What country has the most sexually liberated women

philologos

Abrasax wrote: »

We seem to decide how we are going to live our lives. I maintain most of us run according to the programmes that have been inputted and it is natural to engage in rationalisations to justify our behaviour to ourselves.
But we're getting into the debate about free will versus determinism and that's outsite the remit of this thread.

Right. Just to clarify, I hold to free will.

Abrasax wrote: »

It just seems to me me that just as a fetish type behaviour can be imprinted, due to some childhood incident, and then robotically and slavishly adhered to, so too can notions of sexual conservatism or so-called liberalism.

I really don't agree with this. People can shift from holding one more liberal position to holding a more conservative opinion. That is certainly what has happened in my case.

Abrasax wrote: »

Interesting that your own 'free choice' is in accord with Christian teachings and that this the 'right' way to behave.

Yes, I chose for myself to follow Christianity. In fact for me, Christianity is true liberation in comparison to other forms of pseudo-liberation, but that's for another discussion.

fryup

^^^^^^^^

jasyus!! don't get all intellectual about it....its just shaggin we're taking about

prinz

fryup wrote: »

jasyus!! don't get all intellectual about it....its just shaggin we're taking about

Actually nobody knows what they're talking about because "sexually liberated" is open to so many interpretations it's meaningless.

Even if it is "just shagging" some of the votes going on tell me people are clueless when it comes to some countries.

PK2008

Kasabian wrote: »

Why am I getting the feeling that most people voting on this have only had contact with women from other countries via their search engine.

Welcome to the internet

Dublin_Gunner

Bloody hell.

Talk about people trying to take the high ground here.

The OP was obviously just opening a thread, in AH, for a bit of fun about who the lads here think are the easiest nation of women to score.

No more than that.

Keep the religion, political correctness, and the abstract possible definitions of the OP's post out of it.

Bloody hell. Its worse than the effing Dáil during a referendum in here at times.

philologos

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Keep the religion, political correctness, and the abstract possible definitions of the OP's post out of it.

Bloody hell. Its worse than the effing Dáil during a referendum in here at times.

/thread

There's pretty much nothing to discuss if we exclude all of these things :pac:

Dublin_Gunner

Jakkass wrote: »

/thread

There's pretty much nothing to discuss if we exclude all of these things :pac:

Yes there is. Which women do people think are the easiest to score.

Thats it. Thats what the thread is about.

Keep your personal religious views out of it, there is no place for them here. I hate when people hijack a thread in order to get their own agenda out there.



(not trying to be rude, your own beliefs are just that, your own, you're entitled to them, but noone is asking about it here, so no need to bring it up and skew the discussion.)

**edit - jackass - by 'your' I mean plural, not directing this post directly at you or anything

prinz

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yes there is. Which women do people think are the easiest to score.Thats it. Thats what the thread is about.

If that's what thr thread is about, that's what the thread should be called. degree of sexual liberation =/= ease to score.

philologos

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yes there is. Which women do people think are the easiest to score.

I don't think that is "liberating" at all. In a sense one is saying, which women are easier to manipulate to have sex with. Something doesn't feel quite right about that.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Keep your personal religious views out of it, there is no place for them here. I hate when people hijack a thread in order to get their own agenda out there.

If other people bring them up, which they did if you read back the post. I will deal with it. I will post what I wish within the remits of the moderation of this forum. If you have an issue with my post, please press the report post button and a moderator will be along to sort me out

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

(not trying to be rude, your own beliefs are just that, your own, you're entitled to them, but noone is asking about it here, so no need to bring it up and skew the discussion.)

You're not being rude, but the above applies I think.

Dublin_Gunner

prinz wrote: »

If that's what thr thread is about, that's what the thread should be called. degree of sexual liberation =/= ease to score.

Unless you've your own agenda, you're reading WAY too much into a light hearted post by the OP.

Its obvious what the OP meant by the post, and reading between the lines to try create an intelligent discussion to big yourself up is not needed.

K-9

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Unless you've your own agenda, you're reading WAY too much into a light hearted post by the OP.

Its obvious what the OP meant by the post, and reading between the lines to try create an intelligent discussion to big yourself up is not needed.

