Sexuality and society

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?

The Sweeper

28064212 wrote: »

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


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?


When you stop making offensive comments, sure.

You, me, different pages again.

You aren't getting the point I'm trying to make about there being a difference between consent and action.

And as for giving a blowjob that you don't want to give to please someone - that's not what I'm saying - I'm saying that there are girls out there giving blowjobs and it's not about pleasing that specific guy and making him feel good. It's because they're feeling pressured by their peers to join in, or feeling they're obliged to give head at the end of a date because these days kissing isn't enough, or that they're giving a blowjob because they don't want to appear prudish or frigid, even though they hate every last minute of what they're doing.

And you're sweeping all that off the table by saying consent is good enough and consent is consent and sure she's doing it so that must mean she wants to be doing it and she doesn't have to do it if she doesn't want to.

And what I'm trying to make clear is that I don't agree that it's as simple as girls and women not having to do things they don't want to do, because the message in society is that, if they're normal, they WILL want to give blowjobs, and they WILL be hypersexualised cum-kittens in hooker heels, and nobody's telling them it's okay to not do what they don't want to do.

WindSock

Just read this about the nightie. Look at the other controversial stuff in there, we have come along a bit since then, thankfully.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Late_Show

Ksusha26

parker kent wrote: »

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.

I could not agree more with your statement Parker. I have been living in Ireland for the past 2 years, have Irish friends and you have summarised them very well. Some of my friends are prudish, others are not but even in conversation there is still an unwillingness of my Irish friends to discuss about sexual issues. The swimming pool changing room behaviour of irish women is another point. You Irish are way behind the rest of Europe in terms of sexuality but you are fast catching up. I am quite open and liberal when it comes to sexual matters as sex is quite natural. Myself, well I lost my virginity at 18 to my first boyfriend in university. I was with him for 4 years. I'm 26 now and since then I am in my fourth steady relationship with a man who is 20 years older than me with 2 kids (my friends find that a bit shocking but I'm quite comfortable with it). I have had a number of one night stands, all last year when I was on a rebound from a breakup. It was my wild phase but I'm settled now. As for aspects of sex, well both my boyfriend and myself are quite comfortable and we experiment alot. Even though I have had more partners than him, he is quite more experienced than I when it comes to intimacy, foreplay and so on.

Just my thoughts

sbsquarepants

Louisayankee2 wrote: »

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

Eh, no thanks!

28064212 wrote: »

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?

Ok, i'll give this one a go!

I think the point is that one mans prude is another mans nymphomaniac. I'm a fairly open minded type of bloke, if i like the sound of something i'll give it a go, if i don't i wont. I have no hang ups about my body or my sexuality, i certainly wouldn't consider myself represed and i believe that people who are, are missing out. But then swingers probably think i'm missing out and so on.
It's what works for the individual that matters, there are no rights and wrongs, you shouldn't hold yourself back from trying something for fear or shame or embarrasment or whatever, just be yourself - you are what you are regardless - the only question is, are you happy or sad that way? Better to be happy in my humble opinion. Sex is great, it's nothing to be ashamed of!
Well, except for that one time...............

28064212

metrovelvet wrote: »

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?

Not to my knowledge, but how would I know? All I can tell is that they consented of their own free will (unless some shadowy background figure was blackmailing them into sleeping with me for reasons beyond my knowledge)

metrovelvet wrote: »

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?

I've had sex on days where I wasn't really feeling great and would have preferred to just sleep. I've even continued to receive blowjobs that weren't really all that great, but I was aware that the woman was enjoying giving me pleasure

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

It is nothing even close to it

Emme

Go out any weekend in Ireland and you'll see people tanked up and barely coherent. They're all talk, stumbling around and falling into taxis with each other at closing time. Then they wake up the next morning and wonder what happened and who the person beside them is! Did anything happen? Was protection used?

If something happened they might not remember it at all. If nothing happened it's probably because they were so inebriated they went straight to sleep or one or both of them was too drunk to perform. Also one or both of them might feel guilty and the woman would be branded a slut and the man accused of taking advantage.

I'm not talking about teens or early twenties either, this sort of thing happens with people of all ages in Ireland. People in their sixties going to "adult dances" in rural areas and hiring hotel rooms for an hour at a time. If it floats their boat good luck to them, but we haven't exactly caught up with our continental cousins in terms of finesse.

