The slut issue

[Paradoxrifts]

So then why is it "wrong" to call someone a player/slut if they sleep around a lot? It seems to me like you're just stating the obvious with this, you know?

This is actually quite simple.

It is still an issue twelve years into the new millennium because social conservatives produce the lion's share of native population renewal in pretty much all Western nations within the anglosphere. This almost without exception below the replacement level needed to sustain the current population let alone provide population growth required to sustain a modern capitalist consumer based society, so this is topped up by immigration but the catch 22 here is that increasingly the immigrants that are available also happen to be socially conservative.

Hence why it appears that progressive political thought has been stuck in neutral going nowhere fast for the last 10-20 years.

 

[Smeatza]

There's nothing wrong with using the word "slut" at all.
As long as your standards for male and female sluttery are the same.

It is simply a quicker and easier word to say than "promiscuous".

 

[sethisjimmy]

Because slut is used as an insult for something that isn't inherently negative.

It's more like if I called someone a ****** for being gay, or calling a black person a ******.

Another reason being is that "slut" is rarely used as you describe it. It's usually used against people who "don't dress properly" or even against people you just don't like and want to slander. Or it's often used when the person using it doesn't actually have any real evidence of the so-called "slutty" behavior of the accused.

It's pretty simply logic and if you'd thought about for a few minutes more I think we wouldn't have this thread.

 

[CaptainKarma]

Being a stud is hard.
Being a slut is easy.

There's nothing wrong with women sleeping around. However they're often too stupid to take a pill everyday, so they get pregnant and keep the kid. Now the man's got to foot the bill for 18 years for a kid he never wanted. Who knows, he might not even be the father because she slept around so much. In situations like this the word slut works pretty well.

Just calling a woman a slut because she enjoys promiscuous safe sex is unnecessary.

Okay, dude, it's less about the word in your case, and more the fact that you have some slight anger issues towards women. Why do you feel the need to bring up these mythical women trapping people with babies? It's not healthy.

 

[generals3]

Because if a word describing your behavior hurts your feelings you have only yourself to blame.

Slut is a slur. That's like calling your flamboyant friend a ****** and saying "Well it describes your behaviour!" It isn't a descriptor. It's a loaded term with extremely negative connotations.

I beg to differ. It is both a descriptor and loaded. I could also argue that "cheater" is loaded and people should say "someone who doesn't follow the rules". And i actually wouldn't use such a loaded terms if it weren't for all the negative effects such behaviors can have. (higher odds of getting or giving an STD and "breaking someone's heart" (not everyone knows who they get involved with is a "slut"(male or female))) And as such, as long as the behavior has negative side effects i will keep on using a term loaded with negativity.

 

[fuzz]

Being a stud is hard.
Being a slut is easy.

There's nothing wrong with women sleeping around. However they're often too stupid to take a pill everyday, so they get pregnant and keep the kid. Now the man's got to foot the bill for 18 years for a kid he never wanted. Who knows, he might not even be the father because she slept around so much. In situations like this the word slut works pretty well.

Just calling a woman a slut because she enjoys promiscuous safe sex is unnecessary.

Okay, dude, it's less about the word in your case, and more the fact that you have some slight anger issues towards women. Why do you feel the need to bring up these mythical women trapping people with babies? It's not healthy.

I was a little extreme. My point was sometimes 'slut' is the right word to describe someone. And no, women like this are not mythical, it happens more than you might think. I don't have issues with women, I have issues with individuals who take a man's mistake and make him pay for it for 18 years when a woman can leave her responsibilities behind and be celebrated for doing so.

 

[AngloDoom]

I think that anyone who has sex with lots of random people is worthy of negative judgement. It's destabilizing for society.

