Sexuality and society

parker kent

I think we are a country of contradictions that is still finding its way towards a more mature attitude towards sexuality. The contradictions come from people with wildly different views (not just an Irish issue, but still one we have), contradictions within people themselves and conflicted messages received when kids are growing up.

From my own experience, I have friends that cover all possible thoughts and opinions on sexuality. I have friends that are virgins at 25 who won't speak about sex at all (and I mean at all, I once mistakenly said handjob and caused World War Three), I have friends who have sex with anybody they can whenever they can, I have friends who got married at 21 and so forth. Then add in that we have the full spectrum of opinions on sexuality outside my age range. Just looking at threads on Boards shows how different some people are. Take the nudity threads, any about Claire Tully, Georgia Salpa etc or the thread about the student teachers. I know that threads like that are not specifically about sexuality (and lots of other perfectly valid opinions about side topics), but it gives an indication of the different types of opinions held by people. Some are very open and others are hostile towards anything that is any way sexual.

I agree with people who bring up the idea that a lot of Irish people need to be sloshed at the weekend before they try and chat up the opposite sex. It may not be everybody, but the Irish pub/club culture is "interesting" to say the least.

Basically we have all manner of opinions on sexuality. Like I said in the prude thread, I think Ireland is in a period where opinions on sexuality are changing and there is a clash between the various opinions. We still live in a country where the Liveline brigade hold power, yet any night out will show you people who are definitely not afraid of their sexuality. Yet those people often need alcohol to bring that out.

So we are basically a mixed bag!

Edit: Just to add I read a good book about this area in college called Gender and Sexuality in Modern Ireland by Anthony Bradley and Maryann Gialanella Valiulis. It is on Google Books if anybody wants a gander. It delves into various aspects from homosexuality to gender issues and everything else in between.

Louisayankee2

The Sweeper-
I have to admit you're a global thinker.
I am new to this site, so please forgive me if I don't send a personal reply to you. Not everyone who lives in another country hates or dislikes you or anyone .... for that matter. It is that you must remember, as a newbie, a person is limited, until they get to know you

I have to agree with your imposing knowledge of the fact women have been terribly sexualized, and mostly America, ....... it's a shame.
One college professor put it this way......" We , in America, made huge strides to female liberation, equality........ until Madonna. She did more to undermine those advances that any one single thing in the U.S."
We all know the differences in the sexes, but she went way beyond what most women want to be used for. Her own insecurities ( see her before she was anybody) as a young girl, made her the blatantly gross female that she tries to sell the world.
Any respectable woman, knows that a man enjoys him woman to be his own, not displaying her physique to the world at large!( notice I say MOST men , here....)
But, thank you for your support in thanking Bryn on MrStuffins comment on my post.
I am trying to find ways for couples to bond , not become more distant. It is a fact that men need tactile stimulation to bond.
I am studying this phenomenon, not for making more of a loose society, but trying to enhance relationships.
There seems to be the association between sexuality and the ANR experience, that doesn't quite belong front and center... excuse the pun!

Women take about 11 min. longer to rev up their engines , so to speak, than men do, so adult nursing is both erotic for the couple and brings a female to the intended place she needs to be for her mate. Each one enjoys the experience, and it is tantric , for sure. It takes time, and lengthens out the time two can be into one another without having to jump right into a sexual encounter.
No wonder men don't understand women, they haven't been reading about this very functioning relationship. If it works (breastfeeding for 2+ yrs.) with babies, all the more with men.
The wonderful part is, the husband/boyfriend gets more milk the longer he spends at the breast. The Oxytocin is a relaxant, and a bonding hormone.

The old addage......"The more you give, the more you get.", works on both male and female. It is a co-dependent , and symbiotic relationship, that only the two can share in, unless there would be others involved, which is what some countries do with other people's infants whose Mother dies.
That is called a wet-nurse.
I am learning about this for the first time, so don't even think I am an expert on the subject.
John Bowlby's model for long term orphanages is based on this "secure bonding" relationship now. New orphanages are using his model to recreate the family atmosphere instead of huge, institutionalized orphanages.
What a wonderful man!
Thank you for reading my post, hope I don't offend anyone ! (smiling)

AntiMatter

The Sweeper wrote: »

In Ireland, we look around the tell ourselves it's the church or our parents or our education.

