okay, so he didn't actually ask that question, but it was DEFINITELY implied. I mean, thats what his next section was "The Case for Gayness". Translation: "How he WASN'T a real man". Give me a fuckin break. If you ask me, the article was pretty pathetic.