Not being confrontational at all, just genuinely curious:

Why do you believe this is destabilising for society? What do you think it does to destabilise our societies? I've just never heard someone say that before.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Saying slut is as acceptable as any offensive term. If it's used light heartedly between friends then it's good, if it's used to torment someone it's bad. And there's a whole spectrum between. Unfortunately, abuse will always exist, but banning every word that offends you will lead nowhere. New words will be made, etc. My friends all call each other sluts, I do it too. It's funny when no one cares. This, to me, is ideal. But I don't go out of my way to abuse anyone who is bothered by the term.

 

[Lieju]

I don't have issues with women, I have issues with individuals who take a man's mistake and make him pay for it for 18 years when a woman can leave her responsibilities behind and be celebrated for doing so.

What, are you suggesting that if a woman has a child it's going to be purely the responsibility of the man involved?

Because if the woman chooses to keep the baby, it's them who have to go through with the whole pregnancy thing, and it's not like they can just force the man to take the child and not be involved at all.

And 'celebrated'? Depends a lot on where you live.

Don't want to have children? Make sure to use a condom.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I'll leave you with this piece of wisdom OP: you can say anything you like, anything. It just depends on how you say it.

You have no idea how much I agree.
Implication is everything.
Slightly more OT: Most people think of the unpleasant connotations of the word slut, but y'know, things are changing slowly, and not as many women get as offended.
Then again, the women who don't mind it often are rather promiscuous

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Okay, dude, it's less about the word in your case, and more the fact that you have some slight anger issues towards women. Why do you feel the need to bring up these mythical women trapping people with babies? It's not healthy.

I would just like to slip a word in edgewise here.

Because as you very well know, such a thing has totally has never ever happened before in the history of mankind, and even if it were to happen the courts would naturally side with the party who has been made a fool of, lied to and financially exploited.

Not. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud#Cases]

Fact is the family court system puts the needs of the children first, the needs of their mothers a close second and the men involved are frequently treated not as human beings deserving of rights, but resources to be exploited. And that is when the children involved are not even theirs to begin with, so as you can well imagine, if you happen to really be the actual biological father and the mother of your child considers that it is worth both the minimal amount of time and effort to come after you to provide for a child that you never wanted in the first place, it is even easier than that.

But I do find it at very least unwittingly ironic that this issue crops up in a thread triggered by modern feminism's fascination with holding slut walks. Nothing quite truly exemplifies just exactly why I find modern feminism and its male counterpart quite so distasteful as how they rush to offshore personal responsibility and self-discipline from the individual unto the shoulders of absolutely anyone else but themselves.

Remember everyone, whatever happens you are always the victim.

 

[Hawkmoon269]

Because lying is (usually) wrong, so it's okay to negatively label someone liar.

Because cheating is bad, so it's okay to negatively label someone cheater.

Sleeping around however, is not an inherently a bad thing, so giving someone a negative label because of it is not okay.

It's as simple as that.

 

[zhoominator]

First of all, my point about lying was that it is a matter of record the ex-President Clinton was fellated by by Miss Lewinsky. That being said whether that is sex is to alot of people a matter of interpretation. It all depends on if you believe oral sex is actual sex. If you do then he lied, if you do then he didn't. That is why the truth is not always absolute.

No, the truth is absolute. You just chose to ignore the definition you were just given. It doesn't matter what the other people thought on the issue of oral sex being actual sex. If he thought it was sex and said otherwise, then he is lying. If he does genuinely believe that oral sex is not sex and says the same thing then he is not a liar.

Lying is not subjective. The act of lying is saying something you believe to be untrue. The only ambiguity that comes into play is when other people are trying to determine whether you are lying or not, but that has nothing to do with the actual lie itself. I could tell you the sky has purple stripes, in which case I'd be lying because I do not believe this, but you could not 100% determine whether I was lying without reading my mind or something. That doesn't change the fact that I lied.

I love the escapist, the only forum I go on where we all get caught up in stupid semantic details rather than having a proper discussion.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Men who are promiscous are just as bad as women who do so. At the moment, It is socially wrong to call a woman a slut because of the collosal sexist double standard, but when people finally realise that anyone sleeping around a lot is bad (On the grounds of, potential Emotional damage and transmission of sexual diseases) Calling a woman or indeed a man who sleeps around a slut should be no different from any other insult.