But it's not just the church, or our parents, or our schools, and it's not just Ireland. The hyper-sexualisation of women is a first world phenomenon. Pole dancing is now touted as an empowering workout choice. You can't buy a pair of high heels that don't have a five inch stiletto and a one inch platform sole. They used to be hooker heels - now they're only hooker heels if the sole and the heel are transparent.

Against the hyper-sexualisation campaign, if you're NOT a skinny, pneumatic-boobed hooker-heel-wearing sex kitten who's claiming your scantily clad state is just for you and it's empowering and by the way you can suck a golfball through a four metre hosepipe, then you're a repressed frigid prude. And age doesn't get you out of these expectations any more - thank you, cougars of the world.

Against all that expectation, how the hell is any woman supposed to feel liberated?

Are you saying that conformity to Church morality is as repressing as conformity to the morals and expectations of that part of the media that has engaged in the hyper-sexualisation campaign?

28064212

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

It has definitely been shown to stop infidelity, bond two adults together

Any chance of showing that it "definitely" does either of those?

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Many husbands I have talked to engaging in this with their wives long after the children have grown into their twenties, tell me it is better than sex! wow.... that is sweet , loving, nurturing and tender between two people.

Many people will tell you chocolate is better than sex

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

I think we need more couples who are willing to engage in this wonderful thing called Adult Nursing Relationships....... it is absolutely wonderful.
It has too many benefits to count!:p

It might work for some people, it might not. It is entirely dependent on the individuals. Successful BDSM relationships are wonderful, "better than sex",have "too many benefits to count", "bond two adults together" and can "stop infidelity". Don't tout "Adult Nursing Relationships" as some sort of magic bullet for all ails

parker kent

The Sweeper wrote: »

If you dislike giving blowjobs because for you, they're an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience involving putting a bad-smelling, poor-tasting member in your mouth and experiencing gagging and choking, then who the fuck are you dating and why the fuck does HE think that's an okay way to engage in a sexual act with someone? Which one of the two of you is more repressed, the fellator performing a sex act that they're not enjoying and which, as they slurp, they wish was over? Or the fellatee who appears to believe they are somehow entitled to this particular kind of stimulation and don't have to make any effort to facilitate it?

I think anybody in a sexual relationship should be able to say "I don't like X, so can we do something else instead?" No doubt there are girls who feel they cannot say that. Also there will undoubtedly be men who think that they should always get a blowjob. But in reality, people should only do what they are comfortable doing. And anybody who cared for the person they were with would understand and would do any one of the million other things that people having sex can do with each other instead.

Dimitri

Floppybits wrote: »

I kinda agree but I dont think it is conservatism but actually young people being a bit more sexually educated especially about STD's other such diseases and that has made them think twice about one night stands and also the new media such as text messaging and facebook where someone's sexual behaviour can be broadcast with in minutes around not just Ireland but the world.

When I was growing up in the 90's, I think Ireland was just coming out of its conservative ways and people where enjoying the new freedom but as with everything things settle down and we become more aware I think this is what has happened here. On the new media in the 90's we didn't have email, facebook and text messages so you wouldn't get a reputation as quickly as what you would nowadays. I think for young people that is a minefield nowadays and this has kinda made them step back and evaluate their thinking.

That's a valid point and not I'd previously considered. However what really troubles me is the judgemental nature of the attitude. I agree and Facebook is an absolute minefield for all ages but its the fact that living, what I'd consider to be, an educated but liberated lifestyle is open to such harsh ridicule when it becomes known, which with the advent of FB etc is pretty much instant. I fully understand that some sections of society will always look at overt sexuality, or indeed female sexuality as being wrong but it worries me when that portion of society has such a large youth/young adult population. When I look at Irelands history the 90's for me represented Ireland as a nation finally moving in the right direction (as I see it) in terms of social policy. The Celtic Tiger years saw this stall where in effect it seemed to me that no one cared about the social fabric of the nation. With this at an end it feels as if we are in free fall and I fear that an awful lot of progress will be lost especially if supported by my peers and younger.