Then there's the sexual deviant underbelly, the swingers and those who take part in things I'm not going to even mention or think about. Good luck to them as well.

However, it seems to me that sober, uninhibited, considerate, guilt-free and enjoyable sex is rare in Ireland. One night stands and hook-ups seem to be the order of the day for non-sexual deviants because the parties concerned can get drunk beforehand, blame the drink for what they did or didn't do and never see each other again.

However if you want anything other than one night stands it seems that you have to be part of the sexual deviant underbelly and I don't consider procedures that should be done under medical supervision to be a sexual thrill. Which makes me sexually repressed. :rolleyes:

Like what somebody else said, there seems to be very little middle ground where two people can meet for guilt-free, pleasurable sex on a regular basis and enjoy each other's company. In my opinion this island is as riddled with sexual frustration as it was in the 1950s (not that I was around then but I've read some of the literature, more recently Patrick Kavanagh's "The Great Hunger") and as regards sexual expression, we Irish are still in the dark ages. In rural areas there are still people in their 40s and 50s who have very little if any sexual experience. People who may be caring for an elderly family member and because of the religious sensibilities of the elderly cannot express their sexuality. They may marry late in life, often to a partner from overseas - usually female.

Indeed, I would say that there are more women single in Ireland now than there were in the 1950s and that there is more sexual hunger among older and middle-aged Irish women than among Irish men of the same age. We have turned full circle from the time of Patrick Kavanagh and John B Keane. Irish women are now the ones who are filled with an often unfulfilled sexual longing. Or maybe I'm just speaking for myself!

Did I mention married couples? I've never been married myself but it seems that a great many Irish men still want to marry virgins or women with very little experience and in many cases, cheat on these paragons of virtue after marriage because they're too good to get down and dirty with.

Sexual liberation Irish style:rolleyes:

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

And as for giving a blowjob that you don't want to give to please someone - that's not what I'm saying - I'm saying that there are girls out there giving blowjobs and it's not about pleasing that specific guy and making him feel good. It's because they're feeling pressured by their peers to join in, or feeling they're obliged to give head at the end of a date because these days kissing isn't enough, or that they're giving a blowjob because they don't want to appear prudish or frigid, even though they hate every last minute of what they're doing.

And you're sweeping all that off the table by saying consent is good enough and consent is consent and sure she's doing it so that must mean she wants to be doing it and she doesn't have to do it if she doesn't want to.

So how does the receiver decide whether she's "enthusiastic" enough? Maybe she's only going down because her older sister said it was a good idea. Maybe she ended up with an oral fixation after a bizarre incident in her childhood involving a banana. Who knows? Should all sexual activity be halted until both partners are given a full suite of psychological tests?

The Sweeper wrote: »

And what I'm trying to make clear is that I don't agree that it's as simple as girls and women not having to do things they don't want to do, because the message in society is that, if they're normal, they WILL want to give blowjobs, and they WILL be hypersexualised cum-kittens in hooker heels, and nobody's telling them it's okay to not do what they don't want to do.

There are always on-going campaigns telling them "no means no" and "don't do something you're not comfortable with". If anything, guys are the one who are under-served in this area, since every one assumes they're always up for anything with anybody

Tordelback

Fascinating well-argued thread, and some high-quality writing from The Sweeper in particular.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Interesting debate regarding oral sex.

I have no idea what a new sexual partner likes. All I know is that she is consenting because I haven't either physically or psychologically forced her into it.

I really don't know how I would know what a new sexual partner likes. Interview her? Give her a questionnaire to fill out?

Or maybe she has never performed a certain sexual act before and therefore has no idea whether she likes it or not herself.

Now in fairness I do agree that people shouldn't be pressurised into doing anything. But honestly, if a new partner gives me oral, how do I know if society or her friends have pressurised her into pleasuring me? I would just think that she either like giving oral or is "returning the favour" so to speak.

johnr1

Brilliant thread, but my head hurts !:D

I'd love to contribute, but Im too repressed.....*





*no really, Im just too dense this afternoon....

Ksusha26

Mira Limited U-turn wrote: »

Interesting debate regarding oral sex.

I have no idea what a new sexual partner likes. All I know is that she is consenting because I haven't either physically or psychologically forced her into it.

I really don't know how I would know what a new sexual partner likes. Interview her? Give her a questionnaire to fill out?

Or maybe she has never performed a certain sexual act before and therefore has no idea whether she likes it or not herself.