Slut at the moment only gets so much power because of this idiotic double standard that's been invented by, and lets be fair to them, Douchebags. A slut and a player are the same thing, but for some reason we've started viewing it as okay when men do it. Seriously, Sexual diseases spread faster when people fuck around. One person gets it, gives it to someone who sleeps around, then everyone they sleep with gets it too. It's common sense. Sex isn't bad, but indiscriminate sex has the potential to be, Gender irrelevant.

 

[General Vagueness]

It's a touchy issue, a lot of people still hold to the "wait until marriage" rule, a lot of people that don't feel like they should (or should have), and some people don't go that far but hold strongly to some other guideline (like "it should only be with someone you love" or even a certain number of dates). That and it's just considered an insulting word generally.

 

[Legion]

He can always say no if he doesn't have a condom and doesn't trust the girl. If he does trust her and gets screwed over, well then that's his fault for making a poor judgement and offloading the responsibility onto her.

This part I take issue with. If he trusts her and is betrayed it's his fault? That's victim blaming. In fact if she lied to him about it to trick him into sleeping with her, if the same rules apply to men and women, it's a form of rape.

Saying it's a man's fault if a woman lies about being on the pill is disgusting. That's the same mentality that blames women for getting raped. But I get it, women can do no wrong.

Allow me to clarify:

I am not suggesting that a guy is the sole person to blame, nor am I talking about serious monogamous relationships.

I am saying that if a guy has a one night stand, and does not take any form of responsibility, and merely assumes that the girls on the pill, then the guy is not entirely blameless. He could have chosen a surer way of protection, but he chose not to take responsibility. The girl is obviously in the wrong as well, if not more so, but people are responsible for their own safety and well being.

I am not talking about situations where you sleep with somebody you know and have reason to trust them. That's entirely different, and is also not relevant to the idea of 'sluts' which is what we are discussing.

I admit the wording in my previous post was poor.

 

[Treblaine]

First of all, my point about lying was that it is a matter of record the ex-President Clinton was fellated by by Miss Lewinsky. That being said whether that is sex is to alot of people a matter of interpretation. It all depends on if you believe oral sex is actual sex. If you do then he lied, if you do then he didn't. That is why the truth is not always absolute.

"women who as a group break out of this convention of "Slut labels negative power" never go back to it."

I was under the impression that you were saying all women were controlled by men and forced to obey their views of women having sex is bad... unless its with them... in which case the sex is good but the woman is bad... but if women can break out of this convention and not be forced back into it then who exactly is binding them to the archaic value system? The men who are controlling them, but not controlling them enough to stop them from breaking free? The other women who just want to keep all other women in their place? Or is there another group who is keeping them brow beaten and submissive?

As for your point on drug addicts, I see no reason to with hold help or assistance from anyone, but I'm not going to say, and I hope you're not going to defend, the obvious intentional self-destructive path they set for themselves.

As to me clouding the subtext, you may see it as obfuscation, I see it as adding dimensions to your own arguement. Its not as black and white as you've stated it. Men aren't the enemy, I have enough on my plate controlling everything in my own life, I have neither the interest nor the inclination to start dicating what standards women need to live up or down to.

What part of when I said: "Lying is claiming what is contrary to what you KNOW to be true." don't you understand? Bill Clinton is irrelevant to that as the issue there was "sexual relations".

"I was under the impression that you were saying all women were controlled by men"

I don't know where you got that impression but you certainly didn't get it from me.

I said WHY SOME women use it, not that ALL women use it.

"Its not as black and white as you've stated it. Men aren't the enemy"

Well no one has ever suggested men are the enemy: simply that women did not create this and impose this on themselves.

 

[CaptainKarma]

Gonna take your post in little chunks.

