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

museofdoom

New member
Dec 17, 2011
301
0
0
Revolutionaryloser said:
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?
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Revolutionaryloser said:
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.
Why would it be okay to hurt somebody's feelings? What makes you the authority on what is socially acceptable? What's wrong with dressing like a hooker? You don't own women and you don't dictate their dress code. If every woman on the planet decided to walk around completely naked, I'd be one happy camper myself. And I do mean every woman. The human body is beautiful, the female version especially. Using other people's quotes, Penn Jilette once said and I agree that "Everyone looks more interesting naked." I may be a feminist, but I'm also a selfish feminist. These attitudes lessen my chances of seeing boobage (or more realistically, cleavage) from willing and ready females. Please stop discouraging it.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
Thought that popped into my head when I read the title: "Again, really? Fine, lets get it over with".

Slut shaming is a problem, but the worst propagators of it are ironically women. Any straight man who discourages a woman from enjoying sex or showing some skin needs to rethink their sexual orientation. If you think she's "dirty" for having some fun, you don't have to sleep with her. Why women beak other women for looking hot or for getting some baffles me. I assume it's jealousy and/or insecurity.

As for skinny chicks, lots of people dig that, I'm sure they aren't too worried about the few guys who aren't interested. The way people were writing about them on the supermodel thread was likely just them strongly voicing their opinions, as people tend to do on the internet.

I wish everyone would stop judging a person based off of their looks, but that's a rather unrealistic idea, so for now, we'll have to weather it out.
 

Fwee

New member
Sep 23, 2009
806
0
0
Woman-haters hate women because women hate woman-haters.
What I mean is: Slut-shamers of any gender/sex are unhappy with their own sex lives or their own sexuality so they lash out at those they perceive to be comfortable and happy.
I was just at a GWAR show that I couldn't even enjoy for the first half because a large, smelly, fat, drunken asshole felt the need to try to hurt women. He wasn't in the mosh pit, just stumbling around slamming into any female he could get close to. So me and a couple of angry boyfriends kept punching him until he got dragged out by security.
Maybe if he'd been getting laid he wouldn't have to try to work out his issues with women. Then again if he were a decent human being he wouldn't have issues with women and therefore getting laid.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
DevilWithaHalo said:
The point just flew right over your head didn?t it? Using an accurate descriptor is not an insult. Calling someone a slut because they are acting like a slut is not a deliberate attempt to hurt their feelings. I?m also not going to consider the passerby?s in regard to whether or not they understand the context of the conversation I?m having with someone else. Why in gods name would someone feel shame for something they didn?t do? Would anyone feel guilty over a murder they didn?t commit?
I think the point flew right over your head. Replace the word "slut" with any ethnic slur and listen to how reasonable and rational that sounds. It's really not your place or mine to decide what is acceptable with what a woman does with her own body, especially when it comes to sex.

I may have misread that, but I think you just compared "sleeping around" to murder. Labeling people as sluts and whores reinforces a social stigma towards women who have sex. And I assure you, most women actually do want to have sex and spreading lies that it's somehow inherently wrong could fill a person with guilt for even desiring it. I know it does because I have felt a little of it myself for a time. Not only that, but spreading those attitudes around decreases our collective chances of getting laid.

Slayer_2 said:
Slut shaming is a problem, but the worst propagators of it are ironically women. Any straight man who discourages a woman from enjoying sex or showing some skin needs to rethink their sexual orientation. If you think she's "dirty" for having some fun, you don't have to sleep with her.
What this guy said. You could extend this to anti-gay ire, too. "I think it's gross, so therefore it's wrong, even though it's completely voluntary and I don't engage in that activity."
 

DevilWithaHalo

New member
Mar 22, 2011
625
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Did you really just use that quote in defense of NAME CALLING?
Oiy veh! Let's do an experiment shall we? I'm going to call you an imbecile. You would see that as an inherent insult. However, I would point out that you are demonstrating a mental incapacity to differentiate an insult from an appropriate use of a defining term. Your further claims of offense after I have already explained this *several* times would simply continue to demonstrate my descriptor of your mental abilities accurate.

A slut is an immoral woman (one definition at least). So calling a woman a slut when she fails to adhere to your personal sense of morality is using the right word in the right context. It's not calling her names, it's classifying what she is. She might hold a different opinion of herself, in which case she would classify herself as a free spirit. One thing can have many meanings (most obvious in everyone's assumption I am out to insult everything).
BloatedGuppy said:
"Slut" is a negative term with a negative connotation. It's an insult, whether you want to argue that it's deserved or not. I mean, presumably you think it's deserved, or you wouldn't be issuing it.
Negative term? Definitions are not positive or negative! You're attempting to assert the intent behind the word as it's meaning. You need to realize what you're arguing.