Now in fairness I do agree that people shouldn't be pressurised into doing anything. But honestly, if a new partner gives me oral, how do I know if society or her friends have pressurised her into pleasuring me? I would just think that she either like giving oral or is "returning the favour" so to speak.

You are right, I think nobody should be forced into doing anything they dont like and sex in whatever should develop naturally. I do give oral on my boyfriend and I feel quite comfortable doing it. He did not pressure me or anything, it just developed. He is my first partner than I have done it with.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Ksusha26 wrote: »

You are right, I think nobody should be forced into doing anything they dont like and sex in whatever should develop naturally. I do give oral on my boyfriend and I feel quite comfortable doing it. He did not pressure me or anything, it just developed. He is my first partner than I have done it with.

Sounds good.

My current girlfriend initially was very shy when it came to talking about sex, her likes and dislikes.

So initially I would just be testing the waters so to speak and introduce new things and see what would happen. Unless she was visibly uncomfortable and basically said no I would presume she was okay with things. Once or twice she did say she didn't like one thing or another and "no" or course means no so we moved onto something familiar.

Lately she has been speaking up more and more. Last night she really was open and it was excellent. I was able to find out more and more from her about how her body responds to different techniques, frequency and pressure of touch etc.

And it resulted in a great time for both of us.

Ksusha26

Mira Limited U-turn wrote: »

Sounds good.

My current girlfriend initially was very shy when it came to talking about sex, her likes and dislikes.

So initially I would just be testing the waters so to speak and introduce new things and see what would happen. Unless she was visibly uncomfortable and basically said no I would presume she was okay with things. Once or twice she did say she didn't like one thing or another and "no" or course means no so we moved onto something familiar.

Lately she has been speaking up more and more. Last night she really was open and it was excellent. I was able to find out more and more from her about how her body responds to different techniques, frequency and pressure of touch etc.

And it resulted in a great time for both of us.

Hi Sonic. My boyfriend did the exact same with me and i could not be more happier with it. Even though I had more partners than him, he was married for 17 years and fathered 3 boys (1 died in tragic accident age 8 about 4 years ago) he had alot of practice on his ex wife so he was sexually more mature. I waited for about 5-6 weeks until I was comfortable enough before we had sex and when we did, it was very sweet as by that stage we were both comfortable having sex and nothing was forced. Now I stay over at his place quite often during the week and help getting his kids ready for school.

mariaalice

Its very complex ...but i think people seem to want it both ways somehow sex has to be both special and and at the same time something unremarkable ...

parker kent

Emme wrote: »

Did I mention married couples? I've never been married myself but it seems that a great many Irish men still want to marry virgins or women with very little experience and in many cases, cheat on these paragons of virtue after marriage because they're too good to get down and dirty with.

Sexual liberation Irish style:rolleyes:

Great post overall, especially about the drinking culture problems. I agree there are definitely people like this in Ireland. The Madonna/Whore complex definitely exists. The cult of the Irish Mammy probably plays a role in this mindset. An element of Irish men put certain girls on a pedestal and it can create problems. I was guilty of it a few years ago and the girl could never live up the idea of perfection I had created for her in my head. It would be better for all involved if they acknowledged from the beginning that they had the same desires as any other woman. God forbid that a woman would, gasp, have sexual desires of her own! Some women don't help themselves by joining in and becoming a form of martyr, always available to do whatever pleases the men around them.

The Sweeper wrote: »

And what I'm trying to make clear is that I don't agree that it's as simple as girls and women not having to do things they don't want to do, because the message in society is that, if they're normal, they WILL want to give blowjobs, and they WILL be hypersexualised cum-kittens in hooker heels, and nobody's telling them it's okay to not do what they don't want to do.

I agree that blowjobs are seen as normal sexual behaviour. In some ways, that is good as the opposite view (all sexual activity is terrible etc) is just as damaging. A woman that does not like giving head is seen as much more unusual than a guy that does not like giving head. That is a societal issue. But I would argue that a girl that feels pressured into giving one when she does not like it, is not that different from the peer pressure that forces people to drink alcohol or to dress in a certain way. The true problem is in how to create a society where people feel able to forego doing things that society "expects" them to do. Hypersexualisation is an issue in modern society. But it it would not be as big an issue if people were strong enough to act as they truely want to act.

It is difficult to apportion blame to a guy getting head from a girl who that hates doing it, but has given no indication that she hates it. Not that I am saying you are necessarily blaming the guy.

