Anyone want to talk about men, women, and sex?

how does me having vanilla missionary position grin sex with a loving partner mean that I need protecting?

And the people having consensual BDSM sex would argue that they don't need protecting either.

It's you who is being illogical because you are saying that how you do it is right and anyone else needs protecting and basically don't know their own minds. That's incredibly patronising and it is illogical because you're saying that you know what you like, that it's what you consider normal and so therefore is ok. However, other people who know what they like must be damaged in some way, and don't really like.it but they just don't know that they don't like it and therefore need you to act as some.moral arbiter to protect them from themselves. How is that not illogical - that you are sure that you know your own mind but that other people don't? Maybe your views are shaped by your upbringing and exposure to certain ideas and that actually you don't really enjoy what you do, but have been repressed into thinking it's what you should do?

Which is an issue with how the law is being applied rather than the law itself.

mmm, why do you think the law is not being applied consistently?

My suspicion is that it is more "normal" than you seem to think it is and as such could simply be a normal.

Filling up the bingo card here

You'd think. That's often not how it's working in practice.

Which is an issue with how the law is being applied rather than the law itself.

Anal sex among young people in this study appeared to be taking place in a context encouraging pain, risk and coercion. Harm reduction efforts targeting anal sex may help encourage discussion about mutuality and consent, reduce risky and painful techniques and challenge views that normalise coercion.

And how many people actually reported this? You can keep quoting from the study but you are talking about so few individuals, and we don't even really know that they have experienced it anyway because of how the data was collected. Even if we overlook that you are talking about what, 1 third of the girls? So 10 girls? It's just too small to draw any conclusions from that. Surely you can see that?

If I were to tell you that I'd done a study and 100% of the female respondents said that they enjoyed anal sex and were always the instigators of it and the number of people that I interviewed was 10 no way would you then accept the conclusion that anal sex was enjoyable for all women and that society should adjust its views on it as a result of my study.

You know that you wouldn't accept a study arguing against your views based on a sample size this small.

And they could be equally judgemental and say that people who feel like you are repressed sexually we should endeavour to protect as much as possible people whose lives have led them to a place where they are unable to live fulfilled lives due to this repression.

but I don't need protecting in this way. I'm not going to consent to someone hurting me

how does me having vanilla missionary position sex with a loving partner mean that I need protecting?

You are being a little illogical here if I may say so

Extreme acts that could result in serious injury I am sure would be covered by the law

except they're not, are they? a man was able to rip open his partner's vagina with a spray bottle of bleach, and a jury believed him when he said she's consented to it

My suspicion is that it is more "normal" than you seem to think it is and as such could simply be a normal.expression of human sexuality rather than a symptom of a damaged life

maybe. Humans are a violent species. I'm just not sure it's something we should be uncritically embracing

Extreme acts that could result in serious injury I am sure would be covered by the law in the same way that it would be illegal to kill me even if I asked you to do it.

You'd think. That's often not how it's working in practice.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly

And they could be equally judgemental and say that people who feel like you are repressed sexually we should endeavour to protect as much as possible people whose lives have led them to a place where they are unable to live fulfilled lives due to this repression.

Extreme acts that could result in serious injury I am sure would be covered by the law in the same way that it would be illegal to kill me even if I asked you to do it.

Many people do enjoy this type of sex, maybe more so at the milder end of the scale, and it would be interesting not see the results of a study into it. My suspicion is that it is more "normal" than you seem to think it is and as such could simply be a normal.expression of human sexuality rather than a symptom of a damaged life.

They didn't say that. They said

Whether or not the concept of ‘generalisability’ should be applied in qualitative research is a matter of debate,26 but we would argue that this study provides useful, credible working hypotheses or theories about anal sexual practice among young men and women that are likely to apply outside our group of interviewees.

And go on to suggest it could inform sex education and public health work:

Anal sex among young people in this study appeared to be taking place in a context encouraging pain, risk and coercion. Harm reduction efforts targeting anal sex may help encourage discussion about mutuality and consent, reduce risky and painful techniques and challenge views that normalise coercion.

Yes it would but then to be fair if one of your friends had just told you that the chances were your previous sexual partners hadn't enjoyed having sex with you and just did it to please you then you might be a bit upset by it, no?

It could have been worse. she could have mentioned my first thought (and raised by a PP too), that if every woman he's had anal with didn't find it uncomfortable at all, his dick must be tiny

Ereshkigal

So they're basically saying what I've been saying - the sample is too small to draw wider conclusions from but that it could form the hypothesis for further studies (which is exactly what I said).

Excellent post Bernard - and bears repeating:
hurting and injuring others outside the bedroom is generally illegal. but thanks to the insidious creep of moral relativism and post modernism, as ably demonstrated by you on this this thread, there is increasing acceptance that it's OK and maybe even normal to hurt or injure your partner during sex. that maybe if you don't like it you're only into the missionary position
When I look at all the murder as 'sex gone wrong' cases, predatory adults being able to sell their programmes pushing extreme porn to 13 year olds as positive, I know that we're lowering boundaries in ways that actively harm people - and that's men as well as women:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3701737-Teen-advice-makes-me-worried

So what do you consider to be acceptable then?

