Sexuality and society

mariebeth

I'm a little confused how the thread changed from being about sexuality to a debate regarding consent???

The Sweeper

Because the debate is about whether or not Irish people are sexually repressed, into which I brought the idea of people performing sexual acts they don't really want to perform because they've bought into the current notion of what's 'standard' and don't want to appear repressed by not performing generally accepted sexual acts. That fed into whether or not performing a sexual act you don't want to perform is really a consensual action. Which is why we're now here.

The Sweeper

28064212 wrote:

You're talking about a girl pushing a guy back, unzipping him, going down without any suggestion from the guy that she should

Eh, no I'm not?

The Sweeper wrote:

They sit on the couch with him and engage in heavy petting.
They get partially naked.
And he unzips his pants.

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

Eh, no I'm not?

Ah, so if she had unzipped him, her actions would have changed the situation and level of consent?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Consent is not black and white in law either 280. Statutory rape for example, is not FORCED rape but to have something in place for judiciary power in situations where there might be coercion or where the mental capacity of one of the parties to consent is questioned, [the same reason minors cant be on juries or tried as adults in crime].

I addressed that point

metrovelvet wrote: »

Drunken consent is not consent? Codified in law where?/quote]
Actually, I may be wrong about that, I had thought it had been addressed in the law, but can't find it now. But there is the concept of impaired consent. Regardless, I removed it from the equation

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you want to talk about this philosophically or legally?

Philosophically is fine, The Sweeper already said it shouldn't be a criminal act.

Louisayankee2

Each and every post here has either one or several very valid points. We should want to learn new things, how to be more informed........ However, since we don't live in a perfect world, and all people are made differently , we have to only draw on what we have experienced,or learned , it is PERSONAL.

I am interested in things people post here, but I'm here not to argue, not to fight or to prove to anyone I am RIGHT.......

iguana

The Sweeper wrote: »

Action is not consent. You're not getting it are you?

Action, without threat or coercion, is most certainly consent. Reluctant consent maybe, but still consent. To be frank I find it sickening that reluctant consent is being likened in any way to rape, abuse or assault. I've done things I haven't felt like before and I've been assaulted and they are so, so far apart they don't compare even slightly.

Louisayankee2

Well, I know this sounds insensitive, but , I know many people do things they don't exactly relish the thought of because the "love" for the person overrides their initial feeling to want to reject something .

Aren't we talking about mutual love and respect sometimes... uhhh,....... yeah , that is a good concept. Let's imagine, that 'love' plays a role in things we do or do not.
One huge concept here, in this life anyway, is "feelings"...... these are indicators of what we feel when we want to or do NOT want to be in someone's presence.
There have been men I've never wanted to see again , because they acted like they really did not have feelings for me, and then again, some men who I felt like they made me feel so desired, and they could not wait until they were able to see and talk to me again.
The two shall become one.......... and a cord of three is not easily broken,........ Mind, Body, Soul.

Have we never heard of a ' Soul-mate' ? Challenging ideas, but exhibited in real time towards one another is an overwhelming of the five senses of the human......

Dudess

I was always surprised too at the way giving a blowjob in the bathroom to a randomer at a house party or whatever was seen by many of my peers as something totally run of the mill, like a snog, and that you'd "obviously" enjoy doing it. Call me childish or prudish, but eh... yuck? If it's weird of me to not want a stranger's cock in my mouth, and in those horribly clinical circumstances, then just call me Lady Weird. That said, giving head to someone whom you love, or even just fancy like mad, in the right setting, is a wonderful thing, and can be a huge turn-on for the giver - while I don't judge women/men who don't like giving head to those they are in close relationships with, I do think perhaps there might be something amiss if there's a barrier for them in that regard - all it is is an area of the body of someone they love and trust.
Hate though when people on e.g. Personal Issues here say they're uncomfortable with giving head - they tend to be young and sexually inexperienced - and get told they're childish and prudish and bla bla. It's daunting for some when they're only starting being sexually active - not something that just comes easily (yeah yeah :pac:) or naturally to everyone.

metrovelvet

I am fascinated that oral sex has become a central crossroads of this argument.