Earthhorse

donfers wrote: »

I agree with dudess except for one important consideration, often people need to be sloshed at least to engage in the first sexual encounter and sometimes subsequent ones, it tends to settle down after a while but I wish people didn't need 25 vodkas to get their kit off as they can become deeply unattractive in that state - I'm not asking for acrobatics, just an ability to not have huge hang-ups about your sexuality in the beginning unless completely pissed

metrovelvet wrote: »

i dunno. As long you need six pints inside you to loosen up, whatever you are doing, is not liberated. I would still view it as an inhibited society, not just sexually, but across a range of things.

This, this, a thousand times this!

When it comes to liberation, there is far too much focus on what people are doing, and not enough on how and why they do it. An obligation to vote for a political candidate would not be liberation from not being able to vote. The important thing is the freedom to act in a way you find satisfying, free from fear or coercion.

If you need alcohol to gear you up before your first sexual encounter with someone then you are hardly free from fear. Heck, forget first sexual encounter; judging from the many threads on boards about relations between the genders some won't even talk to strangers of the opposite sex without a skinful in them. Sexually liberated? We won't even kiss each other whilst sober!

Similarly, if you are only engaging in certain sex acts, or social acts (such as drinking) due to peer pressure or familial expectations then you are not free from coercion. This is not so much of a problem if you actually enjoy the act in question (and many do enjoy sex and drinking). The opposite is also true, but I have to be frank and say I don't know how you can know, without conducting a survey, whether people are doing things as a result of peer pressure and whether they are fulfilled by those things. It's not obvious from the outside in either case.

What is obvious is that we can't eliminate fear or coercion entirely from the equation. Well we can, but it would involve re-populating the earth with robots. So we can only measure our liberation by how free we feel in the actions we take or by comparison with how free others in other countries are. In this regard I would say it's very obvious our continual obsession with alcohol as a social lubricant isn't merely an indication of our lack of liberation but a form of oppression in and of itself.

metrovelvet

Earthhorse wrote: »

This, this, a thousand times this!

When it comes to liberation, there is far too much focus on what people are doing, and not enough on how and why they do it. An obligation to vote for a political candidate would not be liberation from not being able to vote. The important thing is the freedom to act in a way you find satisfying, free from fear or coercion.

If you need alcohol to gear you up before your first sexual encounter with someone then you are hardly free from fear. Heck, forget first sexual encounter; judging from the many threads on boards about relations between the genders some won't even talk to strangers of the opposite sex without a skinful in them. Sexually liberated? We won't even kiss each other whilst sober!

Similarly, if you are only engaging in certain sex acts, or social acts (such as drinking) due to peer pressure or familial expectations then you are not free from coercion. This is not so much of a problem if you actually enjoy the act in question (and many do enjoy sex and drinking). The opposite is also true, but I have to be frank and say I don't know how you can know, without conducting a survey, whether people are doing things as a result of peer pressure and whether they are fulfilled by those things. It's not obvious from the outside in either case.

What is obvious is that we can't eliminate fear or coercion entirely from the equation. Well we can, but it would involve re-populating the earth with robots. So we can only measure our liberation by how free we feel in the actions we take or by comparison with how free others in other countries are. In this regard I would say it's very obvious our continual obsession with alcohol as a social lubricant isn't merely an indication of our lack of liberation but a form of oppression in and of itself.

Forget about sex. When you read five page threads on PI whether to send a text or not.

The Sweeper

I find it interesting that there are a couple of posts on this thread along the lines of 'Well, if they're doing it, how am I supposed to know whether or not they're doing it willingly?'

First of all, I'm not talking about great actors and actresses who fake their enjoyment believably during sex. And to be honest, if someone is giving you head and faking their enjoyment of it, then I think it's fair enough to assume that they really want you to be having fun so sleep easy.

But I think most of the time it IS evident if someone is participating and not enjoying themselves. Often that will be evident from their lack of responsiveness - if they're not leaning into your touch, if they're not making enouraging noises, if they're not moving you about to a better position for their enjoyment, if they're gagging, coughing or making non-encouraging noises (e.g. 'ouch') if they're wincing, if you catch them yawning or studying the ceiling, if they appear distracted in other ways, if they sigh, if you're the one suggesting every change of position and they appear reluctant but then comply anyway - these are all signs that frankly there's really only one of you having sex - the other person's having sex done to them!

