Woah Woah Woah. Okay, let's talk about women for a second.

[MomoElektra]

I didn't mean to imply you were, specifically. I was speaking in general terms.

Ah, ok.

But that's a different sort of survival. I thought we were talking about the individual?

I'm only pushing this because I know people who want to cash in on this entitlement (i.e. sex is a biological function necessary for survival) and make sex work mandatory services from health care providers, without caring much who's to do the actual providing. Yeah, they are rare, but they do exist.

I think we can both agree those people are ludicrous. We can properly acknowledge sex is a biological function that people have a compulsion to perform without skidding down a slippery slope and making sex work a mandatory part of health care.

Yes, we can, but not if we liken sex to eating and sleeping.
Or well, if you say "sex is as natural as eating and sleeping (or breathing)" or something like that I won't mind, because then the context clearly shows entitlement is out of the question.

OP, whilst I agree with many of the points you make -

Also, while we are on the topic of women, I would like to say that people need to stop slut shaming. Like, it's a problem. People seem to think that how much skin a woman chooses to show is directly proportional to how much self respect they have. )

This is, unfortunately, where we mus disagree. Slut-shaming doesn't happen enough, in my opinion. I am sick of people dressing whorishly and then trying to defend it on grounds of "independent woman" or "I don't have to fit your stereotype". No, ladies, you do not. What you do have to do, hoever, is have some damn dignity and realise how damaging this kind of behaviour will be, not just now, but later in life, when you lie ridden with STI's, or with the baby you didn't want, or having not developed a personality because the boys preferred your boobs.

Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

It's interesting how men aren't responsible for anything in your examples.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes, we can, but not if we liken sex to eating and sleeping.

Or well, if you say "sex is as natural as eating and sleeping (or breathing)" or something like that I won't mind, because then the context clearly shows entitlement is out of the question.

Entitlement is certainly this year's buzz word, isn't it? I'm already sick to death of it.

As procreation requires a WILLING partner, clearly there are some considerations there that don't apply to having a snooze or filling your pie hole. I just don't think we need to spell them out, in the same way I think the printer cartridge doesn't really need a notice on it warning people not to eat the toner.

 

[Hoplon]

Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

You're kind of what's wrong with your own generation, stop giving a shit about stuff that is so fucking banal it's actively bizarre that you care at all.

 

[MomoElektra]

Yes, we can, but not if we liken sex to eating and sleeping.

Or well, if you say "sex is as natural as eating and sleeping (or breathing)" or something like that I won't mind, because then the context clearly shows entitlement is out of the question.

Entitlement is certainly this year's buzz word, isn't it? I'm already sick to death of it..

Understandable, but entitlement and the problems surrounding it have been around a lot longer than this one video game.

As procreation requires a WILLING partner, clearly there are some considerations there that don't apply to having a snooze or filling your pie hole. I just don't think we need to spell them out, in the same way I think the printer cartridge doesn't really need a notice on it warning people not to eat the toner.

Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

 

[ToxicOranges]

Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

You're kind of what's wrong with your own generation, stop giving a shit about stuff that is so fucking banal it's actively bizarre that you care at all.

What? Why is it banal that we allow people to shame society like they do? Would you rather I didn't care at all, and had no opinions about anything? Why is it a problem that I care about the dark hole that our generation is slowly slipping into?
People are gonna look back on teens today and laugh at us. At least I care.

 

[axlryder]

I posted earlier but I really want to know this. Why isn't it OK to slut shame a woman who chooses to walk around looking like a hooker? I mean literally looking like a hooker. I really wish I knew the answer to that.

Because people should be allowed to dress how they want to dress without being chastised for it. If a woman wants to show off a lot of skin, let her. She's comfortable enough with her body to show it off and that's great. So what if she wants to wear fishnet leggings and stilettos? If it makes her happy, then so be it. It's not affecting you personally, so why do you have the right to be a jerk and try to make someone feel ashamed of the way they choose to dress?

a.) as a straight man, it is inherently physiologically distracting to me when a woman has a plunging neckline or other equally revealing attire. What's more, it "makes her happy" because she likes the attention she gets from strangers. It's the only possible reason she would dress overly revealingly in public "just because", otherwise she could just do it in private. While I normally wouldn't just point this out (why would I?), I would be happy to do so if said woman somehow retaliated to glance or something. You can call it "slut shaming", I just call it honest retaliation. I bring it up only because woman who dress this way ARE going to be treated differently. That's just the reality. Those who have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise are often the ones I see crying foul. Also, I have every right to be a jerk. Your own subjective views don't somehow undermine those rights. If I'm a total nihilist, I'm not going to give a crap what you think and I don't have to. That's sort of how reality works. All responsibility is self-imposed, others can only persuade us to impose it on ourselves via logic or consequences.