I am fascinated by it because on the one hand there is a subtext which makes it a big deal and another which makes it mundane and ordinary such as the one Dudess describes about girls in public bathrooms. It has been used for yonks by Catholics to discount any accusations of 'cheating' as its not 'real sex', dismissed as disgusting by others, and yet more intimate than intercourse by others.

parker kent

The Sweeper wrote: »

Because the debate is about whether or not Irish people are sexually repressed, into which I brought the idea of people performing sexual acts they don't really want to perform because they've bought into the current notion of what's 'standard' and don't want to appear repressed by not performing generally accepted sexual acts. That fed into whether or not performing a sexual act you don't want to perform is really a consensual action. Which is why we're now here.

I think a thread discussing whether Ireland is sexually repressed is a little different to the dozens of posts we now have discussing blowjobs. I'm not entirely sure how the two of those topics are linked as closely as the content of the thread indicates. You have raised some interesting points, as have many others. But I don't think blowjobs are the deciding factor in whether Ireland is sexually repressed or not.

So anyway to summarise the blowjob topic: Some girls like giving head. Some don't. Some girls give them, some don't. Some girls like giving them, some girls don't. Some girls give them even though they don't like them, some girls don't. They have become normalized and are given with alarming freedom in some instances.

Also, you say that it should be obvious when a girl is into giving head, but I would say that is not always the case. The actor reference one of the other posters above mentioned is actually pretty true. Some people are good at pretending to be into things. I once pretended I was having a great time watching Family Guy when I hated almost every sentence!

As you say, it is often seen as "the done thing". The pretty vivid description above of a girl that is into giving head may not always be accurate. Some girls may be perfectly happy but not being too demonstrative. Basically there is no way to know for sure without having an in depth interview beforehand. If it is a one-off thing, it comes with all the usual pitfalls and misunderstandings that can happen with casual sex.

Anyway, I still see this argument as not entirely relevant to whether Ireland is sexually repressed or not.

WindSock

metrovelvet wrote: »

I am fascinated that oral sex has become a central crossroads of this argument.

Yeah it is a very good point that it seems to be a standard norm in a sexual relationship, whereas something like anal is considered to be more deviant to the point where it is considered a taboo, or even 'slutty' if you will. It is expected that not everyone engages in anal but do in oral.

metrovelvet

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah it is a very good point that it seems to be a standard norm in a sexual relationship, whereas something like anal is considered to be more deviant to the point where it is considered a taboo, or even 'slutty' if you will. It is expected that not everyone engages in anal but do in oral.

I don't know if its considered the norm. I don't know if someone who doesn't like oral is considered a deviant.

WindSock

metrovelvet wrote: »

I don't know if its considered the norm. I don't know if someone who doesn't like oral is considered a deviant.

No they are or may be considered not liberated or prudish. Isn't that what most of this discussion was about?

Darlughda

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

Well, I know this sounds insensitive, but , I know many people do things they don't exactly relish the thought of because the "love" for the person overrides their initial feeling to want to reject something .

Aren't we talking about mutual love and respect sometimes... uhhh,....... yeah , that is a good concept. Let's imagine, that 'love' plays a role in things we do or do not.
One huge concept here, in this life anyway, is "feelings"...... these are indicators of what we feel when we want to or do NOT want to be in someone's presence.
There have been men I've never wanted to see again , because they acted like they really did not have feelings for me, and then again, some men who I felt like they made me feel so desired, and they could not wait until they were able to see and talk to me again.
The two shall become one.......... and a cord of three is not easily broken,........ Mind, Body, Soul.

Have we never heard of a ' Soul-mate' ? Challenging ideas, but exhibited in real time towards one another is an overwhelming of the five senses of the human......