The Sweeper

AntiMatter wrote: »

Are you saying that conformity to Church morality is as repressing as conformity to the morals and expectations of that part of the media that has engaged in the hyper-sexualisation campaign?

No - I'm really saying the perception of repression is relative, and the bar's getting higher.

Virgins are repressed compared to folk in the missionary position.
Folk in the missionary position are repressed compared to folk doin it doggy style.
Folk who do it doggy style are repressed compared to folk who engage in anal sex.
Folk who engage in anal sex are repressed compared to folk who engage in S&M, bondage, watersports, various other play.

And at the top of the heap will be some goat-legged deviant who attaches a strap-on to his forehead so he can penetrate a female partner while rimming a male partner while various other partners pour melted wax on his balls at the same time as masturbating him with a frozen chicken carcass while yet another person passes an electrical current through his body via crocodile clips on his nipples, and compared to HIM, you're ALL repressed if you're not willing to do the same thing.

But best of all, I should haven't called him a deviant, because that makes me most repressed of all.

parker kent wrote: »

I think anybody in a sexual relationship should be able to say "I don't like X, so can we do something else instead?" No doubt there are girls who feel they cannot say that. Also there will undoubtedly be men who think that they should always get a blowjob. But in reality, people should only do what they are comfortable doing. And anybody who cared for the person they were with would understand and would do any one of the million other things that people having sex can do with each other instead.

The biggest danger about repression and prudishness, to me, is that they're labels, and fear of being labelled may cause people to engage in sexual acts that they are not really ready, willing or able to engage in. Again back to enthusiastic consent - who defines what's prudish? Who defines what's repressed? Who defines what's frigid?

People get their sexual expectations from many places - church, family, culture, education, media including porn, friends, personal experience. But currently, for sexually active twentysomethings, to take an age bracket, are the sexual expectations placed on both men and women fair? And is it fair that if people won't do something - anything - that they find unpleasant but the 'sexual expectations' set deems commonplace - is it fair that those people are then labelled as repressed?

metrovelvet

The Sweeper wrote: »

No - I'm really saying the perception of repression is relative, and the bar's getting higher.

Virgins are repressed compared to folk in the missionary position.
Folk in the missionary position are repressed compared to folk doin it doggy style.
Folk who do it doggy style are repressed compared to folk who engage in anal sex.
Folk who engage in anal sex are repressed compared to folk who engage in S&M, bondage, watersports, various other play.

And at the top of the heap will be some goat-legged deviant who attaches a strap-on to his forehead so he can penetrate a female partner while rimming a male partner while various other partners pour melted wax on his balls at the same time as masturbating him with a frozen chicken carcass while yet another person passes an electrical current through his body via crocodile clips on his nipples, and compared to HIM, you're ALL repressed if you're not willing to do the same thing.

But best of all, I should haven't called him a deviant, because that makes me most repressed of all.

The biggest danger about repression and prudishness, to me, is that they're labels, and fear of being labelled may cause people to engage in sexual acts that they are not really ready, willing or able to engage in.

Good point sweeper.

Am I prude because I think pedophiles should get the death penality?

Or because I was both dismayed and disgusted by that Channel 4 special on people who fall in love with their pets and do stuff with them?

There is so much focus on the mechanics of sex that people have forgotten about timing, resistence, response, the drama, the deepness and darkness of it. It has sort of a functional, sterile tone now when people talk about it [see the prostitute thread on tGL.]

The Sweeper

28064212 wrote: »

But they've made a conscious choice to do it, for whatever reason.