Okay, dude, it's less about the word in your case, and more the fact that you have some slight anger issues towards women. Why do you feel the need to bring up these mythical women trapping people with babies? It's not healthy.

I would just like to slip a word in edgewise here.

Because as you very well know, such a thing has totally has never ever happened before in the history of mankind, and even if it were to happen the courts would naturally side with the party who has been made a fool of, lied to and financially exploited.

Not. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud#Cases]

It's telling that half the cases there are men being awarded damages, even a deception involving the lab. Maybe mythical was an overstatement (that same article puts it at a slightly hazy 3-8%)but the prevalence of false paternity isn't really my issues with his post, its the way he jumps from "sluts" to "sperm stealers" which suggests a slightly extreme fear of women.

Fact is the family court system puts the needs of the children first, the needs of their mothers a close second and the men involved are frequently treated not as human beings deserving of rights, but resources to be exploited. And that is when the children involved are not even theirs to begin with, so as you can well imagine, if you happen to really be the actual biological father and the mother of your child considers that it is worth both the minimal amount of time and effort to come after you to provide for a child that you never wanted in the first place, it is even easier than that.

Kinda like this. Think through the alternative: men don't have to support their wives. We now have a huge chunk of the next generation growing up in poverty. Admittedly the solution to this is not to relentlessly pursue paternity suits, but to have massive government-supplied child support, but that most certainly isn't gonna happen.

But I do find it at very least unwittingly ironic that this issue crops up in a thread triggered by modern feminism's fascination with holding slut walks. Nothing quite truly exemplifies just exactly why I find modern feminism and its male counterpart quite so distasteful as how they rush to offshore personal responsibility and self-discipline from the individual unto the shoulders of absolutely anyone else but themselves.

Remember everyone, whatever happens you are always the victim.

This is the exact attitudes that slut-walks are railing against. You're saying that they should have self discipline and take responsibility, they are saying that THERE IS NO RESPONSIBILTY TO TAKE. If people want to sleep around, they should. They want to dress provocatively, they can. You say they should have discipline, but you haven't said why.

 

[Lionsfan]

I still think my suggestion of calling them Schwinns is the best.

I'll defend this idea with my life.

Schwinns are stupid. Bianchi Bicycles 4 lyfe!!!!!11!!!

You and me.... We're not on good terms right now.

Just try to catch me. I'll ride away on the world's oldest manufactured bike! Can't beat 127 years of quality!

 

[MagunBFP]

First of all, my point about lying was that it is a matter of record the ex-President Clinton was fellated by by Miss Lewinsky. That being said whether that is sex is to alot of people a matter of interpretation. It all depends on if you believe oral sex is actual sex. If you do then he lied, if you do then he didn't. That is why the truth is not always absolute.

No, the truth is absolute. You just chose to ignore the definition you were just given. It doesn't matter what the other people thought on the issue of oral sex being actual sex. If he thought it was sex and said otherwise, then he is lying. If he does genuinely believe that oral sex is not sex and says the same thing then he is not a liar.

Lying is not subjective. The act of lying is saying something you believe to be untrue. The only ambiguity that comes into play is when other people are trying to determine whether you are lying or not, but that has nothing to do with the actual lie itself. I could tell you the sky has purple stripes, in which case I'd be lying because I do not believe this, but you could not 100% determine whether I was lying without reading my mind or something. That doesn't change the fact that I lied.

I love the escapist, the only forum I go on where we all get caught up in stupid semantic details rather than having a proper discussion.

I see your semantics and raise you philosophy... If a man says something that he believes is a lie, but everyone else considers the truth is he stil lying? Is the lie in the perception of the beholder or is it up to the man speaking it? What if he believes it but everyone else thinks its a lie? Everyone then calls him a liar despite the fact that what was said was as far as the speaker is concerned the truth... Galileo's truth that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and his subsequent retraction is, I believe, a good example of this... unless I'm lying...