Right. I'll get a ban happily for this.
Why don't you fúck off Louisayankee with your twisted personal life that you are trying to use this forum as therapy for. None of us are interested in your self snivelly fúcked up stories. Get yer new age cráp and your vile breast feeding shít to some fúched up forum that caters for the likes of you.

But, I guess you are not a woman at all. Just some fúcked up man acting out online. Damn scarey. Go inhabit some American Creepy Psycho forum please. You are possibly someone who is on a list somewhere. Nothing in your posts read genuine of a woman. Go act the psycho elsewhere please.

Tefral

Darlughda wrote: »

Right. I'll get a ban happily for this.
Why don't you fúck off Louisayankee with your twisted personal life that you are trying to use this forum as therapy for. None of us are interested in your self snivelly fúcked up stories. Get yer new age cráp and your vile breast feeding shít to some fúched up forum that caters for the likes of you.

But, I guess you are not a woman at all. Just some fúcked up man acting out online. Damn scarey. Go inhabit some American Creepy Psycho forum please. You are possibly someone who is on a list somewhere. Nothing in your posts read genuine of a woman. Go act the psycho elsewhere please.

I wouldnt go as far as to agree with your wording of your post but the sentiment i agree with. I got the same thing from reading those posts, sounds a bit bitter and somewhat steered the thread in a certain direction!

Wibbs

Darlughda Banned for a week for a pretty clearly insulting post towards another user. Regardless of who they may or may not be. cronin_j and anyone else, lets dial back the conjecture please.

evercloserunion

With all respect to Wibbs and his post above, I find it a little sad that a thread that was supposed to be about the relationship between individual sexuality and social attitudes towards sex has comes to be about one or two women's obviously suboptimal sexual experiences with men. Some of the posts here come dangerously close (IMO) to the whole "all sex is rape" thing spouted by a few extremist feminists.

The Sweeper, you make some valid points but I don't really agree with your opinions on oral sex. First of all, you are playing around with some creative definition of "consent" while trying to keep the law out of things. But "consent" is an extremely important legal concept. Given that rape essentially means sexual contact without consent, the implication seems to be that certain forms of rape are legally condoned. This is a pretty bold claim and you don't appear to me to have provided sufficient evidence for it? I guess the question I'm asking is, what is the difference between consent in a legal context and consent in a "philosophical" (as 280 put it) context?

The other point I'd like to make is that many people here seem to hang with strange crowds. I would not consider myself at all to hang with "prudish" or un-liberated people but no one of my friends has ever been considered old fashioned or wrong in any way for not wanting to blow a random guy in a bathroom a house party. This all comes down to individual responsibility. If you choose to surround yourself with people who adopt a certain attitude towards sex, surely you cannot blame the male population or society generally when you fall foul of these "friends'" opinions. Find new friends who are more accepting of you placing reasonable limits on how far you will go with random men in casual circumstances. (BTW the whole blowing a randomer in a bathroom at a house party thing was taken from Dudess's post.)

Essentially:
1) We need to take a concrete, justifiable stance on what is consent and what is not. When you engage in a sexual act with another person, you are either being raped (if you don't consent) or you are not (if you do). So I don't see any room for bluffing or bullsh*tting about the definition of consent.

2) Women who feel ostracised and isolated by their peers for not engaging in certain sexual acts with which they are not comfortable need to find new friends and colleagues.

panda100

I don't want to go off topic but I think its great that us women are having such an open,honest discussion about oral sex!

I have noticed with the last few guys I have dated that they have expected blowjobs alot quicker than I am comfortable with, like its an add on to kissing or something.
I find it to be a very intimate act and I don't really like doing it unless Im really comfortable with the person Im with, and even then Im not a huge fan.
The last two guys I've had a long kissing sessions with have been pushing my head towards their nether reasons. I'm quite a confident person and so had no problem telling them that if I want to go down there I will! I think porn has a lot to do with that. I have yet to find a women who enjoys giving oral sex as much as the girls on the porn sites do!