A conscious choice is not enthusiastic consent. Rape victims can make a conscious choice not to fight back, it is not enthusiastic consent. A child sex abuse victim can make a conscious choice to never tell anyone, and THAT is not enthusiastic consent. And a girl can make a conscious choice to give a blowjob that she doesn't want to give to a bloke that she doesn't particularly care about, possibly for some misguided reason, and that is not enthusiastic consent.

Simply agreeing to go along with something - some act, some suggestion, some roleplay, some position, some pairing - may prevent you from being called frigid or prudish or repressed, but it does not necessarily mean you will enjoy yourself, respect yourself or feel good about yourself afterwards.

28064212 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if a woman consents to fellatio, are men supposed to be mind-readers to decide she actually doesn't want to do it?

Blowjobs are like complements. If you had to ask for one...

AntiMatter

The Sweeper wrote: »

No - I'm really saying the perception of repression is relative, and the bar's getting higher.

Virgins are repressed compared to folk in the missionary position.
Folk in the missionary position are repressed compared to folk doin it doggy style.
Folk who do it doggy style are repressed compared to folk who engage in anal sex.
Folk who engage in anal sex are repressed compared to folk who engage in S&M, bondage, watersports, various other play.

And at the top of the heap will be some goat-legged deviant who attaches a strap-on to his forehead so he can penetrate a female partner while rimming a male partner while various other partners pour melted wax on his balls at the same time as masturbating him with a frozen chicken carcass while yet another person passes an electrical current through his body via crocodile clips on his nipples, and compared to HIM, you're ALL repressed if you're not willing to do the same thing.

But best of all, I should haven't called him a deviant, because that makes me most repressed of all.

That all depends on your definition of sexual liberation.

Personally, I wouldn't consider anyone who is confined, sexually, by the conditioning with which they've been inputted, be that an abhorrence for performing fellatio, or somebody who can only get off in a BDSM scenario, to be liberated.

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

A conscious choice is not enthusiastic consent. Rape victims can make a conscious choice not to fight back, it is not enthusiastic consent. A child sex abuse victim can make a conscious choice to never tell anyone, and THAT is not enthusiastic consent.

I honestly can't believe you're comparing rape and child abuse to a blowjob someone has freely given. Quite frankly, it's one of the most insulting things I've ever read, and you should be ashamed to have even considered it. And it's still a completely invalid comparison. Making a conscious choice to not fight back, to not tell anyone is not giving any kind of consent, enthusiastic or otherwise, to the original criminal.

Everywhere around the world, every second of the day, people do things that don't give "enthusiastic" consent to. But they do consent. They do it for love, they do it for money, they do it for an easier life, they do it to make other people happy

The Sweeper wrote: »

And a girl can make a conscious choice to give a blowjob that she doesn't want to give to a bloke that she doesn't particularly care about, possibly for some misguided reason, and that is not enthusiastic consent.

So don't do it. There's only consent and refusal. There's no middle ground (coercion/blackmail/mind-altering drugs aside). You didn't address my point. How is it any different to going on a shopping trip you don't really want to go, just to please your partner?

The Sweeper wrote: »

Simply agreeing to go along with something - some act, some suggestion, some roleplay, some position, some pairing - may prevent you from being called frigid or prudish or repressed, but it does not necessarily mean you will enjoy yourself, respect yourself or feel good about yourself afterwards.

If you won't respect yourself or feel good about yourself, why are you doing it? That's not the same as not enjoying yourself. Again, back to the shopping trip. I won't enjoy it, but I certainly won't lose any self-respect.

The Sweeper wrote: »

Blowjobs are like complements. If you had to ask for one...

Another bizarre statement. So people are just supposed to guess at what other people like in the bedroom?

Louisayankee2

I have to see a pattern in society at large.
What I have observed, is only in my own world of being a single person, talking to many in the varied worlds of sexuality and relationships....

The reason , anatomically, men receive any kind of 'feeling good' from anal sex or a female doing " whatever" to penetrate, is simply a stimulation of the prostate gland. That part feels good.
There is pain also, associated , as most men have told me, but what they are trying to achieve, has a goal. I do not think most people are into pain, but some ARE, you have to understand that comes from a deep place in the mind.........