b.) I'd argue against Revolutionaryloser that there's no reason to give a crap if a woman dresses like a slut. Unless she's in a place for children or she's attempting to chastise you for looking, why should you care how she's dressed? Even if she's dressed like a prostitute, what's wrong with being a hooker? Seriously. Unlike some manipulative people, at least hookers are honest about having sex in exchange for something. If anything, I feel bad for those who got forced into that line of work. It's certainly not something I see as worth shaming over.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Understandable, but entitlement and the problems surrounding it have been around a lot longer than this one video game.

Fair enough, but I'm still sick of it. It got abused so regularly I just get hives looking at it now.

Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

 

[MomoElektra]

Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

That's not what he's asking. He's asking if it's okay to call "a spic a spic", since it's "just a label".

You?re arguing from intention, not definition. If I consider that the definition contains a derogatory notion, it?s still the intent driving the definition. A spic is merely a Spanish-American person. No more or less insulting then calling me a cracker.

That you continue to cling to the assertion that "slut" is a definition, free of prejudice and 100% neutral without intent, would make any discussion with you on the "difference between name calling and using definitions" pointless in the extreme. And to be honest, I don't even think YOU believe this. I think you've just taken a position, arbitrarily.

I?ll point you back to slut parades. A definition of a word does not dictate the intentions people have in using it. You?d think that it would, but it doesn?t.

I'm sorry, is this the "I'm not CALLING you an asshole, I'm just saying you look and talk and act just like an asshole" defense? Again, are we five here? What's next? He started it? I know you are but what am I? If you're going to make sneering commentary about someone's "mental capacity" because they disagree with you, then yes...you are engaging in ad hominem attacks.

You?re failing to consider that the example I used illustrated the perceptions you would take toward a term defining mental capacities are more insulting than they are defining. If I continually explain that my intentions are not insults, point out the definition of the word we are discussing correctly defines the idea in question and you continue to argue from the alternative perception, then you are again, by definition, demonstrating your limited mental capacities in either correctly reading my position or choosing to misinterpret it; IE, you?re being an imbecile.

Satire?
Someone ? You shouldn?t slut shame people.
Me ? It is not insulting to say someone is a slut if they are in fact a slut.
You ? Slut is a derogatory term, you?re being insulting.
Me ? My intention is not to insult, I?m merely using the most fitting term.
You ? You?re being insulting.
Me - ?

Maybe that was another experiment. I can't say for sure. Like, maybe it was an experiment in which you used a quote to draw an absurd comparison between calling people names, and struggling to prevent the triumph of evil.

I?ve already responded to this. It was a response to the suggestion that it?s easier to ignore something rather than condemn it. You?re taking something I said entirely out of context and applying it to an argument I?m not even making.

Do you see me putting forth "obese" as an insult? Whoops, I can scroll up the page and see me arguing otherwise. I'm not really concerned about what "people" are talking about. I'm not part of a collective here on the forums that all speak with the same voice.

Stick to the point. You accused me of drawing an analogue between ?sluts? and ?obese?, when in fact the thread has contained the notions of both in it, whether arguing from a definition or intention standpoint. In fact, now that I think about it, the basis for near every response you?ve made toward my commentary as been an extremely negative interpretation of intention, a distinct lack of understanding and a continued willful ignorance to the contrary. If you feel like indulging my curiosity, what are the points I am trying to make?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm seriously not with you on the legalizing anything.

I know you're not, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Hell, considering the embarassingly high death tolls due to alcohol in the US I would actually consider making alcohol illegal in the US. I don't know if you've heard of the Opium wars but basically there was a time when drugs were legal and a lot of people died because of it.

You need to legalize AND regulate. Legalizing things is half the battle, yo. Drugs are illegal now, and lots of people are dying because of it. The only way to eliminate the criminal enterprise is to eliminate the market. Telling people the market is immoral is clearly not working.

After all, if you're willing to have sex with a prostitute, you're willing to rape a woman if you think the mob will help you get away with it. You'd be amazed how easy it is for someone to lie to themselves about that.