Logical Fallacy

The Sweeper wrote: »

Because the debate is about whether or not Irish people are sexually repressed, into which I brought the idea of people performing sexual acts they don't really want to perform because they've bought into the current notion of what's 'standard' and don't want to appear repressed by not performing generally accepted sexual acts. That fed into whether or not performing a sexual act you don't want to perform is really a consensual action. Which is why we're now here.

You can't judge a society of people in any meaningful way. It doesn't work.

Lets look at America, home of high quality big budget porn in California and bible thumping "not till your married brigade" in the Bible Belt.

Lets look at Italy, who's long running image of a Romantic Renaissance and sensual trysts in cobble stoned alleys is negated by the presence of literally hundreds of heavy Catholic towns country wide.

I don't want people to get the impression that i am drawing a line between liberation and religion, these are just easy examples that i am lazy enough to use at the moment...but i think they are serving their purpose.

For every channel telling you there is something you need to do, there is a dual meaning telling you what you should like. We tend to worry about societies and these massive groups of people when half the time we don't even have our own preferences sorted out.

Personally, i believe discussion of sexual liberation is pointless and futile. It's a private and a personal fight...if we start looking at the whats and the why's who are we to believe.

Does a woman who actually enjoys giving head really enjoy it? Is her opinion to be trusted or has she just been told she likes it.

Does a man who enjoys giving head suffer the same fate? Has he just been brainwashed into thinking the such an act is a requirement to be seen as a enlightened and sophisticated lover?

Basically, if you start to cut too deep, you end up dismissing all available information because nothing can be trusted.

Here is the simple truth about sexuality. It is absolutely no different to any other aspect of life. You need to find your own comfort, you need to decide what you want for yourself and then you need to stand up for those choices and enforce them. If you like something, do it, if you don't like something, don't.

There are no handouts, no liberation on a plate, no internet or academic debates are going to suddenly sort it all out and we can all live in adequately paired off sexual freedom.

The simple fact of the matter is for every argument there is a counter argument, for every example of our chosen stance there are others than discredit what we are thinking.

Society is a large and complex beast and i often think we would be better served looking at it's components rather than it's totality.

Is Ireland sexually repressed? Yes.
Is Ireland sexually liberated? Yes.

Edit : Not trying to discredit or derail the thread (it's been a highly interesting read), just kind of frothing at the brain if you would.

Truley

I think this thread has really taught me that what's considered sexual liberation or repression is entirely subjective.

An Irish girl would probably consider a woman from a strict Islamic culture to be oppressed by restrictive rules and attitudes towards sex.

An Islamic girl may think Irish women are exploited by a pushy culture and media obsessed with a false image of appearance and porn etc

As the poster above said, there's no black or white answer.

metrovelvet

Truley wrote: »

I think this thread has really taught me that what's considered sexual liberation or repression is entirely subjective.

An Irish girl would probably consider a woman from a strict Islamic culture to be oppressed by restrictive rules and attitudes towards sex.

An Islamic girl may think Irish women are exploited by a pushy culture and media obsessed with a false image of appearance and porn etc

As the poster above said, there's no black or white answer.

If repression is about the cops in our head, what appears to me is that 'liberation' has just replaced the cops, but they are still there, bidding different messages.

Giselle

metrovelvet wrote: »

If repression is about the cops in our head, what appears to me is that 'liberation' has just replaced the cops, but they are still there, bidding different messages.

Its not liberation if it replaces one set of expected behaviours with another, even if the new one is widely accepted as within the norms.

You can be repressed by popular expectation too.

The Sweeper

evercloserunion wrote: »

The Sweeper, you make some valid points but I don't really agree with your opinions on oral sex. First of all, you are playing around with some creative definition of "consent" while trying to keep the law out of things. But "consent" is an extremely important legal concept. Given that rape essentially means sexual contact without consent, the implication seems to be that certain forms of rape are legally condoned. This is a pretty bold claim and you don't appear to me to have provided sufficient evidence for it? I guess the question I'm asking is, what is the difference between consent in a legal context and consent in a "philosophical" (as 280 put it) context?

