The slut issue

Ledan

New member
Apr 15, 2009
798
0
0
I'd agree with the OP, but the examples i would use are: asshole, douche bag, *****, and slut. I know those are all insults, but there is a subtle difference in meaning. And when you are talking to people about someone, these words can be used to convey specific meanings.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Kakashi on crack said:
So I have a question...

We call someone a liar if they lie, especially if they lie a lot.

We call someone a cheater if they cheat, especially if they cheat a lot (Whether we speak from a videogame sense or a marriage-breaking stance)

We call someone a gamer if they play a lot of games... I could go on, you get the point.
But a slutter is not someone who sluts, now is it? Your argument is fairly ridiculous. The term slut isn't a description of a person based on activity, but a judgement especially since it is applied gender specifically. By your logic we call someone a fucker if they fuck a lot.
 

VivaciousDeimos

New member
May 1, 2010
354
0
0
Aris Khandr said:
Dreiko said:
Hmm, what would be the non-offensive alternative I wonder? "Promiscuous" has a negative connotation to it as well, so does "town bike" and other such terms.


Would "overly sexed" be good? Is there even a possible equivalent to "liar" or "gamer" when the subject is "women who have tons of sex"?
Try "vivacious". It means "full of life and energy", and works rather nicely as a non-derogatory term for someone who enjoys sex.
Just as a random aside, I approve of this word.

[small]Though as I think others have already pointed out, it doesn't quite fit. Still a good word though.[/small]
 

CaptainKarma

New member
Dec 16, 2011
172
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
And this is why men should always be the one in control of their own biological material.
So wear a condom. Easy

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.
The slut walks were largely about rape, so I was talking about that, not really relevant to the pregnancy thing. And again with that self-discipline thing, still don't know what you mean.

And please explain how demanding paternity is "refusing to take responsibility". Since the woman is still going to carry the pregnancy and raise the child. That's not enough responsibility for you?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
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 takes TWO to create a pregnancy, both the man and the woman contributing genetic material, and BOTH take responsibility for the child one way or another.

The woman has to raise the child or may suffer stiff criminal penalties if she abandons the child or must prove they are mentally incompetent to have the state take the child from them. If the child does go into social care (foster home or orphanage) then the alimony ends as alimony is paid to the biological mother raising a child not to the child itself.

A man can walk away from his pregnant lover far easier - both socially and legally - than a mother can abandon their child.

Both have to pay their dues, the man has to contribute proportionally far less with alimony which is just a portion of his income, not his time, effort, home or worries. People worry less about paying far more in increased insurance premiums.

And I REALLY HOPE you aren't going to propose forcing abortion on women, that can never possibly work, what if the man wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't, should the police chase her down, arrest her kicking and screaming then strap her to a bed and perform the abortion against her every will!?!? No. Abortion can only ever work as the woman's free choice or else we descend into barbarism.

So considering that, the man has at least some responsibility to the baby he made.

It's not like the man had no choice, it may have been just sexual pleasure to him but the reality is he injected his sperm into her womb, that is how you make babies and no competent man can claim ignorance on that. The only guarantee he ACTUALLY has of not creating a pregnancy is not to put his sperm in her womb, so:
-ejaculate anywhere else other than in her vagina
-use a quality condom that won't split. and stop if you feel it split
-get a vasectomy

Summary:
-men have control over where they ejaculate
-women have control over their womb
-both take responsibility for the baby produced from such biological union

Though I agree in principal, I don't think in practice the law is very effective with the government micro-managing families lives when even if the parents should equally contribute... it ultimately hurts the children if parents are forced to contribute and sabotage parents love for their children.

What should always be attempted first is for parents to willingly support their child, not just in money but in other efforts. A father is more than a paycheque, they need to pass on their unique knowledge and experience as well as be their advocate for their child even if they don't get on with their baby's mother. The court can't force that and forcing payments stand in the way of that. Child support courts should be a matter of last resort, not standard practice. Arbitration, particularly via community leaders is the best solution with child-support-courts only as a threat to be avoided.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Dags90 said:
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
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.

OP, you sort of hint at in your OP. Men are players when they sleep around, women are sluts. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is different a-sexist-double-standard-propagated-by-a-patriarchal-society. (I think that has a better ring to it)
Of course, equal opportunity disdain towards promiscuity ends up being wrong on different grounds. I'd go on, but much further and I'll be run off (peacefully and tolerantly) for being asquare at best and a self-righteous bigot at worst. Just saying, not everyone thinks players are cool. It's just a street-cool term for "man-whore."
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
CaptainKarma said:
The slut walks were largely about rape, so I was talking about that, not really relevant to the pregnancy thing. And again with that self-discipline thing, still don't know what you mean.
We are discussing about where and when people should be expected to display a little self-discipline, a little self-control and take personal responsibility for their own actions. So I disagree, I would say that if you expect others to exercise these qualities then it would naturally be expected that you would be afforded the same level of scrutiny in regards to your own.