I think I've been very clear about that. I don't consider hurting or injuring people acceptable. However I'm very well aware that people will do it. I would like the risk to be on the perpetrator as much as possible.

I know this will drive people into a fury and they'll feel very judged, but I will say it anyway. I regard it as very unhealthy to want to hurt others, or to be hurt. That's for any reason, including sexual pleasure. It doesn't mean I feel I should have the power to stop people doing it, but it does mean that I think we should endeavour to protect as much as possible people whose lives have led them to a place where they find being hurt sexually fulfilling.

and wouldn't it be helpful if men didn't react to finding out that some women don't like the same things as them by going into a sulk as the OP's friend appears to have done!

Yes it would but then to be fair if one of your friends had just told you that the chances were your previous sexual partners hadn't enjoyed having sex with you and just did it to please you then you might be a bit upset by it, no?

Yes. Read the study. 37 women and 34 men were individually interviewed. They don't give the sex split of the group interviews, but they appear to have taken care to reduce bias in most elements of the study so I have no reason to suppose that they didn't there as well. I'm sure you could write to them and ask them for that information if you wanted.

About the study the researchers say:

This is a qualitative study, with an in-depth analysis of a smaller sample than would be usual for epidemiological studies, but which spans three locations and diverse social groups. Whether or not the concept of ‘generalisability’ should be applied in qualitative research is a matter of debate,26 but we would argue that this study provides useful, credible working hypotheses or theories about anal sexual practice among young men and women that are likely to apply outside our group of interviewees.

and wouldn't it be helpful if men didn't react to finding out that some women don't like the same things as them by going into a sulk as the OP's friend appears to have done!

it's not the same. all but the most vanilla BDSM involves hurting and injuring others

So what do you consider to be acceptable then?

but thanks to the insidious creep of moral relativism and post modernism, as ably demonstrated by you on this this thread, there is increasing acceptance that it's OK and maybe even normal to hurt or injure your partner during sex. that maybe if you don't like it you're only into the missionary position.

I don't think it's a new thing at all, particularly amongst men seeking out dominatrix type encounters. That's not a recent phenomena.

I know that you are trying to blame porn and men for pushing this type of sex but certainly amongst people that I know and work with there has definitely been an interest in it since the release of 50 shades of grey and that has been driven by the women who read it, not men.

Maybe someone should do a study into the 50 shades effect on our sex lives.

I think more people than you realise are into what you call vanilla BDSM - is restraint, flogging, spanking etc. That's certainly what I'm hearing amongst my friends.

Good communication is key here isn't it? Needs taught to children from the start, along with good boundaries/resilience/respect etc.

And to be crystal clear I mean as life tools in general as well as for future adult (sex life) situations!

But tbh then, if this is the case, how can anyone know that their partner wants to do any sexual act at all?

Good communication is key here isn't it? Needs taught to children from the start, along with good boundaries/resilience/respect etc.

The OP presented is another version of the scene from When Harry met Sally, nothing new about men finding out women fake it sometimes!

The individual interviews were a fairly equal split of young men and women.

Do they say that?

I did not tell my friend that no women like anal sex. I told him he wouldn’t really know if his partners had or hadn’t, because women are conditioned to VERY OFTEN act cheerful about doing stuff we don’t want to do.

But tbh then, if this is the case, how can anyone know that their partner wants to do any sexual act at all?

You've focused on anal but if, as you say, women are conditioned to VERY OFTEN act cheerful about doing stuff we don’t want to do. then that could apply to anything, not just anal.

How can you overcome that? What do you suggest should happen?

I see BDSM as the same

it's not the same. all but the most vanilla BDSM involves hurting and injuring others

It's up to the people concerned to draw their own boundaries, within the law

but this is the point isn't it? hurting and injuring others outside the bedroom is generally illegal. but thanks to the insidious creep of moral relativism and post modernism, as ably demonstrated by you on this this thread, there is increasing acceptance that it's OK and maybe even normal to hurt or injure your partner during sex. that maybe if you don't like it you're only into the missionary position.

You are only supporting this research because it confirms your views. We're it to counter your views then you would be dismissing it as invalid. Which it is.

No, I recognise that these studies use smaller sample size than quantitative studies. It's one of the limitations of the research. I don't think that makes them "invalid", or that you are remotely qualified to proclaim that with any authority. It's quite ignorant.

The individual interviews were a fairly equal split of young men and women.

I find it very interesting that the fact that I object to people hurting and injuring others for sexual pleasure makes you assume I only endorse missionary position sex - why is that?

It's not about people hurting each other it's about the rights of individuals to consent. If 2 people consent to spanking each other do you disagree with it?

Where are your lines drawn?

How about if one person doesn't like to give, or to receive, oral sex? That's not hurting anyone or causing pain but it's something that they don't want to do.

I see BDSM as the same. It doesn't matter what I like or do t like, see as being normal or not. It's up to the people concerned to draw their own boundaries, within the law.