First, just to be clear, these aren't my opinions on oral sex. I'm putting forward various positions (if you'll pardon the entendre) but that doesn't necessarily mean I personally feel that way. That's just me contributing to a debate. For the record, I don't think that a bloke who's on the receiving end of a blowjob that a girl didn't want to give him is a rapist, unless he's done something immoral, like get her so drunk or drugged she doesn't know what she's doing, or threaten or blackmail her or so on.

As stated, I started thinking about this because I was talking to a friend who's currently in her early 30s and single, and doing a lot of dating, and having a lot of sex because she'll often have sex with the people she's dating.

When she brought up the subject of their expectations around blowjobs, and then told me 'I don't know about you, but I just don't do that' I was really surprised.

And then I was surprised by my own surprise, if that makes any sense, and decided to sit down and think about the reasons behind my own reaction and the thought processes that make up my views, and part of that involved a lot of reading and conversations around consent, implied consent, enthusiastic consent, how implied consent is used against some victims of sexual assault, how action is accepted as consent in some contexts and not in others, so on. It also involved reflecting on times I've performed sex acts that I didn't really feel like performing (usually because of tiredness or disinterest or lack of general horniness - I've never done something I didn't want to do because of societal pressure, but I have a couple of friends who have).

This has also involved following the debate around Julian Assange's conduct, and the difficult area around 'when consensual sexual encounters turn bad', and how the hell, if you're on the receiving end of an encounter like that, be you male or female - how you're supposed to process what's happened, deal with your experience, so on.

Some people reactively try to prosecute, and that drops you right in the quagmire of where consent begins and ends.

What IS my personal opinion is that consent is not as clear cut as you may think it is. Where I'm standing as I approach that argument, is in a position of concern for inexperienced or vulnerable people, men and women alike, who get themselves into a sexual situation where either during or after the sitaution they will feel uncertain, uncomfortable or unhappy about what happened. They may even feel guilty, duped, used - and those feelings can then progress, depending on the person, into a feeling that they've been violated and that can turn into a sexual assault charge.

I understand why people are saying consent is consent, and if you're doing it then you can't say later that you didn't want to do it - but people do say later that they didn't want to do it. They say it. They say it to family and friends. They say it to the police. They ruin lives over it.

That's where enthusiastic consent comes in - because if someone's enthusiastically consenting it removes that ambiguity.

So just to be clear to anyone who thinks I'm crazy, I don't believe that giving oral sex you don't feel like giving, unenthusiastically, because you feel you have to (because it's a societal expectation and if you don't you're repressed), is a dictionary definition rape and you need to prosecute it - not at all. But I do believe that you may come out of that experience feeling less than chipper about yourself, and how people feel themselves is the most subjective thing in the world.

metrovelvet

^ The problem too Sweeper is when you are in a culture where people need to get so pissed before they can loosen up they obliterate their ability to consent, because they don't want to take ownership of their desire, because there are still victorian hangovers in Ireland which say that women should not want it, or don't want it. The 'ah sure I was drunk so it doesnt count' kind of vibe.

Then there is the teen girl who does it to fit in, who has given into peer pressure, oral or otherwise.

Then there is the wife trying to keep her marriage in tact or get her husband off her back or just get him to shut up and just goes through some very painful motions. Enduring it.

There are a lot of circumstances where it is not rape but it can feel like you are raping yourself.

Then there are the cases of fraud where someone has been lied to and deceived so professionally that whom and what they had consented to is entirely brought into question, though it is not rape.

But... we need another word for these scenarios, because while bad and humiliating they are not forced, but that does not mean they dont deserve evaluation, attention,, and social stigma.

whatsamsn

Ireland isnt sexual repressed no more and if anyone thinks otherwise better look hard, cause the proof aint hard to find.
Loads of casual sexual encounters happen each weekend on nights out (just an example) But Irish people are open to sex more than ever.

