Louise O Neill on rape culture.

jameorahiely wrote: »

It takes 2 people to be involved in making it a great experience for both of them. You make it sound lile your freind was a passive participant and was expecting great sex to be done for her, without her having any role in making it a great experience.

You make it sound it sound like this a stretch and that women like this don't exist.. they do

Widdershins wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't know, she's never said that she has never had a good one. If I'm right and she hasn't, how could I know why that is? I can't. I'm just going on my own sole bad experience with someone (male, not sure if it matters)who had no interest in making it good. And the fact that a lot of women seem unaware that they have a G spot. They're not easy to get to by yourself. It doesn't take monumental effort to find and act on someone else's but my suspicion is that some people have partners who haven't bothered to try in the first place.

I know there are women who can't be bothered in bed, too.

But there are plenty of women who fake orgasm in bed and don't tell their partner what to do. How is a guy to know it's not doing it for you unless he is told. You keep getting what you're getting if you keep doing what you're doing. If you show a guy how to please you and then be is just not bothered then what kind of relationship is that generally.

Widdershins wrote: »

Well she does like sex it just didn't seem like it has been as good as it might have been, if a good sneeze could rival it.

Yes they're all factors. I've experience of that issue with the pill, myself.

See there is a difference between a good orgasm and good sex. I've had amazing sex with no orgasm and amazing orgasm from pretty mediocre sex. Maybe her sneezes just are really good :pac:

jameorahiely wrote: »

You can keep giving me chocolate, thinking you're doing me a nice turn, but unless I tell you I don't actually like chocolate, you might never realise I dislike your actions.

Hmmm, is that an analogy for something :D:D:pac::pac::pac:

Have to massively disagree with most of what's being said here, the vast majority of my sexual experiences have involved women who are really into it and in no way passive. My ex was a full on BDSM dominatrix. One woman I've been with was only able to get off if she was on top, one enjoyed sitting on faces, one particularly hilarious one had an exhibitionist kink that got us thrown out of a nightclub the night we met :pac:

Methinks that those who are only finding passive sexual partners are either looking in the wrong places or else don't know how to spot the difference personality wise. I'm seriously into kink myself and I always find that if you're looking for someone who takes an active role in the bedroom, you can tell by how they flirt when you meet / chat eachother up. If it's a case of you pursuing and her always being coy etc, she's potentially the passive "you do things to me" type. If she takes an active role and flirts back in terms of joking, teasing, making fun of you etc and is actively courting you as well as the other way around, she's more likely to be active during sex as well.

On the other hand, you definitely can't use this method to determine whether somebody is likely to be into dominance or submission when it comes to BDSM - I've known women who were managers, bosses, and people with jobs involving authority (gardai, teaching etc) who enjoyed being tied up and what not, and I've known women who were incredibly shy and pushover-ish in their social group but who liked to wield the whip behind closed doors I've actually always wondered if there was something in that, psychologically speaking - one's everyday personality being an antipode to one's sexual personality. The idea of executives, bankers etc being submissive in bed is a common enough societal trope that it can't just be fiction.

I'd say one other thing - society very much pushes the dominant / submissive roles on men and women respectively when it comes to sex. If you frequent any discussion forums on the subject, you'll find hundreds of posts from dominatrixes and submissive guys who are self-conscious about their preference because it goes against media stereotypes etc - both thinking most people of the opposite sex would be turned off by their preference, so therefore hiding it and not admitting to it. So as far as passivity goes, I'd also question whether some of that isn't actually the result of suppressing natural desires rather than expressing them. As I say, I've found a more or less even split among women once I've gotten them to open up to me about it.

I mean if you think about it, if it was actually true that most women were passive when it came to sex, how the hell would a lesbian relationship work? I'm picturing two women fighting to get the other to do more

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have to massively disagree with most of what's being said here, the vast majority of my sexual experiences have involved women who are really into it and in no way passive. My ex was a full on BDSM dominatrix. One woman I've been with was only able to get off if she was on top, one enjoyed sitting on faces, one particularly hilarious one had an exhibitionist kink that got us thrown out of a nightclub the night we met :pac:

Methinks that those who are only finding passive sexual partners are either looking in the wrong places or else don't know how to spot the difference personality wise. I'm seriously into kink myself and I always find that if you're looking for someone who takes an active role in the bedroom, you can tell by how they flirt when you meet / chat eachother up. If it's a case of you pursuing and her always being coy etc, she's potentially the passive "you do things to me" type. If she takes an active role and flirts back in terms of joking, teasing, making fun of you etc and is actively courting you as well as the other way around, she's more likely to be active during sex as well.

On the other hand, you definitely can't use this method to determine whether somebody is likely to be into dominance or submission when it comes to BDSM - I've known women who were managers, bosses, and people with jobs involving authority (gardai, teaching etc) who enjoyed being tied up and what not, and I've known women who were incredibly shy and pushover-ish in their social group but who liked to wield the whip behind closed doors I've actually always wondered if there was something in that, psychologically speaking - one's everyday personality being an antipode to one's sexual personality. The idea of executives, bankers etc being submissive in bed is a common enough societal trope that it can't just be fiction.

I'd say one other thing - society very much pushes the dominant / submissive roles on men and women respectively when it comes to sex. If you frequent any discussion forums on the subject, you'll find hundreds of posts from dominatrixes and submissive guys who are self-conscious about their preference because it goes against media stereotypes etc - both thinking most people of the opposite sex would be turned off by their preference, so therefore hiding it and not admitting to it. So as far as passivity goes, I'd also question whether some of that isn't actually the result of suppressing natural desires rather than expressing them. As I say, I've found a more or less even split among women once I've gotten them to open up to me about it.

