The slut issue

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
CaptainKarma said:
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

New member
Apr 14, 2011
145
0
0
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

New member
Jan 30, 2010
399
0
0
MagunBFP said:
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

New member
Jun 11, 2012
1,175
0
0
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

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
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

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Spot1990 said:
Legion said:
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.
fuzz said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
MagunBFP said:
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

New member
Dec 16, 2011
172
0
0
Gonna take your post in little chunks.

Paradoxrifts said:
CaptainKarma said:
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 miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Lionsfan said:
Abandon4093 said:
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

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
zhoominator said:
MagunBFP said:
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...
 

miketehmage

New member
Jul 22, 2009
396
0
0
Why would you want to state the obvious in the first place? If it's obvious then you shouldn't have to state it, and if it isn't obvious you shouldn't be using a word with such negative connotations to describe someone if you aren't even sure it fits them properly.

It seems to me OP, that you just want to be edgy. Whatever, if that's your thing then cool. But it has been made clear several times throughout this thread that the word "slut" is not just a simple adjective. It's an insult. So you can't really feign ignorance anymore.
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
Treblaine said:
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.
Bill Clinton is indeed irrelevant to the issue, I was using him as an example to illustrate a point about what people consider lying. The lying part has been addressed in another post, so I won't rehash that... semantics and interpretaion doesn't seem to be our contribution to the topic.

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

When you identify a group by their plural... as in women, and do not mention that they are the majority, minority, exceptions, etc the implication is that you're speaking about the group as a whole. So yes when you said women are controlled and made victims and forced into submission by men, you are in fact referring to all women and all men (you may want to, in future, be specific about either numbers or specific portions of the group you're referring to. Clarity and details definately assist in reducing confusion or misinterpretation)

To be honest, pedantic, and blunt, you don't know the gender of the first person to call someone else a slut, you assume that a man did, or through "moral authority" caused a woman but in reality a rule you enforce on yourself, that up until a certain point was a belief that all of society agreed on (I kid you not, both men and women in the Victorian era honestly thought sex should only be done for procreation), is not forced upon you, you are not bound to it by anything exception your own belief that you must obey.

The women who started the slut walk are actually good examples of this, they refused to see slut as a negative term so took ownership of it. At the end of the day if you want to be seen as a victim you will find someone to oppress you. I'm not saying that in all cases women are free to be as slutty or promiscous as they want (pick your least offensive word, they both mean the same thing) but in alot of case a woman won't because of how she _thinks_ she'll be judged.
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
generals3 said:
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.
As long as the woman is responsible, uses protection and gets regular check ups there is no reason having lots of sex should result in the spreading of STDs. As long as it is clear that a relationship is casual, there is no reason anyone's heart should be broken.

"Slut" isn't a term that applies to both males and females. It is a word that applies to females only, and is intended to shame women who have and enjoy lots of sex. The male term is "player", which simply doesn't have the same social and historical context to make it hurtful. You can pretend that it applies to males but that is dishonest, just as "******" will never apply to white people even if you use it regarding them. Traditionally, they are words which have been used to hurt and denigrate a particular group of people and are callbacks to a time when those people were essentially second class citizens, seen as objects rather than people.

I don't have a problem with 'cheater' because it isn't blatantly sexist, and just isn't a very strong word. 'Cheater' is used to refer to someone who betrays their partner's trust in a relationship, but it's also what you call someone who moves their character too many spaces in Monopoly.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
CaptainKarma said:
It's telling that half the cases there are men being awarded damages, even a deception involving the lab.
No, that isn't what it says at all and it would be dangerous for you to go away believing that.

Because it doesn't matter if South Korean and UK courts rule in favour of men who have been wrongly deceived into believing that they're the fathers of the children they've been paying for. If you live elsewhere, such as the United States or Australia, where courts have legally forced men to pay for children which are not theirs. The precedents that you have to worry about is what has occurred in your country of residence.

And this is why men should always be the one in control of their own biological material.


CaptainKarma said:
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.
And the majority of the women attending these slut walks would take it for granted that if a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant, and that they decide to keep the child then that would be his responsibility to take.

It's kind of like the possibly apocryphal story about Winston Churchill asking a woman if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars, and when she laughs says that she would, he then asks would she do it for a dollar, and it is only then that she gets offended by the prospect. We've already established that these women do not wish to show any personal responsibility or self-discipline, so it's interesting then when and where they decide that others should be held responsible for the unforeseen consequences of their actions.

And no, I am not interested in learning about how someone is the exception.

Exceptions prove nothing.
Words prove nothing.

What I am interested in is actions and their results, something that cannot be provided by hitting the reply button on an internet forum.