Calling something gay isn't inherently good or bad. Calling someone a slut isn't inherently good or bad. Your perceptions are twisting the nature of the word to suit the intention you are most familiar with.
BloatedGuppy said:
Really though, this isn't something that anyone should need to expend energy to convince you of. You don't express yourself like a five year old, so I'm operating under the assumption here that you are not five years old, and therefore should not find "name calling" to be a hilarious antic, nor a hill worth dying on in order to prevent the triumph of evil. It's just a petty, miserable, intellectually bankrupt way of labeling things we wish to tear down.
What I truly find hilarious is the amount of irony present in this discussion. Your misinterpretations of my points are simply adding to your ignorance in understanding them.

If I met a 5ft tall 200lb woman, I would classify her as obese. If she asked me, I would tell her she was fat. Her reaction is not my concern; if she feels shame in it, then I would suggest she alter her physical appearance until such time she was comfortable with whatever label she received at that point. In no sense did I ever intend to, or insult her. I merely used a word which was an appropriate descriptor for her size. Calling a woman a slut, prostitute, whore, or any other similar term would be equally apt if their actions justified the use of the term. It is neither petty, nor miserable, nor intellectually bankrupt way to label them, nor do I intend to tear them down.

If you do not understand the difference between these two phrases...
You are fat.
You're the size of Mt Rushmoore, fatty mcfaterson, piggy go oink oink oink!
...then I can't really continue this discussion with you.

But if your position is one that certain things should be above criticism (regardless of personal bias), then I'll politely point out your arbitrary hypocrisy and walk away.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
DevilWithaHalo said:
Oiy veh! Let's do an experiment shall we? I'm going to call you an imbecile. You would see that as an inherent insult. However, I would point out that you are demonstrating a mental incapacity to differentiate an insult from an appropriate use of a defining term. Your further claims of offense after I have already explained this *several* times would simply continue to demonstrate my descriptor of your mental abilities accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

DevilWithaHalo said:
But if your position is one that certain things should be above criticism (regardless of personal bias), then I'll politely point out your arbitrary hypocrisy and walk away.
My position is that name calling is a juvenile pursuit, appropriate for children, and the defense of it as an ethical imperative doubly so. That you are writhing around trying to draw an analogue between "slut" and "obese" shows me how seriously you're taking this discussion, though, so there's really no point in us continuing.
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
*reads title of thread*
"Uh oh... I hope it isn't one of
those threads...
*actually reads OP*

Oh ok, so it is one of these threads, I am ok with this. I want to disagree with your position "all women are equal", but I know what it is that you mean, and I agree that thing that you are saying. My position on that is relating to something different altogether and is irrelevant for this discussion. All I have to add is that people are allowed to say what they like and what they don't like, even when it has to deal with the bodies of others. That "I like X" becomes a problem when their "I don't like X" turns into "X is bad" and they start labelling things for absolutely no reason. "I don't like fat girls" or "I don't like girls that show a lot of skin" turns into "fat girls are bad people" and "girls that show a lot of skin are sluts", which is obviously a bad thing. I know everyone wants to have their opinion known, but everyone has to keep their opinion within reasonable limits and not extend it into the realm of silliness and "fact".

Edit: On models; I feel bad for models. To be successful, they have such enormous psychological and physical constraints on them all the time, and this sometimes causes them to go to extremes in order to keep their body in peak physical form. I don't have any model friends, but I used to work with a girl that did a bit of modelling, and she was stressed about her image all the fucking time. I really felt bad for her =|
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Revolutionaryloser said:
...and it contributes greatly to women being discriminated in the first place.
Meh?

How do you figure? This is a curious assertion, to say the least.
 

museofdoom

New member
Dec 17, 2011
301
0
0
totally heterosexual said:
Ok cool
museofdoom said:
It's just annoying when people condemn skinny women for being skinny. Like someone in the model thread said "I want real women with curves" or whatever. Like apparently being thin takes away your womanhood.
How is that blaming her for it all?

The dude wants a woman with "real curves". Thats not condemnding her for anything, just telling how he likes it.

I don't mind that he prefers women with curves, that's fine. It's the "real woman" part that bothers me. Being skinny doesn't take away your womanhood.
 

Soviet Steve

New member
May 23, 2009
1,511
0
0
museofdoom said:
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.

I agree with everything but this one. It is possible to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy, and aesthetics is a subjective thing. All humans are equal though.

Captcha:
Budweiser
Describe this brand with any word(S)
 

Suicidejim

New member
Jul 1, 2011
593
0
0
Most of that seems like common sense, although 5 is subjective, and I'm going to have to point out that, from a less sentimental perspective, not all bodies are good bodies. Some are good bodies to many people, some to less, some only to a select few, but beauty isn't really a god-given right, and people are well within their rights to say, or at least think, that a person is unattractive.
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
The Thinker said:
museofdoom said:
"all bodies are good bodies" basically translates to "everyone is beautiful."
I assume this is "internal beauty". Because not everyone is externally beautiful, but a lot of people have redeeming qualities.
Not everyone is internally beautiful either, I wouldn't say everyone is beautiful as beauty states an abnormally nice to behold quality, I would gladly point out that all of us are ugly broken useless fleshbags in our own right, but equally so... just in different areas...
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Revolutionaryloser said:
Women actually being full-time sluts does not contribute to the belief that all women are sluts?
I know a fireman. That never contributed to me believing that all men were firemen.