I seriously hate all this "Ireland isnt open to sex compared to other countries" :rolleyes:

What exactly do people mean when they say that?!?!?!!
Oh so it should be like I go into work on Monday and talk to bob and ask him how was his weekend? He replies "oh me and the wife went to a swingers club on saturday. She took on 3 guys. I joined in too" - Like what?! why would i wanna know that. What ever you're into bob but I dont wanna know that.

Or does it really refer to how much people gossip in this country? Like two friends hook up one night and then "ohhhhhh did you hear?" - that aint being sexually repressed thats people just being a bunch of gossips :rolleyes:

panda100

whatsamsn wrote: »

Ireland isnt sexual repressed no more and if anyone thinks otherwise better look hard, cause the proof aint hard to find.
Loads of casual sexual encounters happen each weekend on nights out (just an example)

As others pointed out, how many of these sexual encounters are fuelled by alcohol. Personally ,speaking I was well into my twenties before I was able to feel comfortable enough with my body and sexuality before I could have sex sober.

I'm only 28 but I was still brought up in a very traditional,Catholic household, as were many of my friends. My sex education at home consisted of 'Don't sleep with a man because he will have no respect for you'. Alcohol played a huge part in my early sexual encounters where I still felt shame and insecurity about the impact of sleeping with someone. Theres definately still a huge element of sexual repression out there imo.

Aside from the alcohol, I don't like the warping of women's bodies into prepubescent, hairless freaks. On top of the shame I was brought up with, I know am made to obsess over my bodily hair to be in any way sexually attractive to a man.

um7y1h83ge06nx

This whole debate about levels of consent seems strange to me. Now I respect people's opinions but it just seems strange.

It kind of harks back to the old way of thinking that men just want sex, women don't like sex but "give in" to please their man and "fit in" with the cool crowd.

I couldn't find anything that would turn me off more as a man than have sex with a woman that wasn't fully involved in the moment and just doing things for the sake of it and to "fit in".

As regards alcohol and sex, I lost my virginity stone cold sober. A good few times I have had sex when tipsy (happens when you're in a long term relationship). Only once I had sex when I was drunk, very drunk. She was drunk too but I was far worse (the effects of successfully surviving a Power Hour!). Not much point having sex in that state but these things happen.

Partizan

Mira Limited U-turn wrote: »

This whole debate about levels of consent seems strange to me. Now I respect people's opinions but it just seems strange.

It kind of harks back to the old way of thinking that men just want sex, women don't like sex but "give in" to please their man and "fit in" with the cool crowd.

I couldn't find anything that would turn me off more as a man than have sex with a woman that wasn't fully involved in the moment and just doing things for the sake of it and to "fit in".

As regards alcohol and sex, I lost my virginity stone cold sober. A good few times I have had sex when tipsy (happens when you're in a long term relationship). Only once I had sex when I was drunk, very drunk. She was drunk too but I was far worse (the effects of successfully surviving a Power Hour!). Not much point having sex in that state but these things happen.

As previous posters have pointed put, the vast majority of casual sexual encounters are usually alcohol fuelled. The two parties usually meet at clubs or parties and at the end of the night it is usually a drunken fumble. I must confess that I have been guilty of this in the past. I lost my virginity at 23 to a student girl whom I met in a niteclub who was on a weekend with friends. I was fairly steamed and the first time I done it was unremarkable, however in the morning when I was sober, I enjoyed it alot more. I never saw her again but i will always remember her. I had a few more one nighters with the brewer's droop but now in my early 30s I'm passed my wild phase and now looking to settle down into a more substantitave relationship.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Partizan wrote: »

As previous posters have pointed put, the vast majority of casual sexual encounters are usually alcohol fuelled. The two parties usually meet at clubs or parties and at the end of the night it is usually a drunken fumble. I must confess that I have been guilty of this in the past. I lost my virginity at 23 to a student girl whom I met in a niteclub who was on a weekend with friends. I was fairly steamed and the first time I done it was unremarkable, however in the morning when I was sober, I enjoyed it alot more. I never saw her again but i will always remember her. I had a few more one nighters with the brewer's droop but now in my early 30s I'm passed my wild phase and now looking to settle down into a more substantitave relationship.

