This paper evaluates Schegloff's (1997) critique of critical discourse analysis (CDA) in light of an analysis of a group discussion among three young white middle-class men discussing an episode in one of their sexual histories. It contrasts Schegloff's conversation analysis (CA) with post-structuralist theories of Laclau and Mouffe (1985; 1987), arguing that CA alone is insufficient for a complete analysis of discourse. The paper explores the contextualisation of the event, the positioning of the young man involved, and the ideological dilemmas faced by participants. It critiques Schegloff's methodological approach and the post-structuralist concept of subject positions, suggesting that a more integrated approach combining CA and post-structuralist insights is needed for a comprehensive analysis of discourse. The paper also discusses the implications for critical discursive research in social psychology. The analysis of the data reveals multiple and potentially inconsistent subject positions for the participants, including being drunk, lucky, on the moral low ground, and engaged in mutual sex with young women. These positions are influenced by interpretative repertoires, which are culturally familiar and habitual lines of argument. The paper argues that a more inclusive understanding of discourse, as proposed by post-structuralists, provides a better foundation for analysis. It concludes that while CA is useful, it must be combined with other approaches to fully understand the complexities of discourse.This paper evaluates Schegloff's (1997) critique of critical discourse analysis (CDA) in light of an analysis of a group discussion among three young white middle-class men discussing an episode in one of their sexual histories. It contrasts Schegloff's conversation analysis (CA) with post-structuralist theories of Laclau and Mouffe (1985; 1987), arguing that CA alone is insufficient for a complete analysis of discourse. The paper explores the contextualisation of the event, the positioning of the young man involved, and the ideological dilemmas faced by participants. It critiques Schegloff's methodological approach and the post-structuralist concept of subject positions, suggesting that a more integrated approach combining CA and post-structuralist insights is needed for a comprehensive analysis of discourse. The paper also discusses the implications for critical discursive research in social psychology. The analysis of the data reveals multiple and potentially inconsistent subject positions for the participants, including being drunk, lucky, on the moral low ground, and engaged in mutual sex with young women. These positions are influenced by interpretative repertoires, which are culturally familiar and habitual lines of argument. The paper argues that a more inclusive understanding of discourse, as proposed by post-structuralists, provides a better foundation for analysis. It concludes that while CA is useful, it must be combined with other approaches to fully understand the complexities of discourse.