Revolutionaryloser said:
Putting price tags on women doesn't contribute to the belief that women are objects?
You haven't put a price tag on the WOMAN, though, you've put a price tag on an activity performed in the company of that woman, with a set beginning and end point. You're confusing prostitution with slavery.

Revolutionaryloser said:
Sex trafficking doesn't contribute to the belief that women are inferior beings?
And again confusing prostitution with slavery.

Revolutionaryloser said:
Oh, OK. I guess I was wrong then. Sorry about that.
That's perfectly alright!
 

DevilWithaHalo

New member
Mar 22, 2011
625
0
0
Spot1990 said:
Surely you must acknowledge there's a cruel way to classify though? I mean if someone has insulted you go for it, but what I'm talking about is more along the lines of, say you know an overweight girl, lets call her Sarah. You are friends with her, if someone asked which one is Sarah you must think it's unnecessary to say "The fat one".
If that was the most obvious way to differentiate her from her peers, I might actually. Classifications are never cruel, intentions are. I feel I?ve illustrated the difference in my reply above.
Spot1990 said:
Pretty sure calling someone's weight problem "evil" is a bit of a stretch. For that matter I don't think that quote is referring to things that don't actually affect other people.
It was in response to the condemning/ignoring idea more than calling fat people evil. To avoid a lengthy sociological discussion here, suffice to say that ignoring things which are inherently damaging can have disastrous results. Weight does affect other people as much as any other self destructive habit.
Spot1990 said:
Fat is the cruel way to describe it though. Usually used to hurt someone, not just describe them.
Again, it?s not my responsibility to walk on egg shells. People?s perceptions are their own problems.
Spot1990 said:
Dammit man. I have this horrible thing where if I think something will be funny to say I'll just say it. Case in point I once saw a comedian who said "You know you're a nerd when, while having sex, you shout "Spoiler Alert" just as you finish." That popped into my head mid-coitus and I couldn't now say it. You have now given me another one of these pitfalls.
My bad.
zelda2fanboy said:
I think the point flew right over your head. Replace the word "slut" with any ethnic slur and listen to how reasonable and rational that sounds.
Ethnic slur? It wouldn?t be reasonable because it?s an entirely different set of definitions. ?Oh man, she?s slept with like 100 dudes in one night, she?s such a spic.? Nope, doesn?t really work. I might as well call this thread a slut.
zelda2fanboy said:
It's really not your place or mine to decide what is acceptable with what a woman does with her own body, especially when it comes to sex.
Indeed, a woman and her body is her business. Where did I ever indicate otherwise?
zelda2fanboy said:
I may have misread that, but I think you just compared "sleeping around" to murder.
Yes, you did misread that. It was an inquiry regarding your statement?
Not only that, but people who aren't the intended targets might hear what you say and feel a sense of shame for things they haven't even done.
?made no sense to me. It was the first parallel I made.
zelda2fanboy said:
Labeling people as sluts and whores reinforces a social stigma towards women who have sex. And I assure you, most women actually do want to have sex and spreading lies that it's somehow inherently wrong could fill a person with guilt for even desiring it. I know it does because I have felt a little of it myself for a time. Not only that, but spreading those attitudes around decreases our collective chances of getting laid.
And how would you respond to the slut rallies? A word is simply a word. If one group uses it to shame and another group uses it to inspire, does the meaning change or merely the interpretation?
BloatedGuppy said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I don?t think I could have asked for a better response than this. Should I point out the difference between name calling and using definitions? Should I point out how defining a characteristic is neither negative or positive? Should I point out how my response can?t be considered an Ad Hominem because I specifically called it an experiment in illustrating the point I was trying to make? Or would you simply respond with additional wiki links to fallacy I?m not actually committing? If you feel I was actually making a personal attack on your character, might I suggest using the report button?

Amusingly, I recall in another forum many years ago where someone created a fallacy in the attempt to point out fallacies so you wouldn?t have to create an actual argument. I see his point remains ever present. But if you?d like to give into a fallacy accusing contest, I could be game.
BloatedGuppy said:
My position is that name calling is a juvenile pursuit, appropriate for children, and the defense of it as an ethical imperative doubly so.
I would agree (mostly). Now kindly point out where I ethically defend the notion.
BloatedGuppy said:
That you are writhing around trying to draw an analogue between "slut" and "obese" shows me how seriously you're taking this discussion, though, so there's really no point in us continuing.
Right? because people haven?t been talking about weights and sexual proclivities in this thread since the OP? I?m the one ?writhing? between the two. Ta ta.