Again back to enthusiastic consent - if the girl blowing you is moaning encouragingly and occasionally chuckling at your responses, if she's touching herself, if she's also touching you with her hands as well as her mouth - and all of the same can and does apply to a guy who's down on you - then you can be pretty safe to assume they're loving their work and loving your reaction to it.

It can also be the difference between sex, and pretty damn excellent and enjoyable sex.

Truley

Dudess wrote: »

Again, why are you associating nudity with sexuality? As was being said on the other thread, many people just feel self conscious about the physical condition of their bodies, it's not that they have a problem with the naked body.

This is the first time I've mentioned nudity and I never read or posted in the other thread

That aside, yes I do actually think there is a credible link between attitudes to nudity and sex in general. People's bodies are arousing. A large part of people's fear of showing or seeing people's bodies stems from the sexual element of nakedness. Not just personal insecurities about weight and fitness.

metrovelvet

The Sweeper wrote: »

I find it interesting that there are a couple of posts on this thread along the lines of 'Well, if they're doing it, how am I supposed to know whether or not they're doing it willingly?'

First of all, I'm not talking about great actors and actresses who fake their enjoyment believably during sex. And to be honest, if someone is giving you head and faking their enjoyment of it, then I think it's fair enough to assume that they really want you to be having fun so sleep easy.

But I think most of the time it IS evident if someone is participating and not enjoying themselves. Often that will be evident from their lack of responsiveness - if they're not leaning into your touch, if they're not making enouraging noises, if they're not moving you about to a better position for their enjoyment, if they're gagging, coughing or making non-encouraging noises (e.g. 'ouch') if they're wincing, if you catch them yawning or studying the ceiling, if they appear distracted in other ways, if they sigh, if you're the one suggesting every change of position and they appear reluctant but then comply anyway - these are all signs that frankly there's really only one of you having sex - the other person's having sex done to them!

Again back to enthusiastic consent - if the girl blowing you is moaning encouragingly and occasionally chuckling at your responses, if she's touching herself, if she's also touching you with her hands as well as her mouth - and all of the same can and does apply to a guy who's down on you - then you can be pretty safe to assume they're loving their work and loving your reaction to it.

It can also be the difference between sex, and pretty damn excellent and enjoyable sex.

YEAH.... I do wonder about the kind of sex people are having having read this thread...

Standards anyone?

metrovelvet

Truley wrote: »

This is the first time I've mentioned nudity and I never read or posted in the other thread

That aside, yes I do actually think there is a credible link between attitudes to nudity and sex in general. People's bodies are arousing. A large part of people's fear of showing or seeing people's bodies stems from the sexual element of nakedness. Not just personal insecurities about weight and fitness.

Its always a weird one. If I have a house guest I make sure to cover up, not because I am self concious but because I don't want to offend them but at the same time I half think 'why would they give a crap about seeing me in my underwear?... I aint that special" So does covering up look like I'm being polite or that I think I am arousing.

Dudess

Truley wrote: »

This is the first time I've mentioned nudity and I never read or posted in the other thread

That aside, yes I do actually think there is a credible link between attitudes to nudity and sex in general. People's bodies are arousing. A large part of people's fear of showing or seeing people's bodies stems from the sexual element of nakedness. Not just personal insecurities about weight and fitness.

Sorry Truley, I phrased that badly - when I said "again", I meant I was repeating what I said on the nudity thread. I agree, of course there is a link between nudity and sex, but many people, myself included, who don't want to bare all in front of just anyone, are just self conscious, it's not anything to do with sexual conservatism.

Truley

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its always a weird one. If I have a house guest I make sure to cover up, not because I am self concious but because I don't want to offend them but at the same time I half think 'why would they give a crap about seeing me in my underwear?... I aint that special" So does covering up look like I'm being polite or that I think I am arousing.

I think in the vast majority of cultures showing yourself in your underwear, in that context, would probably be taken as an attempt to flirt or seduce someone.

Even if it's not necessarily your intention.

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

I find it interesting that there are a couple of posts on this thread along the lines of 'Well, if they're doing it, how am I supposed to know whether or not they're doing it willingly?'

Better than posts comparing consensual sex to rape and child abuse

The Sweeper wrote: »

First of all, I'm not talking about great actors and actresses who fake their enjoyment believably during sex. And to be honest, if someone is giving you head and faking their enjoyment of it, then I think it's fair enough to assume that they really want you to be having fun so sleep easy.

