The retort to Nikhil's essay has some merit, but it's my opinion that the original essay was still accurate. Let's be real here: doggy style may be popular among other animals, but humans are the only ones that call it by that name. It's an obvious sign we're not quite as familiar with the move as our furry and feathered friends, which is exactly why Nikhil suggests renaming it to something more standard. While missionary may be around for centuries, its ubiquity among humans is not something to deny. Let's face it: missionary is the most popular way of hitting it from the back.
Also, when Nikhil talks about humans being "freaks in the sack", he doesn't mean it in a negative way. In fact, it's a good thing! We can take this as a compliment to our species' creative abilities when it comes to sex. Nikhil wasn't suggesting that missionary is the only sexual activity humans engage in—in fact, he mentioned that we have developed a variety of positions and activities that are unique and distinct from other animals. The point he's making is that compared to animals, humans have greater sexual expression and are capable of something unique—not that there's anything wrong with missionary.
The retort misses the point of Nikhil's essay and fails to see the human ingenuity when it comes to sexual expression. The fact of the matter is humans have something special going on in the bedroom, and we shouldn't forget that when comparing us to other species—especially since we still call doggy style "doggy style" and not "per usual" (like it should be). UrRong!