But you see I honestly don't think that slut walks are really about protesting rape at all, but instead are another slacktivist style stunt practiced by women who would like to go out dressed to the nines to public places, which by public consensus are the places people go to form romantic liaisons, but only get hit on by the people they would like to hit on them.

And by self-discipline I mean to remain firmly in charge of your own mental faculties in places that are generally full of total strangers, especially when faced with the temptations of easy access to substances which can and will impair your ability to make sound judgements. I'm a fairly big guy and I still wouldn't write myself off with alcohol and drugs the way I've seen some people do over the years, the simple fact is that regardless of your gender putting yourself in those sorts of situations can be really fucking dangerous. And just because occasionally terrible things have and will occur, doesn't mean that we should let up on the message that if you want to go home and wake up the next morning no worse for wear after a full night's worth of misadventure that you would be best served by keeping your shit together.




Treblaine said:
Both have to pay their dues, the man has to contribute proportionally far less with alimony which is just a portion of his income, not his time, effort, home or worries. People worry less about paying far more in increased insurance premiums.
Thankfully Australia has largely done away with the concept of alimony laws. But lets take the Peter Vs. Peter case from the link I posted a little back in regards to child support.

The court ordered this guy to pay $1,200 a month in child support for the next fifteen years. Which works out to be $14,400 every year for a child that he would ultimately prove to be not his biological offspring but would continue paying for on a legal technicality.

Now I do not know what sort of scratch he was earning at the time, but I would certainly say that anyone who takes home a paycheck in the low to middle income bracket is going to miss $1,200 a month or $14,400 a year.

We're not talking chump change here. Children are expensive. And then of course there is the prospect of starting another relationship and having that woman expecting you to be the father of your child, a child whom you might actually wish to raise together with her assuming of course that between the both of you that you can afford it.

It takes two people to have consensual and unprotected sex, but afterwards only one party is ever given a choice. Men when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that women have already made.
 

Seydaman

New member
Nov 21, 2008
2,494
0
0
FargoDog said:
Kakashi on crack said:
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?
Calling someone a slut isn't even remotely impartial. It's a pretty damn judging term. Because God forbid women enjoy sex.

That would just be awful.
Yea, equality is fucked up man, crazy radicals. Wanting women to enjoy themselves, PFAH!

/sarcasm hat off

Really, it's because of the connotations, even gamer has this. It's unfair to make assumptions on people and stack negative adjectives that may or may not apply to them. People are people, and titles are dumb.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
It takes two people to have consensual and unprotected sex, but afterwards only one party is ever given a choice. Men when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that women have already made.
Nope, the INVERSE.

"WOMen when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that they have already made with the man"

Men + women decide to have sex that leads to conception.

Women decide on whether to keep the foetus.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
Treblaine said:
Paradoxrifts said:
It takes two people to have consensual and unprotected sex, but afterwards only one party is ever given a choice. Men when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that women have already made.
Nope, the INVERSE.

"WOMen when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that they have already made with the man"

Men + women decide to have sex that leads to conception.

Women decide on whether to keep the foetus.
You do know what inverse implies, right?

That it is the exact opposite of something, which in this case would mean that you'd be implying that it was exclusively the man who made the decision, and not as you went on to claim afterwards that a mutual decision between two parties had occurred. So yes, what begins with what one would hope to be a mutual decision, quickly becomes her decision and thereafter the male partner must deal with the ramifications of that decision.

Therefore you still haven't invalidated anything I've already stated, and proven nothing except that you cannot spell the word fetus.

You see when two people do something together that they really ought not to have done in the first place like an accidental pregnancy, then one of them pleads that they ought to be given the exclusive opportunity to decide whether the both of them will be excused from the consequences of their actions that they took together, or have to deal with the ramifications of that decision for the rest of their lives, well, to me that comes across as immensely self-serving case to make.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Paradoxrifts said:
You do know what inverse implies, right?

That it is the exact opposite of something, which in this case would mean that you'd be implying that it was exclusively the man who made the decision, and not as you went on to claim afterwards that a mutual decision between two parties had occurred. So yes, what begins with what one would hope to be a mutual decision, quickly becomes her decision and thereafter the male partner must deal with the ramifications of that decision.

Therefore you still haven't invalidated anything I've already stated, and proven nothing except that you cannot spell the word fetus.

You see when two people do something together that they really ought not to have done in the first place like an accidental pregnancy, then one of them pleads that they ought to be given the exclusive opportunity to decide whether the both of them will be excused from the consequences of their actions that they took together, or have to deal with the ramifications of that decision for the rest of their lives, well, to me that comes across as immensely self-serving case to make.
First of all: A fetus (pronounced /ˈfiːtəs/; also spelled foetus, f?tus, faetus, or fætus, see below)

Always check american spelling before you call someone out.

Second:

What solution do you suggest? Its a two party system. One vote for and one vote against is an impasse. And due to reasons of unchangeable biology its the womans body containing the fetus. If the woman says no what option is there other than forced abortion? Consider the hypothetical outcomes where disagreement is had.