Yes it is obvious what the OP meant. The OP doesn't seem to be complaining that the thread has meandered a bit, so who cares, besides yourself and using this thread to get personal remarks in?

Dublin_Gunner

K-9 wrote: »

Yes it is obvious what the OP meant. The OP doesn't seem to be complaining that the thread has meandered a bit, so who cares, besides yourself and using this thread to get personal remarks in?

Not getting personal remarks in. I just think its a little bit sad to see nearly every light hearted topic been ruined by peoples personal agendas.

Can nobody have a bit of fun in here anymore without people spouting on about religion or political correctness etc etc?

philologos

I would consider it good to have "intelligent discussion" from time to time, even if in this case it involves semantics.

vodafoneproblem

Oh the horror of having to read opinions from people of a different persuasion than you!

K-9

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Not getting personal remarks in. I just think its a little bit sad to see nearly every light hearted topic been ruined by peoples personal agendas.

Can nobody have a bit of fun in here anymore without people spouting on about religion or political correctness etc etc?

Or maybe we could have both? That floats my boat anyway! Humour and some "intellectual" discussion.

Dublin_Gunner

K-9 wrote: »

Or maybe we could have both? That floats my boat anyway! Humour and some "intellectual" discussion.

in AH??

Abrasax

Jakkass wrote: »

Right. Just to clarify, I hold to free will.

As do the majority of people

I really don't agree with this. People can shift from holding one more liberal position to holding a more conservative opinion. That is certainly what has happened in my case.

So, you've moved from the path of sexual liberalism to a more conservative position.
Why? and why do you hold the position of sexual conservatism to be the 'right' one.

Yes, I chose for myself to follow Christianity. In fact for me, Christianity is true liberation in comparison to other forms of pseudo-liberation, but that's for another discussion.

So you chose to be a Christian later in life? You had no exposure to Christianity in your earlier years?

Dublin_Gunner

Abrasax wrote: »

As do the majority of people


So, you've moved from the path of sexual liberalism to a more conservative position.
Why? and why do you hold the position of sexual conservatism to be the 'right' one.



So you chose to be a Christian later in life? You had no exposure to Christianity in your earlier years?

In fairness, I don't think Jackass' choice of religion, the change to becoming religious, beliefs etc are any business of yours or anybody's, and are certainly OT and for a different thread if they are to be discussed. (again...Jackass has gone through this on numerous threads)

Abrasax

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think Jackass' choice of religion, the change to becoming religious, beliefs etc are any business of yours or anybody's, and are certainly OT and for a different thread if they are to be discussed. (again...Jackass has gone through this on numerous threads)

That's for Jackass to say.
There's no malice in the questions. I have had plenty of debate with Jackass here previously, both in thread and by pm.
If he's offended he's capable of telling me himself.
As for going off topic, it's hardly the first time that's ever happened, now is it?

philologos

Abrasax wrote: »

So, you've moved from the path of sexual liberalism to a more conservative position.
Why? and why do you hold the position of sexual conservatism to be the 'right' one.

I didn't consider it a subject of importance. It wasn't something I thought about all that much.

The Christian position makes sense for me. I regard sexuality as something special, not something to be dispensed without meaning or value. I guess firstly I came to believe in God, and then I started to think about what was being expected of me and how it made sense. I think the expression of an individuals sexuality should matter, it should be out of a spirit of love and compassion, not with randomers that people have never met.

Abrasax wrote: »

So you chose to be a Christian later in life? You had no exposure to Christianity in your earlier years?

Of course I had exposure to Christianity. I just never understood it, and later I realised I hadn't been taught the full story particularly considering all we got at school were snippets of Jesus' life which is all one can expect a child to really get.

I read the Bible a few years ago (over 3 years ago now), and I thought through it and made my decision. I decided that it was true given what I had read, and that what Jesus did for me demanded a response.

If you have any more questions in particular about this, perhaps PM is best.

Dublin Gunner: My beliefs aren't private. They are a public part of my life, therefore it is fine to me to deal with this. But yes PM would be much better.

Lux23

How does one define sexually liberated?

thebigbiffo

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't consider it a subject of importance. It wasn't something I thought about all that much.