What the ANR is...... what it is NOT. It is NOT gymnastics, NOT goal oriented, NOT tension filled, NOT anti-God, NOT unnatural....
As a female, I do not enjoy switching roles with a strap on .... it's just simply not MY style. It might be yours, though!
See, we live in a free world.
My question is "What is your focus?"


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is relaxing after a pressure filled day, what does not take alcohol to work up to, what is not "timed just right" , etc. ....

That is NOT freedom to me. God doesn't dwell in the priest, the building made of stones and mortar,.............. it's a relationship. A relationship. Some of you have mentioned that sex in general is repressed. Yes, you all have something valid and a good answer to you, is what we want to hear. Isn't that what this site is all about.
But, look at the divorce rate, fears of commitment.... This is truly a committed relationship , one built on trust. One cannot do without the other person.

Baby and Mother, Father,..... Husband, wife, the two that are tenderly loving, not arguing brawling, no drugs or alcohol is involved.

Just don't knock it 28064212, until you have TRIED it , first. You can read up on "Re-Lactation" on AskLenor.com

She wrote a book on re-lactation with a Dr. who is an expert in this field.

Intended as a handbook for females wanting to nurse their infants they wanted to adopt, it is also a great resource to find out how to relactate to give your milk to your man. Breasts are wonderfully made.
Men find it soothing, comforting, and both find it tactile stimulation which has tantric effects and coitus is the result, timed perfectly. It is erotic.

Women, we must understand our bodies, and give them to our husbands, because they love breasts, and they are not sure how a female is stimulated.
This is an erotic adventure for two, not to be intertwined with prostitution. It is a beautiful thing. Just read, and be enlightened!

The Sweeper

28064212 wrote: »

So don't do it. There's only consent and refusal.

If you honest to God believe that it's this black and white, that there is no enormous grey area in sexual relationships where people do things that they don't want to do because they feel pressured, or that it's expected of them, or that they want to be accepted, or fit in, or not be labelled - if that's what you really believe, then there is absolutely no point in me addressing any of the arguments you've raised, because not only are you and I not on the same page, we're not reading the same book.

metrovelvet

Are you suggesting women breastfeed their husbands?

The Sweeper

AntiMatter wrote: »

That all depends on your definition of sexual liberation.

Personally, I wouldn't consider anyone who is confined, sexually, by the conditioning with which they've been inputted, be that an abhorrence for performing fellatio, or somebody who can only get off in a BDSM scenario, to be liberated.

Yes, but then who IS liberated?

I'd like to believe that a liberated person is someone who is sufficiently comfortable in their own skin to never do anything that they don't want to do in a sexual relationship.

However in a lot of cases that could easily make my liberated person the same as your repressed prude.

Here's a question - does your own understanding of sexual confinement or repression have a basic foundation of things that you would assume to be agreeable to all 'normal' people as part of the status quo of sexual behaviour?

For instance, if I were to present to you exhibit A, a man who will only have sex in the missionary position, four times a week, never during his partner's period, and always in sufficient light to see a bodily outline but no detail - and he sticks to his guns and never deviates from that pattern, never has oral sex, never stimulates or is stimulated using hands, but he lives his life that way because that is all he is comfortable doing - is he liberated?

The Sweeper

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are you suggesting women breastfeed their husbands?

Yep. That's what she's suggesting. I know she's in this thread, but every time I read one of those posts all I can hear is Sesame Street's 'One of these kids is doing his own thing...'

(prolly coz I'm repressed)

Ickle Magoo

The Sweeper wrote: »

For instance, if I were to present to you exhibit A, a man who will only have sex in the missionary position, four times a week, never during his partner's period, and always in sufficient light to see a bodily outline but no detail - and he sticks to his guns and never deviates from that pattern, never has oral sex, never stimulates or is stimulated using hands, but he lives his life that way because that is all he is comfortable doing - is he liberated?