1. Man wants and woman doesnt want the fetus and its discarded. Man has to put up with crushing disappointment.

2. Man wants and woman doesnt want and the fetus is kept by force. Woman has a preventable change in body and metabolism forced on her for nine months that could otherwise be prevented totally against her will. Afterwards responsibility can slide from 0% to 100% responsibility for both the man and the woman depending on how they feel about raising the baby.



3. Man doesnt want and woman wants the fetus and its discarded. Invasive unconsenting abortion the only way to reach such a scenario. Totally unethical and unimaginable moral boundaries are crossed here. Forced abortion doesnt sound good no matter how you spin it.

4. Man doesnt want and woman wants and its kept. Best case scenario (for the man) is that the woman has the resources to raise it without him and can rely on someone else. As such the mans participation is totally optional. Worst case is the woman is reliant on the man to provide resources for the baby. Shitty potential scenario. But better than 3.

No one is arguing its ideal. But in both scenarios the one where the woman doesnt get what she wants all result in an (arguably) unethical practice in order to ensure the mans opinion is valued. Its self serving on the basis that of the two evils the ones that affect the men are lesser than those that would affect the woman.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
Treblaine said:
Paradoxrifts said:
It takes two people to have consensual and unprotected sex, but afterwards only one party is ever given a choice. Men when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that women have already made.
Nope, the INVERSE.

"WOMen when they are given choices are only ever given choices that prove to be derivatives of other choices that they have already made with the man"

Men + women decide to have sex that leads to conception.

Women decide on whether to keep the foetus.
You do know what inverse implies, right?

That it is the exact opposite of something, which in this case would mean that you'd be implying that it was exclusively the man who made the decision, and not as you went on to claim afterwards that a mutual decision between two parties had occurred. So yes, what begins with what one would hope to be a mutual decision, quickly becomes her decision and thereafter the male partner must deal with the ramifications of that decision.

Therefore you still haven't invalidated anything I've already stated, and proven nothing except that you cannot spell the word fetus.

You see when two people do something together that they really ought not to have done in the first place like an accidental pregnancy, then one of them pleads that they ought to be given the exclusive opportunity to decide whether the both of them will be excused from the consequences of their actions that they took together, or have to deal with the ramifications of that decision for the rest of their lives, well, to me that comes across as immensely self-serving case to make.
No, I'm not invalidating anything, I am reminding you of REALITY that it is entirely the woman's choice if she gets an abortion or not.

It's the woman's womb, it's her choice whether to interfere with that process in any substantial way and is NOT an opportunity for the man to lord over the woman's body because he willingly put his DNA there knowing the possible consequences. He can request she get an abortion, but he has no right to force her nor coerce her and she has veto decisions over of her body.

"they ought to be given the exclusive opportunity"

No. The man's wishes cannot overrule the woman's control of her own body. That's totally unfair and unjustified and open to abuse. He made his decision when he chose to ejaculate in her, the die is cast then.

"Foetus" is a correct spelling in the same way "colour" is a correct spelling. Look it up, like you should have in the first place.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
What is immensely self-serving is ignoring that one party has a much larger stake in the issue and the decisions they are given are ones they are given because it depends on something personal to them. Like their own body.
This isn't the Dark Ages Mortai, people often forget that one of the chief reasons why abortion was legalized in the first place was to put a firm stop on often highly dangerous non-legal alternatives that had still been available prior to its decriminalisation as a black market. Modern medical practitioners are not going to terminate the pregnancy by applying a live wire to the problem.

BiscuitTrouser said:
No one is arguing its ideal. But in both scenarios the one where the woman doesnt get what she wants all result in an (arguably) unethical practice in order to ensure the mans opinion is valued. Its self serving on the basis that of the two evils the ones that affect the men are lesser than those that would affect the woman.
It's simple. Allow the man the opportunity to sign away his rights and responsibilities, and walk away. At the very least he should be able to do so if he can prove that he would undergo significant economic hardship due to providing for child support payments.

What you're arguing is tantamount to having your cake and eating it too.

You need a fetus not to have any rights so that women are legally able to terminate their pregnancies, but they suddenly become human beings again when the mother decides that she wants to continue with the pregnancy and deliver the child to term and raise it as her own.


Treblaine said:
No. The man's wishes cannot overrule the woman's control of her own body. That's totally unfair and unjustified and open to abuse. He made his decision when he chose to ejaculate in her, the die is cast then.
You keep coming back to abortion but this isn't simply about abortion.

I'm talking about choice, and when and where people can make them. Because right now two people make a choice, but only one person is ever given a choice on how that choice ultimately effects the rest of their lives.

If this is what you mean by equality, then no wonder nobody takes you seriously.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
But you're missing the point. The choice isn't about having to take care of a kid, that's a tangential issue. Choice is what is done with one's own body.
Which is akin to arguing that a bank robbery is solely about guns, and not at all motivated by money. The results are never tangential, and the results are that women are now allowed to terminate their pregnancy or keep the child and legally force the father to pay for it. Either men should be given a say on the abortion, or they should be allowed to disavow the child and get on with their lives.

Equality between the sexes is not a buffet. But so long as people treat it as such, most people are not going to take you seriously because nobody likes a hypocrite.