So a good actor is giving enthusiastic consent, but a bad one isn't?

The Sweeper wrote: »

But I think most of the time it IS evident if someone is participating and not enjoying themselves. Often that will be evident from their lack of responsiveness - if they're not leaning into your touch, if they're not making enouraging noises, if they're not moving you about to a better position for their enjoyment, if they're gagging, coughing or making non-encouraging noises (e.g. 'ouch') if they're wincing, if you catch them yawning or studying the ceiling, if they appear distracted in other ways, if they sigh, if you're the one suggesting every change of position and they appear reluctant but then comply anyway - these are all signs that frankly there's really only one of you having sex - the other person's having sex done to them!

And even if every single one of these signs are evident, the giver can still be absolutely intent on providing their partner pleasure for their partner's benefit. And if none of these signs are evident and it's the best oral sex ever, the partner could still be hating every second and only doing it because they felt it was something they "had to do"

It's seen as part of normal society in Ireland to get pissed out of your head on an average weekend. If I don't enjoy that, but do it anyway to (a) make my friends happy and (b) "fit in" (but not 'enthusiastically'), whose fault is it when I wake up with a massive hangover the next day? The barman's? My friends'? Society in general? Or maybe, just maybe, is it my fault for not saying "hey, I don't really want to get plastered tonight, maybe I'll just have a couple of drinks and then water instead"?

The Sweeper

28064212 wrote: »

Better than posts comparing consensual sex to rape and child abuse

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

28064212 wrote: »

So a good actor is giving enthusiastic consent, but a bad one isn't?

I said I wasn't talking about an actor. So why are you talking about actors?

28064212 wrote: »

And even if every single one of these signs are evident, the giver can still be absolutely intent on providing their partner pleasure for their partner's benefit.

So you think that someone participating only by simply being present is absolutely intent on providing their partner pleasure for that partner's benefit? So lying there and thinking of Ireland and not saying 'Get off me, yer shite' is all fine and dandy with you?

28064212 wrote: »

And if none of these signs are evident and it's the best oral sex ever, the partner could still be hating every second and only doing it because they felt it was something they "had to do"

Yes, and I'm saying that's a very bad thing. Do you not think that's a very bad thing, to perform a sexual act because you feel like you have to?

28064212 wrote: »

It's seen as part of normal society in Ireland to get pissed out of your head on an average weekend. If I don't enjoy that, but do it anyway to (a) make my friends happy and (b) "fit in" (but not 'enthusiastically'), whose fault is it when I wake up with a massive hangover the next day? The barman's? My friends'? Society in general? Or maybe, just maybe, is it my fault for not saying "hey, I don't really want to get plastered tonight, maybe I'll just have a couple of drinks and then water instead"?

See now, this is where you're up to your armpits in dangerous territory and you're so blinkered you just don't see it.

In your world, there's consent, and refusal. If you're doing something, you're consenting. If you don't want to do it, just say you don't want to do it.

And yet you cannot see how incredibly, eerily close that is to the accusations levelled against rape and sexual assault victims who are trying to take their accusers to court, in cases like date rape or spousal rape. Performing a sex act you don't want to perform is not healthy, not good, not quite right. Just because you're doing it doesn't mean you want to do it, doesn't mean you're comfortable doing it, and doesn't mean you're not going to regret doing it afterwards.

This 'implied consent' - assuming that just because someone isn't screaming 'No no get off me no' they're a happy and consenting participant in what's going on just because they're joining in - that is at the heart of the argument around date rape, (you were there, you were naked, what do you mean you felt like you were forced into it?), around young girls getting into incredible trouble for getting drunk and going back to the hotel with the sports team of their choice, around what Julian Assange is in trouble for allegedly doing.

Also under the remit of complied consent: if you were too drunk to say no, and had sex because you were too drunk and just went along with it, then you were consenting. Archaically (and thankfully no longer embraced by the law in western countries) - being married was implied consent, and the law used to state that you can't be raped in a marriage because you married your partner, and therefore the implication is that you are always willing to have sex with them.

Unfortunately your highly unsympathetic opinion, that participation is consent, doesn't take into account the lack of maturity and confidence, and the social conditioning for young women that often gets them into trouble, where they find themselves performing a sex act they didn't want to perform because they did not want to appear 'rude', or presume that someone's intentions were less than honourable lest they be told they're kidding themselves, or they don't want to appear prudish or repressed. This applies whether or not they're virginal - and sometimes is worse for non virginal women, because they cannot fall back on their virginal state as an excuse for reluctance.

