The slut issue

[Shadowstar38]

When you only reply to the part where I point out you're dishonest you're the one refusing to get back to matters. Sorry, but I think we're a bit old for "You're making me not reply to the relevant part!"

Everything else I've said has been retorted with, "You're lying" Why would I put in the effort of writing out a paragraph if that's all I going to get in return. This is getting silly.

You think I'm dishonest. I think I'm honest.
You think I'm missing something. I think I'm clear on everything.

We are not gaining anything right now.

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Slayer_2]

Because "gamer" isn't usually used as an insult. Cheater, maybe. The problem with the term "slut" is that it further propagates the idea that women have to be sexually "pure" and show restraint, while men must fuck whoever will let them.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I'm obviously right

You think you're right. I think differently. Differing opinions here. That's about the length of it.

 

[Stasisesque]

Let me get this right.
Liars - lie.
Cheaters - cheat.
Gamers - game.
So sluts must.... slut?

This.

Liar, Cheater and Gamer are all the direct noun form of the verb. "Slut" is not related (etymologically speaking) in any way to sex or sleeping with people - there is no pattern there, it has nothing in common with the other words. Sex doesnt even have a verb sense like lie, cheat and game do - there is no such word as a "sexer".

At best, the line of reasoning in the OP could vaguely argue that a slut is somebody who "sluts". Again, that proves nothing about how it relates to sex.

If OP really wants a word that fits the pattern - try "copulator", or "fornicator". Both words that directly mean "somebody who has sex", and dont have additional insult or judgement attached.

Actually it does

Liars - lie.
Cheaters - cheat.
Gamers - game.
Sluts - Slattern

Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.

Slattern is a noun. You've just said exactly what was said before you, but you're using a synonym.

If, taking this and your previous post citing histrionic personality disorder, these things are true, then why aren't we referring to men as 'sluts' for doing exactly the same thing? Why are men praised for their actions, while women are demonised?

 

[peruvianskys]

If, taking this and your previous post citing histrionic personality disorder, these things are true, then why aren't we referring to men as 'sluts' for doing exactly the same thing? Why are men praised for their actions, while women are demonised?

This is the important question.

I think it's tacky and self-indulgent when any person has a lot of empty sex, but "slut" definitely carries a misogynistic emphasis. Until the time when men and women are held to equal cultural standards regarding sexuality, slut doesn't mean anything except "woman with the audacity to act like a man."

 

[Heaven's Guardian]

Of course it isn't "wrong". The word is meant as a pejorative for a socially undesirable behaviour, just like all the other labels. Its negative connotations are because society generally views this kind of behaviour as bad, so the word doesn't really get used in an impartial sense, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as a word. Is it judgmental? Yes, but anyone who claims to be non-judgmental is a liar or an idiot. We all decide which behaviours we find to be positive, negative and neutral, and choose to interact socially with people based on those judgments. So the word can hardly be called "wrong", because it judges people based on their actions, just like the examples the OP gave. If certain people don't like the judgment, they don't have to, but it's hardly an unfair judgment and so everyone who finds the word insulting will just have to deal with it.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Because... "slut" is an insult. Some people don't consider sleeping around a bad thing.

Plus it is such a misused term anyway.

Example of misuse:

I've heard of people calling a girl such after she had been with two people within a little over two year period.

The second one I've heard some one calling a girl such when she had sex one time before she was married.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Because slut has a negative connotation, the various other words have more neutral connotations. Also, slut is not an indicator of having lots of sex its a notion of someone being sexually lose and reckless or easy. Sleeper or sexer would be the equivalent word using a similar word construction.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I'm obviously right

You think you're right. I think differently. Differing opinions here. That's about the length of it.

I backed it up with an argument. You just deny. And give meaningless platitudes like "agree to disagree".

Flawed argument. I never put words in your mouth. Therefore I never misrepresented anything.

Taking the word at face value is absurd is what I got out of your side.

Me
-taking it negatively is just as absurd.

that didnt excluded everything else is could possibly be. I didnt put it as an either or. But really the point of the statement I made was, without context you have nowhere to go except the pure definition, aka, face value.

 

[Stasisesque]

Slattern is a noun. You've just said exactly what was said before you, but you're using a synonym.

Thats because Slattern is also an Noun as Adjective. Kind of like how mountain & bike are both nouns, but if you combine them then mountain becomes an adjective. Slattern is the same: Its a noun as an adjective.

Understand that you are now arguing with an academic librarian on the usage of the english language.

Slatternly is an adjective. Slattern is a noun.

How would 'slattern' become a noun as adjective? Slat tern? Which part of the word is the noun, which part is the adjective?

 

[Shadowstar38]

Oh come on, another little trick like that? Context makes it pretty obvious. Are you just claiming you made an inane reply that had jack shit to do with what I actually said on purpose?