Well no - namely because the reason you've given for his lack of sexual adventure is that he's not "comfortable". Surely liberation means doing that which you enjoy and only doing what you don't enjoy because you've made a rational decision to do it for other reasons such as pleasuring a partner; rather than anything to do with sexual behaviour outside of a set and limited repertoire causing discomfort...

Louisayankee2

Yes, breastfeeding your man is what Adult Nursing Relationships are...

Men love suckling, women love receiving the stimulation, it enhances their desire to engage in coitus.
It is natural, any men having done this with their wives , especially during her childbearing years , has admitted it has made him feel especially bonded to her.
She turns to her husband to relieve her engorged breasts, and it is a trust filled adventure. The more he nurses, the more milk the mammary gland produces. People don't know the human female is the only one on earth who can 'non-stop' lactate until the day she dies, even if 100 years old.

When a woman nurses a baby, her quantity of milk is small. When a woman nurses a large male, his frequent nursings make her produce larger quantities the more time he spends at her breast.
A breast pump does not stimulate the end of the nipple, but it will help once the let-down reflex has occurred, while he is at work.
A nursing relationship relies on trust, embracing, tenderness, and closeness. The two must be face to face , or nearly. She must relax and give into his stimulation he is giving to her. She must not resist this. It is part of the success of the relationship. She has to want it, and he has to want it too..

Females take longer to work up to an "o--_-_-_-_" than men do, that is why this is slow , super easy, and third world countries often HAVE to keep the grandmothers in 'milk' in case their daughter dies, or daughter in law dies. The two grandmothers cannot run to a refrigerator or a local store to buy milk, they have it sitting right on their chests!
So, see, God is very smart indeed. He designed us to be using what comes naturally.The benefits are lasting.
Breast milk is now being given to old people, by glass... now!
It kills cancer tumors, it relaxes, and I just found out that the human being could live on breast milk their entire life if they had to.

But, some women will get angry on here ....... I can just hear it now

28064212

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Just don't knock it 28064212, until you have TRIED it , first. You can read up on "Re-Lactation" on AskLenor.com

A lesbian orgy in scuba gear underwater with an audience of thousands is a great way to relax after a hard days work... Oh you don't agree? Have you TRIED it?

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Intended as a handbook for females wanting to nurse their infants they wanted to adopt, it is also a great resource to find out how to relactate to give your milk to your man. Breasts are wonderfully made.
Men find it soothing, comforting, and both find it tactile stimulation which has tantric effects and coitus is the result, timed perfectly. It is erotic.

Any statement that starts "Men find it..." is obviously inherently wrong. A statement starting "Some men may find it..." can be considered if you want to rewrite it.

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Women, we must understand our bodies, and give them to our husbands, because they love breasts, and they are not sure how a female is stimulated.

More sweeping statements. Some men love a woman's ass, some love feet, some love hands, some love eyes. Some crazy fetishists even think the vagina is the most sexual part of a women. And plenty of men know how to stimulate a woman

The Sweeper wrote: »

If you honest to God believe that it's this black and white, that there is no enormous grey area in sexual relationships where people do things that they don't want to do because they feel pressured, or that it's expected of them, or that they want to be accepted, or fit in, or not be labelled - if that's what you really believe, then there is absolutely no point in me addressing any of the arguments you've raised, because not only are you and I not on the same page, we're not reading the same book.

There is an enormous grey area in the reasons for consenting. If a man starts going down on a woman, should she stop him because she's not sure if it's "enthusiastic" consent? And you didn't address the shopping trip analogy. Nor take back your offensive comparison of a consenting blowjob to rape/child abuse cases

Ickle Magoo

Okay Louisayankee2, stop with the continual spamming of the adult nursing stuff please.

Can I also ask if you haven't already done so to read the charter - especially the bit about lazy generalizations.

Many thanks

28064212

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Men love suckling

Some. Others hate it, or don't care for it

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

women love receiving the stimulation

Some. Others hate it, or don't care for it

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

it enhances their desire to engage in coitus.