Yeah, spot on. I've had one night stands, casual relationships, f**k buddies and long term relationships. All good and I don't regret anything.

But at this stage (I'm 27) nothing can beat the sex I have in a serious relationship while sober. I particularly love the phase in the early stages of a serious relationship where both people get to understand the other's body and the various nuances of what the particular guy/girl likes or dislikes and how their body reacts.

I think that is something I would describe as "liberated" in my opinion. I'm in the relatively early stages of what I hope will be a great long term relationship. It's brilliant when a woman opens up more and more regarding discussing sex. Last week we gave each other feedback on various things during foreplay, giving me a lot better understanding of her particular body and how it reacts and me letting her know what felt good for me.

It was done in a nice, mature, loving way and we didn't need alcohol to help us discuss things.

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

And then I was surprised by my own surprise, if that makes any sense, and decided to sit down and think about the reasons behind my own reaction and the thought processes that make up my views, and part of that involved a lot of reading and conversations around consent, implied consent, enthusiastic consent, how implied consent is used against some victims of sexual assault

Except in cases of diminished ability (minors, alcohol etc), lack of consent is not the same as implied or unenthusiastic consent, despite you repeatedly saying that it is. There is no relationship between someone actively participating in an act and any form of sexual assault

The Sweeper wrote: »

how action is accepted as consent in some contexts and not in others, so on.

Except in the aforementioned cases of diminished ability, in what contexts are actions not accepted as consent?

The Sweeper wrote: »

What IS my personal opinion is that consent is not as clear cut as you may think it is. Where I'm standing as I approach that argument, is in a position of concern for inexperienced or vulnerable people, men and women alike, who get themselves into a sexual situation where either during or after the sitaution they will feel uncertain, uncomfortable or unhappy about what happened. They may even feel guilty, duped, used - and those feelings can then progress, depending on the person, into a feeling that they've been violated and that can turn into a sexual assault charge.

And there is no way for their partner to decide when that happens. More to the point, there is no way for that person to decide that their partner isn't feeling exactly the same and just going along with it because they're vunerable.

The Sweeper wrote: »

I understand why people are saying consent is consent, and if you're doing it then you can't say later that you didn't want to do it - but people do say later that they didn't want to do it. They say it. They say it to family and friends. They say it to the police. They ruin lives over it

That's where enthusiastic consent comes in - because if someone's enthusiastically consenting it removes that ambiguity.

No, it doesn't. Because there is no way of deciding whether consent is enthusiastic. And even if there was, enthusiastic consent still does not mean that someone can't change their minds after

The Sweeper wrote: »

So just to be clear to anyone who thinks I'm crazy, I don't believe that giving oral sex you don't feel like giving, unenthusiastically, because you feel you have to (because it's a societal expectation and if you don't you're repressed), is a dictionary definition rape and you need to prosecute it - not at all. But I do believe that you may come out of that experience feeling less than chipper about yourself, and how people feel themselves is the most subjective thing in the world.

It's not a dictionary definition rape, it's not anywhere close to any kind of definition of rape anywhere. How people feel about what their actions is not the responsibility of the person they do it to, and even if it was, it would be impossible to predict what someone may or may not feel

panda100 wrote: »

Aside from the alcohol, I don't like the warping of women's bodies into prepubescent, hairless freaks. On top of the shame I was brought up with, I know am made to obsess over my bodily hair to be in any way sexually attractive to a man.

I hate this completely inaccurate argument that equates lack of hair with wanting a prepubescent look. Anyone who looks at an adult's genitals (hairless or not) and thinks they looks anything like a child's has severe issues. I prefer when a woman shaves, it looks and feels better IMO. If she doesn't want to, that's completely up to her, but it's no different to any other optional feature that one partner might prefer