The Christian position makes sense for me. I regard sexuality as something special, not something to be dispensed without meaning or value. I guess firstly I came to believe in God, and then I started to think about what was being expected of me and how it made sense. I think the expression of an individuals sexuality should matter, it should be out of a spirit of love and compassion, not with randomers that people have never met.



Of course I had exposure to Christianity. I just never understood it, and later I realised I hadn't been taught the full story particularly considering all we got at school were snippets of Jesus' life which is all one can expect a child to really get.

I read the Bible a few years ago (over 3 years ago now), and I thought through it and made my decision. I decided that it was true given what I had read, and that what Jesus did for me demanded a response.

If you have any more questions in particular about this, perhaps PM is best.

Dublin Gunner: My beliefs aren't private. They are a public part of my life, therefore it is fine to me to deal with this. But yes PM would be much better.

how do you fit jesus' sexual relationship with a hooker into your beliefs? she dispensed sex for money so it had a value...guess there was f'uck all meaning though

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

how do you fit jesus' sexual relationship with a hooker into your beliefs? she dispensed sex for money so it had a value...guess there was f'uck all meaning though

Joining boards.ie FREE
Posting on a thread FREE
Living up to your chosen screen name PRICELESS

thebigbiffo

bogtotty wrote: »

Is your average Irish chick really church fearing? I don't think the church ever enters my mind when I'm engaging in sexual pleasure. Other than in a Madonna-Like-A-Prayer-video type of way.

And I would argue that to be sexually liberated means being confident enough to pursue sexual pleasure on one's own terms. That might be with a series of partners, through casual flings, or within a monogamous relationship. It can also mean feeling free to turn down pig-ignorant drunken Irish men who in all likelihood will puke in the taxi, piss in your wardrobe and then fail dismally to perform for longer than 5 minutes.

Turning down any Irish man for any reason = frigid

nah, was only trying to say irish women have a hang-up about sex. i dont think the church has anything to do with it at present, but the old taboos (propogated by the church in the first place) surrounding sex are still there...sex, or at the very least sex outside the standard lights off fumble, is still a bit of an issue for the majority of - but not all - irish girls...

thebigbiffo

prinz wrote: »

Joining boards.ie FREE
Posting on a thread FREE
Living up to your chosen screen name PRICELESS

i'm not sure if i should be insulted...

philologos

Is it a taboo to suggest that sexuality should have some inherent meaning rather than something that is merely dispensed without love, compassion or anything else?

People seem to be suggesting that disregarding this notion would actually be good for the world!

In reality such a viewpoint leads to broken families, difficult personal situations (single parenting for example), unplanned pregnancies, so on and so forth. Such views have a knock on affect within society.

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm not sure if i should be insulted...

No, not at all.

thebigbiffo

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it a taboo to suggest that sexuality should have some inherent meaning rather than something that is merely dispensed without love, compassion or anything else?

People seem to be suggesting that disregarding this notion would actually be good for the world!

In reality such a viewpoint leads to broken families, difficult personal situations (single parenting for example), unplanned pregnancies, so on and so forth. Such views have a knock on affect within society.

i'm sure you didn't see a previous post of mine in this thread. i'm not suggesting that multiple partners means liberated, my viewpoint is that knowing and being comfortble with your own body, knowing what you want from your sex life, being able to experiment with your sexuality and in the bedroom to enjoy sex more (i could keep going) is sexual liberation. i agree that unresponsible casual sex is not good for a society, but neither is a repressed attitude towards sex - whether that be in a stable relationship or with as many partners as you may choose, strangers or not...it's about personal freedom to enjoy your body as you see fit...

the thing is - some people believe that you can't enjoy sex without 'compassion, love or anything else'...the thing is, yes you can and as long as your responsible, it's nobody's business and it doesn't de-value sex as long as the person involved does not feel it's devaluing it for them

thebigbiffo

prinz wrote: »

No, not at all.

ahhh grand so...sure ya know us biffos, can't be hurtin the pride likes

Lux23

Its funny this thread is supposed to be about sexually liberated women yet its full of men talking s***e.