So they go home with the guy.
They kiss him.
They sit on the couch with him and engage in heavy petting.
They get partially naked.
And he unzips his pants.
And then because they don't feel like they can say no (because after all, why are you here, in his house, partially naked, kissing him on the couch, and letting him touch your breasts both inside and outside your clothing, if you don't intend to do more? Are you a prick tease? Are you frigid? Are you repressed? Are you a bitch?), then they give him a blowjob that they don't want to give him.

And because they gave him the blowjob, instead of jumping up and running screaming out of the house, by your definition, because they participated, even though they didn't want to, you think that's okay.

...and you think I'm obnoxious?

Sid_Justice

So they go home with the guy.
They kiss him.
They sit on the couch with him and engage in heavy petting.
They get partially naked.
And he unzips his pants.
And then because they don't feel like they can say no (because after all, why are you here, in his house, partially naked, kissing him on the couch, and letting him touch your breasts both inside and outside your clothing, if you don't intend to do more? Are you a prick tease? Are you frigid? Are you repressed? Are you a bitch?), then they give him a blowjob that they don't want to give him.

And because they gave him the blowjob, instead of jumping up and running screaming out of the house, by your definition, because they participated, even though they didn't want to, you think that's okay.

I don't want to misunderstand you so I want you to spell this out as clearly as possible for me. How would you 'define' the scenario you've just describe? Let's us both assume it isn't okay. You're implying it's a criminal act or at least, it should be. Am I taking you up correctly.

The Sweeper

No I'm not defining it as a criminal act. The guy involved - this isn't his fault, he isn't intentionally making her do something she doesn't want to. He's not forcing her. However he probaby isn't double checking that she's entirely okay with it (because he's probably busy sitting back and going 'OMG WOOHOO!')

He might be completely lost the next day when she won't meet his eye or won't return his calls when he thought she was having fun.

She might be completely lost the next day because he won't return her calls or give her the time of day (because there are still guys out there like that).

In some really unfortunate cases, a young man's life has been utterly ruined because by the time the girl got home, and thought back on the sexual act that she participated in even though she didn't want to, the realisation hits her hard and in some cases girls like that have gone on to file a sexual assault charge.

Is she in the right? No, I don't think she is.

But harkening back to the original point of this thread, why the hell did she feel she couldn't stand up, say 'I'm going no further' get dressed and go home? Because the societal message is that if you're not doing what Cosmo says you should be doing, what your friends say you should be doing, what the tv shows say you should be doing, what SATC says you should be doing, and what every book and magazine and tv programme and movie and song that's geared at the under-30s says you should be doing, then you're repressed, because you should want to be doing precisely what you just did.

metrovelvet

The Sweeper wrote: »

No I'm not defining it as a criminal act. The guy involved - this isn't his fault, he isn't intentionally making her do something she doesn't want to. He's not forcing her. However he probaby isn't double checking that she's entirely okay with it (because he's probably busy sitting back and going 'OMG WOOHOO!')

He might be completely lost the next day when she won't meet his eye or won't return his calls when he thought she was having fun.

She might be completely lost the next day because he won't return her calls or give her the time of day (because there are still guys out there like that).

In some really unfortunate cases, a young man's life has been utterly ruined because by the time the girl got home, and thought back on the sexual act that she participated in even though she didn't want to, the realisation hits her hard and in some cases girls like that have gone on to file a sexual assault charge.

Is she in the right? No, I don't think she is.

But harkening back to the original point of this thread, why the hell did she feel she couldn't stand up, say 'I'm going no further' get dressed and go home? Because the societal message is that if you're not doing what Cosmo says you should be doing, what your friends say you should be doing, what the tv shows say you should be doing, what SATC says you should be doing, and what every book and magazine and tv programme and movie and song that's geared at the under-30s says you should be doing, then you're repressed, because you should want to be doing precisely what you just did.

Its true, but part of women's lib was sexual liberation promoted in the 1960s, so that if you werent putting it about that somehow you were still oppressed.