I mean if you think about it, if it was actually true that most women were passive when it came to sex, how the hell would a lesbian relationship work? I'm picturing two women fighting to get the other to do more

Regardless of whether someone is submissive or dominant during sex, they still have a healthy attitude towards sex in the examples you gave. A woman can be extremely passive in bed but still be enjoying it as you say and if that is OK with both people that's grand, but what some people were referring to earlier in the thread is more an unhealthy attitude towards sex due to certain societal factors or just a lack of sex drive for whatever reason-being passive during/towards sex rather than submissive. It's all well and good wanting to be pursued and wanting someone to seduce you, but I think its an issue when women think that it is what "should" happen and they will be judged if they stray from the norms. (Which i dont think is the case btw)

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have to massively disagree with most of what's being said here, the vast majority of my sexual experiences have involved women who are really into it and in no way passive. My ex was a full on BDSM dominatrix. One woman I've been with was only able to get off if she was on top, one enjoyed sitting on faces, one particularly hilarious one had an exhibitionist kink that got us thrown out of a nightclub the night we met :pac:

Methinks that those who are only finding passive sexual partners are either looking in the wrong places or else don't know how to spot the difference personality wise. I'm seriously into kink myself and I always find that if you're looking for someone who takes an active role in the bedroom, you can tell by how they flirt when you meet / chat eachother up. If it's a case of you pursuing and her always being coy etc, she's potentially the passive "you do things to me" type. If she takes an active role and flirts back in terms of joking, teasing, making fun of you etc and is actively courting you as well as the other way around, she's more likely to be active during sex as well.

On the other hand, you definitely can't use this method to determine whether somebody is likely to be into dominance or submission when it comes to BDSM - I've known women who were managers, bosses, and people with jobs involving authority (gardai, teaching etc) who enjoyed being tied up and what not, and I've known women who were incredibly shy and pushover-ish in their social group but who liked to wield the whip behind closed doors I've actually always wondered if there was something in that, psychologically speaking - one's everyday personality being an antipode to one's sexual personality. The idea of executives, bankers etc being submissive in bed is a common enough societal trope that it can't just be fiction.

I'd say one other thing - society very much pushes the dominant / submissive roles on men and women respectively when it comes to sex. If you frequent any discussion forums on the subject, you'll find hundreds of posts from dominatrixes and submissive guys who are self-conscious about their preference because it goes against media stereotypes etc - both thinking most people of the opposite sex would be turned off by their preference, so therefore hiding it and not admitting to it. So as far as passivity goes, I'd also question whether some of that isn't actually the result of suppressing natural desires rather than expressing them. As I say, I've found a more or less even split among women once I've gotten them to open up to me about it.

I mean if you think about it, if it was actually true that most women were passive when it came to sex, how the hell would a lesbian relationship work? I'm picturing two women fighting to get the other to do more

It's not unusual at all for the roles to be reversed from ordinary life to bdsm. The people in the powerful and/or high stress jobs enjoy submitting because of the break from having to be in control all the time, and the release they get from the endorphins. If you don't mind me asking, do you get the same instinct about people in everyday life or specifically in settings that cater to kinky people, like clubs?


(This part isn't to Hatrickpatrick) Just in response to my comment about my sneezy friend, there's no reason for people to assume it's her own fault if she hasn't experienced an orgasm yet. But I accept that in some cases for some people it probably is their own lack of participation that accounts for their miserable sex life.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not unusual at all for the roles to be reversed from ordinary life to bdsm. The people in the powerful and/or high stress jobs enjoy submitting because of the break from having to be in control all the time, and the release they get from the endorphins. If you don't mind me asking, do you get the same instinct about people in everyday life or specifically in settings that cater to kinky people, like clubs?


(This part isn't to Hatrickpatrick) Just in response to my comment about my sneezy friend, there's no reason for people to assume it's her own fault if she hasn't experienced an orgasm yet. But I accept that in some cases for some people it probably is their own lack of participation that accounts for their miserable sex life.

It's no so much her "fault", or anybodys fault, but if someone wants to orgasm then they need to know how that happens and then they need to communicate that to the person, so it's more a case of if she hasn't had one yet then she needs to work on that before any partner is able to help her with it.

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't know. I think people mean two different things when they say come/climax and orgasm, though.

!

You've lost me now!

neonsofa wrote: »

You've lost me now!

You can enjoy sex without having an orgasm. Someone else said she thought she'd had orgasms in the past until she really did have one and there was a huge difference.

(Edited, I'd confused something you said)

py2006 wrote: »

Why ya'll talking about your sex lives?!

What did I miss? Did LON say something about it?

Nah we're just sex obsessed! :pac:

py2006 wrote: »

Why ya'll talking about your sex lives?!

What did I miss? Did LON say something about it?

We're talking about other peoples sex lives so it's ok.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

..you can tell by how they flirt when you meet / chat eachother up. If it's a case of you pursuing and her always being coy etc, she's potentially the passive "you do things to me" type. If she takes an active role and flirts back in terms of joking, teasing, making fun of you etc and is actively courting you as well as the other way around, she's more likely to be active during sex as well.

I mean this bit

I haven't been to any clubs either, because I hate nightclubs in general.

Widdershins wrote: »

How come nobody ever says ''why are ye all talking about people getting blown up, shot, or stabbed'' which people do every day on Boards.

In fairness on a long thread people do pop in and out and they will ask why it's gone off topic if it's gone onto something very different. And sex is more exciting than stabbings I'd imagine.