>Implying this is a trick
>Implying the reply was inane
>Implying it had jack shit to do with what you're saying

Hostile replies like this is why I tried to end it with "We cant agree so F-it". Because this conversation has gone nowhere.

And no, this isn't dodging your question. It's just a loaded question.

 

[el_kabong]

Interesting stuff. I only use the term "slut" when I know someone's inner workings and personal history. It's entirely situational. If a women's sexual activities disgust me on a personal level, then they get the label "slut". My personal sexual put-down for a man is to call him a "skeevy/shifty ************/pervert".

While I know that this can be personally biased, I think there's a huge difference between a woman who's comfortable talking/engaging in sex (or dressing provocatively) and someone that I find morally reprehensible. I understand how important healthy sexual activity is to human beings. It's when people make it either unhealthy or completely trivial that I get offended.

Example of what I use the term "slut" for. I have an acquaintance (a women) who's at least had over 25 sexual partners. She had a child as a result, which she doesn't give the proper care to (essentially, she lets her parents take care of it while she goes to get smashed at bars and pick up guys). In hearing from a couple friends who made the mistake of sleeping with her, she apparently doesn't use protection (though, thankfully, my friends insisted). One night, she came over to me and my friends while we were having a pint, pointed out two guys that she was with and asked which she should sleep with that night. I, disgusted that she is making sex so trivial that she's asking outside opinions from guys she barely knows, said sarcastically, "why don't you just flip a coin?". And she did...it was heads.

I definitely use the term "slut" in referring to her. She's disgusting and deserves a title that carries my feelings of disgust towards her.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Ask the typical man(not married/in a relationship) and more often than not, they'd like to get with the slut.

You might quantify you are possibly right with that statement because you said "typical", but I don't think that is the case. The sex crazed man is a stereotype. I've known plenty of actual typical guys to know that the sex crazed men that talk about getting with the "sluts" and any other girl, aren't typical.

I agree with this statement here:

No, most hetrosexual men don't. Unfortunately society still has this "men will crawl over broken glass for sex" concept. Most men don't want to have sex with "the slut," on the basis that she has been with "everyone in town;" if yiou'll excuse the hyperbolism of that statement.

You definitely hit it on the nose.

The girl I want to get with is the girl I love on multiple levels(not just physical) and know that she has the same mentality towards me.

Anything else is a fantasy and not everybody wants all there fantasies to come true.

 

[Kuhkren]

Yeah, I don't like how slut is used to describe women who dress provocatively or who enjoy sex and pursue it regularly. It has a very negative tone and demeans women. I feel men and women should be allowed to enjoy sex and dress sexily without negative or positive labels attached to them.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are not true, yes.

*Edited for spelling*

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are nor ture, yes.

Nope, besides the unlikely possibility you deliberately intended to just post shit that had nothing to do with my post those are the only other logical possibilities. Mistake is either deliberate or unintentional. Unintentional means mistake, deliberate would mean dishonesty most likely. But you'll evade and not reply to my argument here, just deny. Because you know it's right.

I know what your argument is. No need to retype it. I'm denying it because it is incorrect.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are nor ture, yes.

Nope, besides the unlikely possibility you deliberately intended to just post shit that had nothing to do with my post those are the only other logical possibilities. Mistake is either deliberate or unintentional. Unintentional means mistake, deliberate would mean dishonesty most likely. But you'll evade and not reply to my argument here, just deny. Because you know it's right.

I know what your argument is. No need to retype it. I'm denying it because it is incorrect.

Right and this is the part where you prove it's incorrect. If you're not just lying.

Prove I posted something that had nothing to do with the preceeding post.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are nor ture, yes.

Nope, besides the unlikely possibility you deliberately intended to just post shit that had nothing to do with my post those are the only other logical possibilities. Mistake is either deliberate or unintentional. Unintentional means mistake, deliberate would mean dishonesty most likely. But you'll evade and not reply to my argument here, just deny. Because you know it's right.

I know what your argument is. No need to retype it. I'm denying it because it is incorrect.

Right and this is the part where you prove it's incorrect. If you're not just lying.

Prove I posted something that had nothing to do with the preceeding post.

Except it'd be absurd to take it at face value, even if it'd make the world nice and simple. There's a social context to the word. It doesn't vanish.

Always assuming that a word has the more negative connotation is just as absurd. A large number of words can be used with other meanings, but you ant let your mind default on the lesser one.

Let's see... I deny that we should take things at face value, you jump t always assuming it is negative. Easy!

You say you cant take things at face value.

If you're not taking something at face value, you have to make some type of assumption as to the meaning. Said assumption could be false without context.

Those lines look related.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, because you said jack shit about context originally. Sorry, can't really insert new things to fix your mistake. Btw, I mentioned social context there so...

Insert new things? Nope. Explaining why they have something to do with each other. Because you didn't see it. If you still dont see it, meh, I guess.