28064212

The Sweeper wrote: »

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

Action which gives consent is consent. Lying there and not stopping someone sexually assaulting you isn't giving consent. Actively participating in a sexual act is. You're talking about a girl pushing a guy back, unzipping him, going down without any suggestion from the guy that she should, and the guy should somehow decide whether she's doing this because she's expected to

The Sweeper wrote: »

I said I wasn't talking about an actor. So why are you talking about actors?

Because your entire point is about how we're supposed to distinguish between consent and 'enthusiastic consent' through actions

The Sweeper wrote: »

So you think that someone participating only by simply being present is absolutely intent on providing their partner pleasure for that partner's benefit? So lying there and thinking of Ireland and not saying 'Get off me, yer shite' is all fine and dandy with you?

So you think saying "Get off me, yer shite" to someone who's trying their best to give their partner pleasure is a good tactic? That will cause them less damage than just letting them go along with it?

The Sweeper wrote: »

Yes, and I'm saying that's a very bad thing. Do you not think that's a very bad thing, to perform a sexual act because you feel like you have to?

Yes of course I do. And you're expecting the receiver to somehow distinguish between the two, even though it bears no relationship to how they act

The Sweeper wrote: »

And yet you cannot see how incredibly, eerily close that is to the accusations levelled against rape and sexual assault victims who are trying to take their accusers to court, in cases like date rape or spousal rape. Performing a sex act you don't want to perform is not healthy, not good, not quite right. Just because you're doing it doesn't mean you want to do it, doesn't mean you're comfortable doing it, and doesn't mean you're not going to regret doing it afterwards.

This 'implied consent' - assuming that just because someone isn't screaming 'No no get off me no' they're a happy and consenting participant in what's going on just because they're joining in - that is at the heart of the argument around date rape, (you were there, you were naked, what do you mean you felt like you were forced into it?), around young girls getting into incredible trouble for getting drunk and going back to the hotel with the sports team of their choice, around what Julian Assange is in trouble for allegedly doing.

Also under the remit of complied consent: if you were too drunk to say no, and had sex because you were too drunk and just went along with it, then you were consenting. Archaically (and thankfully no longer embraced by the law in western countries) - being married was implied consent, and the law used to state that you can't be raped in a marriage because you married your partner, and therefore the implication is that you are always willing to have sex with them.

Again with the rape comparisons. Drunken consent is not consent, this is codified in law. Neither is a minor's consent, nor consent given under blackmail. So take those out of it. Hypothetically, say both participants are completely sober adults who aren't under any kind of blackmail. They meet in a bar, get on well, and decide they want to have a bit of fun, so go back to a hotel room and have sex. Neither of them, at any stage along the way, give their explicit consent. Next day, both of them feel bad about it, that they were just caught up in the heat of the moment, they don't really feel anything for the other person. They also both did things they wouldn't normally do because they've never had a one night stand. Who raped who?

The Sweeper wrote: »

Unfortunately your highly unsympathetic opinion, that participation is consent, doesn't take into account the lack of maturity and confidence, and the social conditioning for young women that often gets them into trouble, where they find themselves performing a sex act they didn't want to perform because they did not want to appear 'rude', or presume that someone's intentions were less than honourable lest they be told they're kidding themselves, or they don't want to appear prudish or repressed. This applies whether or not they're virginal - and sometimes is worse for non virginal women, because they cannot fall back on their virginal state as an excuse for reluctance.

So they go home with the guy.
They kiss him.
They sit on the couch with him and engage in heavy petting.
They get partially naked.
And he unzips his pants.
And then because they don't feel like they can say no (because after all, why are you here, in his house, partially naked, kissing him on the couch, and letting him touch your breasts both inside and outside your clothing, if you don't intend to do more? Are you a prick tease? Are you frigid? Are you repressed? Are you a bitch?), then they give him a blowjob that they don't want to give him.

And because they gave him the blowjob, instead of jumping up and running screaming out of the house, by your definition, because they participated, even though they didn't want to, you think that's okay.

And there is absolutely no way for the receiver to decide whether that's true. You're ideal world seems to consist of everyone having to fill out a detailed psychological evaluation, then signing a contract before having sex.

Incidentally, how does the girl know the guy isn't just unzipping because that's what he feels he should be doing? He hasn't given consent, but his actions have implied it. A guy who stops a sex act midway will face even more stigmatisation than a girl because it's rarer. He'll get gay, freak, weirdo accusations thrown at him from both genders.

metrovelvet

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].

Drunken consent is not consent? Codified in law where?

Do you want to talk about this philosophically or legally?

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.