Or turns them off, or does nothing for them

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

It is natural, any men having done this with their wives , especially during her childbearing years , has admitted it has made him feel especially bonded to her

So no man who has ever tried has said they didn't like it? Or that it didn't do anything for them?

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Females take longer to work up to an "o--_-_-_-_" than men do

Some, not all

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

But, some women will get angry on here ....... I can just hear it now

Yes, amazing how sweeping generalisations get women riled up like that. I suppose I should be glad you only said "some" women

The Sweeper

That's because giving someone a blowjob you don't want to give them isn't a consenting blowjob. Consent shouldn't be implied through action alone - but it is, and it is in courts of law, and that's where the rape analogy comes in.

I haven't addressed the shopping trip thing because I think it's irrelevant and an invalid comparison because frankly you'd be a moron to come out of three hours in Debenhams feeling like you needed a hot shower and a listerine mouthwash, but you may well come out of a blowjob you gave because you felt you should, as opposed to because you actively wanted to, feeling precisely like you need a hot shower and a mouthwash.

By the way could you please stop introducing things like 'shame' and 'offensiveness' into this thread in the context of your interpretation of my comments? It has no effect on me, and I think it detracts from the actual argument.

Just edit to add, on your last bit about whether if a man goes down on a woman and she's not sure it's enthusiastic consent, should she stop him - yeah, actually, I think she should, because I don't get why anyone would like there and allow someone do something that they're really not enjoying just for the gratification of the person who's lying there. She doesn't have to get dressed and leave the bed - but if she stops to check if he's really having fun, she may get him to participate more by checking what's working well and what's not, so on, thereby improving the communication and improving the sex they're having.

iguana

mariebeth wrote: »

I personally blame our parents...or was I the only one here who got handed a book on sex education & that was it?

My parents always filled me in on things in bits and pieces as I asked. The big discussion happened when I was about 11. It was a Saturday afternoon and I was in the kitchen with my parents who were making a salad. At one point my dad made a little diagram on the table with the vegetables and for an awful long time after I associated tomato seeds with sperms.:)

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well no - namely because the reason you've given for his lack of sexual adventure is that he's not "comfortable". Surely liberation means doing that which you enjoy and only doing what you don't enjoy because you've made a rational decision to do it for other reasons such as pleasuring a partner; rather than anything to do with sexual behaviour outside of a set and limited repertoire causing discomfort...

I can see what Sweeper is saying though. Where does the line between preference and repression lie?

Are you repressed because you are not bisexual?

Or because you dont like orgies?

AntiMatter

The Sweeper wrote: »

Yes, but then who IS liberated?

Good question.

I'd like to believe that a liberated person is someone who is sufficiently comfortable in their own skin to never do anything that they don't want to do in a sexual relationship.

That would depend why they won't do it. There could be a case for both liberation and repression in that definition.

Here's a question - does your own understanding of sexual confinement or repression have a basic foundation of things that you would assume to be agreeable to all 'normal' people as part of the status quo of sexual behaviour?

I'll put it to you like this...

I was big into S&M, as a submissive, having first practised it at the age of 19. I tried most things from that genre, and took gratification from those aspects that appealed to me.

I could have been the very definition of some peoples idea of sexual liberation.

But at the same time I also realised this was something that stemmed from childhood (I remember even at a very young age, as young as 5 or 6, getting a sense of pleasure from some aspect of female dominance), and then I also started to wonder if this mind-set also impinged on my life and behaviour outside the sexual arena. So, I resolved to investigate it and remedy the situation, if I deemed it necessary.

In the end, considering myself as a slave to the fate that life had dealt me, I entered a course of therapy with a hypnotist/NLP'er, basically a type of regression therapy, which brought me back to those points in my childhood whence the programme for engaging in S&M was downloaded into my operating system.

I finished up the therapy and went back about my life, and back engaging in the same practices, only to discover a few months later that I was losing the taste for S&M, and suddenly I began to find ridiculous those things which once had me so sexually excited, until I reached the point where I gave it up all together.