Yeahhhh no. No. I'm sorry, but that sounds like an extraordinarily specious assertion. I do not agree that all Johns are willing rapists. Going on to assert that "people are willing to lie to themselves" doesn't make it go down any easier, either. I can say something completely crazy and then chase it with "but everyone is lying to themselves about it" as well, it wouldn't make it any less crazy.

BTW, about the need v. choice thing. I can reassure you there are an insignificant amount of women who actually go into prostitution for need. The amount of money prostitutes generally earn could get them out of the gutter with a week's work. Most willing prostitutes I've encountered do it mostly because of laziness and drug addiction. The "I'm in need" excuse wears pretty thin once you consider being a stripper is totally legal but prostitutes prefer to work less hours.

Well, I'm not a prostitute, so I can't really speak to this. You probably have a point about drug addiction keeping a lot of women in the lifestyle longer than they need to be. I had an ex-girlfriend who almost turned to prostitution in a moment of pure desperation, though. I ended up taking out a loan and giving her several thousand dollars so she wouldn't have to. I can guarantee you her desperation was real.

 

[axlryder]

I posted earlier but I really want to know this. Why isn't it OK to slut shame a woman who chooses to walk around looking like a hooker? I mean literally looking like a hooker. I really wish I knew the answer to that.

Because people should be allowed to dress how they want to dress without being chastised for it. If a woman wants to show off a lot of skin, let her. She's comfortable enough with her body to show it off and that's great. So what if she wants to wear fishnet leggings and stilettos? If it makes her happy, then so be it. It's not affecting you personally, so why do you have the right to be a jerk and try to make someone feel ashamed of the way they choose to dress?

a.) as a straight man, it is inherently physiologically distracting to me when a woman has a plunging neckline or other equally revealing attire. What's more, it "makes her happy" because she likes the attention she gets from strangers. It's the only possible reason she would dress overly revealingly in public "just because", otherwise she could just do it in private. I would be happy to point these things out to said woman if she somehow retaliated to glance or something. You can call it "slut shaming", I just call it being honest. Also, you have every right to be a jerk. Your own subjective views don't somehow undermine those rights. If I'm a total nihilist, I'm not going to give a crap what you think and I don't have to. That's sort of how reality works. All responsibility is self-imposed, others can only persuade us to impose it on ourselves via logic or consequences.

b.) I'd argue against Revolutionaryloser that there's no reason to give a crap if a woman dresses like a slut. Unless she's in a place for children or she's attempting to chastise you for looking, why should you care how she's dressed? Even if she's dressed like a prostitute, what's wrong with being a hooker? Seriously. Unlike some manipulative people, at least hookers are honest about having sex in exchange for something. If anything, I feel bad for those who got forced into that line of work. It's certainly not something I see as worth shaming over.

In response, I would only care if:

She was related to me in some way which is regretably the case some of the time. I know in an ideal world it shouldn't have to be like this but I can't help but worry when I see a 14 year old niece of mine walking down the street and my first impression is "It's a hooker, better ignore her." before I do a double-take.

The other reason would be that she came up to me for something and then I would have to actually think on my feet if I should a) listen to what she wants because she might not be a hooker and just wants a light or something b) assume she's a hooker and get the fuck out of there because in the best case scenario she's offering her services which is enough of a humiliation as is if I'm not also caught in a raid to boot and in the worst case she's trying to distract me while her pimp stabs me in the kidneys and steals my wallet.

OK. Granted. Maybe I'm paranoid but it just so happens that a cousin of mine died that way.

Being a hooker is certainly not a healthy profession. Not at all. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and, thanks to being illegal in most of the U.S. and thus unregulated, is prone to attracting scum on both sides of the fence. I can see where you're coming from, and your concerns are valid (well, except the raid one, that's not quite how it works), but I don't think they really justify "slut shaming" either.

 

[Hoplon]

What? Why is it banal that we allow people to shame society like they do? Would you rather I didn't care at all, and had no opinions about anything? Why is it a problem that I care about the dark hole that our generation is slowly slipping into?
People are gonna look back on teens today and laugh at us. At least I care.

Because it's not your generation, it's not a black hole of anything, looking back on the banal worries of teenagers as ridiculous it one of the ways you know you have grown up.

So yes, slut shaming some insecure part formed person is the hight of pointlessness on so many fronts that you appear more ridiculous that the people you are fruitlessly raging against.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You?re arguing from intention, not definition. If I consider that the definition contains a derogatory notion, it?s still the intent driving the definition. A spic is merely a Spanish-American person. No more or less insulting the calling me a cracker.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, guy. I think it's demonstrable that certain terms are not so easily divorced from intent, or the implication of intent, and I think it's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting otherwise, but I don't forsee us reaching amicable consensus on this point, as you've gone on to make it the focal point of 90% of this post, so the likelihood of you abandoning that position is next to zero.

You?re failing to consider that the example I used illustrated the perceptions you would take toward a term defining mental capacities are more insulting than they are defining. If I continually explain that my intentions are not insults, point out the definition of the word we are discussing correctly defines the idea in question and you continue to argue from the alternative perception, then you are again, by definition, demonstrating your limited mental capacities in either correctly reading my position or choosing to misinterpret it; IE, you?re being an imbecile.

Dude, have you looked at the definition for imbecile? There's not a lot of room for interpretation there. You were tossing out an insult and couching it in a faux "experiment" to deter moderation. You can prevaricate about it until you're blue in the face, but it's profoundly unconvincing.

I?ve already responded to this. It was a response to the suggestion that it?s easier to ignore something rather than condemn it. You?re taking something I said entirely out of context and applying it to an argument I?m not even making.

Alright, that's my bad. If I took that out of context, I apologize. I also clipped an n somewhere out of this post copy/pasting the quote text down, so if you read a word with a missing n, you know what happened.

Stick to the point. You accused me of drawing an analogue between ?sluts? and ?obese?, when in fact the thread has contained the notions of both in it...

Covered up above. You can call an obese person obese all day long and defend it as appropriate description. The word 'slut' carries with it implied insult. And we can argue all day whether all words are free from the implication of intent, and you're going to say they are, and I'm going to say they're not, and there's absolutely no fucking way either one of us can actually substantiate anything we're saying beyond the volume of our own opinion, so what do you say we call it a day?

 

[axlryder]

Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...

it's funny, because you assume that men almost automatically being distracted momentarily by cleavage equals being pro-rape. It's almost like you can't distinguish between basic concepts.

 

[ablac]

So upon reading through that thread on super models, I saw some pretty awful commentary.

There was a lot of shaming being done, and stereotypes and generalizations being thrown. So let me make some things clear.

1) Just because a woman is thin, doesn't mean she's anorexic.
2)Some women are anorexic or bulimic, and that doesn't mean they are a bad person, they are suffering terribly.
3)Being pretty doesn't mean they lack a personality, or kindness or intelligence.
4)There is nothing wrong with girls who make a living from modeling. If they love doing it, then that's perfectly ok!
5)A thin woman isn't any less of a woman than a woman who has curves or is larger. All women are equal and all bodies are good bodies.

Also, while we are on the topic of women, I would like to say that people need to stop slut shaming. Like, it's a problem. People seem to think that how much skin a woman chooses to show is directly proportional to how much self respect they have. People also like to shame women who enjoy having sex. STOP IT. Girls can enjoy having sex, casual sex, kinky sex, and if they want to show boobs on the internet that's fine too. Not everyone has to uphold the same morals.

Sorry for ranting, I just had a lot of feelings. (and I'm not attacking men here, girls are perfectly capable of slut shaming and being sexist. It actually happens quite a bit.)

Oh well thank you for this insightful telling off. my mind is blown by those 5 points you made and that paragraph on slut shaming. Of course if someone views high amounts of casual sex and dressing for the male gaze as maybe wrong in any way then they cant speak out against it? I dont have a real problem with the former and with the latter I simply think girls who do arent doing guys a favour since they will get comeuppance from their better half for what they cannot help and if they dress like an object then they shouldnt complain when they are viewed as one. Im not sexist and I agree with you on what you are saying, its not ground breaking or original. I dont appreciate my gender being told off for something only perpetuated by assholes regardless of gender. If this sounds aggressive well its supposed to because you give the feeling that you want to ride in on a high horse and tell everyone off for their views by explaining the damn obvious. the only way to stop this stuff is to stop talking about it. A title such as this thread's is is trying to say that this site is a sausage fest and that we need you to come and set us right. We dont need to talk about women because there is nothing to say. You help no one and merely serve to satisfy your own ego.