Since then I've been in sexual relationships where so-called vanilla sex is the order of the day, and spiritually and emotionally, I've drawn far more satisfaction from these encounters.

Now, I ask you, which is the more liberated?

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

That's because giving someone a blowjob you don't want to give them isn't a consenting blowjob. Consent shouldn't be implied through action alone - but it is, and it is in courts of law, and that's where the rape analogy comes in.

I am not talking about forcing a woman's head down to make her do it. That is rape. I'm talking about a woman who has made a conscious decision to give a blowjob. The fact that you could even consider that in the same area code as rape is incredible. She mightn't enjoy it, but she is giving it of her own free will

The Sweeper wrote: »

I haven't addressed the shopping trip thing because I think it's irrelevant and an invalid comparison because frankly you'd be a moron to come out of three hours in Debenhams feeling like you needed a hot shower and a listerine mouthwash, but you may well come out of a blowjob you gave because you felt you should, as opposed to because you actively wanted to, feeling precisely like you need a hot shower and a mouthwash.

Actually I would imagine I would certainly need a hot shower after 3 hours walking around Debenhams holding shopping bags and slowly losing the will to live.

How is it irrelevant? Your entire point is about doing something you don't really enjoy, but will do anyway to please others. How could it possibly be any more relevant?

The Sweeper wrote: »

By the way could you please stop introducing things like 'shame' and 'offensiveness' into this thread in the context of your interpretation of my comments? It has no effect on me, and I think it detracts from the actual argument.

When you stop making offensive comments, sure.

WindSock

Truley wrote: »

Personally I think our supposedly confident and liberal attitude to sexuality is all show no substance. Irish women (and men) are still incredibly prudish and insecure with regards to nudity. Sure, we're good at public displays of drunken fumbling and showing off (loudly) in clubs and pubs. The vast majority of people I know will pay lip service to the culture, and act promisciously, but shy away from any serious discussion about sex or relationships. It's like our clothes and public behaviour says 'yes,' conduct in private says 'no.'

Most European women I have met would have a far more 'liberal' attitude towards sex and sexuality than we have, yet are shocked by the way we do dating and hooking up.

Personally I blame the gender segregated education system, the only country in Europe that still has it this way I understand. Our social and alchohol culture doesn't help either.

I think you might be accurate there with that, I was only looking on the surface when I said we are not terrible repressed but how people act in public vs private may be quite different. I suppose crass does not equate to liberate and does not mean a crass person may not be prudish when it comes down to it.

Perhaps we are not as repressed in the past because we can talk about sex more with less fear. What goes on in the bedroom may be a different case but I think at least by being able to talk, listen and share experiences more freely we are headed in the right direction to not feel ashamed, dirty, or feel like having to do things because that's what people who are liberated are supposed to do.

I also agree with Metrovelvet regarding being drunk to feel liberated does not make a person liberated.

Emme

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hold on............. What???

Free milk?:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can see what Sweeper is saying though. Where does the line between preference and repression lie?

Are you repressed because you are not bisexual?

Or because you dont like orgies?

No, I would say someone is only not bisexual because there isn't attraction to both sexes - if you are attracted to both sexes but feel uncomfortable exploring/admitting that, then it's starting to look more like repression. Likewise, I would consider that there is no attraction in orgies because it's a concept that's been rationally considered and dismissed as not something that turns someone on different to being immediately uncomfortable with the idea of an orgy based on prejudice or conservative social conditioning.

I guess I would consider repression to be driven by irrationality and non-repressed preference driven by open, honest and un-blinkered consideration - whether the preference then be missionary with the lights off or threesomes is largely irrelevant - it's more to do with the process by which preference is decided.

metrovelvet

280-

Have you ever had sex with someone who doesnt really want to have sex with you but has done it out of duty or pressure or whatever?

Have you ever been on the other side where you just grinned and beared it to get it over with in order to avoid any number of possible consequences for not consenting, like belittlement, the silent treatment, teasing hostility from classmates, etc?

It's not a classic or legal definition of rape, but its not quite ok is it?