News:

What about those weed gangsters that are mad about you giving speeches in Bumfuck, Maine?

Main Menu

A thought on sluts

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, July 17, 2012, 04:29:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Phox

Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 19, 2012, 02:23:47 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
ETA: I should probably clarify, her behavior is fucked up because it's malicious, not because it's sexual.

This.  "Manipulative jackass" is a better, more accurate term.

Yep.

The most interesting part is that the people she is including in her accusation of slut-shaming her, including myself, are some of the most sex-positive and sexually promiscuous people we know. We just, y'know, try to be RESPONSIBLE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS while we're fucking whoever we want to fuck, who mutually wants to fuck us.

I do not care for the word "slut" as a pejorative in any sense. Much as you stated earlier, re-defining it to mean "a bad person" is much the same as redefining "nigger" to mean "a low person", and I am, both in the case of the former and in the case of the latter, in favor of reclaiming those words like the queer community has reclaimed "queer".

Among the few people I hold a grudge against are those who have used either the word or the concept of "slut" against me pejoratively. In my opinion, if you hold such a view of women that you will hold their exercise of sexuality against them as an excuse for dismissing them as equal and valid human beings, then you are not a full person and are not worth even a small fraction of my respect, until/unless you can develop enough awareness to realize that you were wrong, and make an appropriate apology.

The book I linked to earlier in the thread is trying to do just that, reclaim the word "slut" as a positive term for, as an example, non- monogamous people of any gender.

Well, isn't THAT special?  Live according to the author's personal values or you're a slut.

:lulz:
Erm... think you've got that backwards, Roger. The book linked was more or less a guidebook on how to be non-monogamous without being like the manipulative jackass mentioned previously in this thread, so the authors were encouraging people to conform to their personal values under the term "slut", I think. (That said, I think the title is more a shock factor thing than an honest attempt at reclamation, but I haven't read the book, so can't say for sure).

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 19, 2012, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 19, 2012, 02:23:47 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
ETA: I should probably clarify, her behavior is fucked up because it's malicious, not because it's sexual.

This.  "Manipulative jackass" is a better, more accurate term.

Yep.

The most interesting part is that the people she is including in her accusation of slut-shaming her, including myself, are some of the most sex-positive and sexually promiscuous people we know. We just, y'know, try to be RESPONSIBLE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS while we're fucking whoever we want to fuck, who mutually wants to fuck us.

I do not care for the word "slut" as a pejorative in any sense. Much as you stated earlier, re-defining it to mean "a bad person" is much the same as redefining "nigger" to mean "a low person", and I am, both in the case of the former and in the case of the latter, in favor of reclaiming those words like the queer community has reclaimed "queer".

Among the few people I hold a grudge against are those who have used either the word or the concept of "slut" against me pejoratively. In my opinion, if you hold such a view of women that you will hold their exercise of sexuality against them as an excuse for dismissing them as equal and valid human beings, then you are not a full person and are not worth even a small fraction of my respect, until/unless you can develop enough awareness to realize that you were wrong, and make an appropriate apology.

The book I linked to earlier in the thread is trying to do just that, reclaim the word "slut" as a positive term for, as an example, non- monogamous people of any gender.

Well, isn't THAT special?  Live according to the author's personal values or you're a slut.

:lulz:
Erm... think you've got that backwards, Roger. The book linked was more or less a guidebook on how to be non-monogamous without being like the manipulative jackass mentioned previously in this thread, so the authors were encouraging people to conform to their personal values under the term "slut", I think. (That said, I think the title is more a shock factor thing than an honest attempt at reclamation, but I haven't read the book, so can't say for sure).

Oh, yeah.  My bad. 

:derp:

Why is there no :derp: ?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

E.O.T.

Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 04:44:39 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:43:42 AM

HA HA

          i'm not certain what point you're referring to, but i don't think i mentioned not approving of peoples partners.


Quoteseem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted,

RIGHT,

          i also went on to say that these choices in partner are often ones that the individual may very well themselves not be happy about, yet it's a pattern in how they likely choose sexual partners.

AND

          then i went on to say that for me, the term "slut" is not a negative judgement, it's just how some people do what they do which differs from say, "traditional" dating.

IF,

          what this thread is seeking is to establish that "slut" is some kind of negative which ought never to be applied to anyone, then i have no access point or opinion on this topic.
"a good fight justifies any cause"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:54:23 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 04:44:39 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:43:42 AM

HA HA

          i'm not certain what point you're referring to, but i don't think i mentioned not approving of peoples partners.


Quoteseem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted,

RIGHT,

          i also went on to say that these choices in partner are often ones that the individual may very well themselves not be happy about, yet it's a pattern in how they likely choose sexual partners.

AND

          then i went on to say that for me, the term "slut" is not a negative judgement, it's just how some people do what they do which differs from say, "traditional" dating.

IF,

          what this thread is seeking is to establish that "slut" is some kind of negative which ought never to be applied to anyone, then i have no access point or opinion on this topic.

You clearly didn't read my posts.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


E.O.T.

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 04:58:40 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:54:23 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 04:44:39 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:43:42 AM

HA HA

          i'm not certain what point you're referring to, but i don't think i mentioned not approving of peoples partners.


Quoteseem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted,

RIGHT,

          i also went on to say that these choices in partner are often ones that the individual may very well themselves not be happy about, yet it's a pattern in how they likely choose sexual partners.

AND

          then i went on to say that for me, the term "slut" is not a negative judgement, it's just how some people do what they do which differs from say, "traditional" dating.

IF,

          what this thread is seeking is to establish that "slut" is some kind of negative which ought never to be applied to anyone, then i have no access point or opinion on this topic.

You clearly didn't read my posts.

DUDE

          i read this whole thing twice. what's the big issue?
"a good fight justifies any cause"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 19, 2012, 02:23:47 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
ETA: I should probably clarify, her behavior is fucked up because it's malicious, not because it's sexual.

This.  "Manipulative jackass" is a better, more accurate term.

Yep.

The most interesting part is that the people she is including in her accusation of slut-shaming her, including myself, are some of the most sex-positive and sexually promiscuous people we know. We just, y'know, try to be RESPONSIBLE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS while we're fucking whoever we want to fuck, who mutually wants to fuck us.

I do not care for the word "slut" as a pejorative in any sense. Much as you stated earlier, re-defining it to mean "a bad person" is much the same as redefining "nigger" to mean "a low person", and I am, both in the case of the former and in the case of the latter, in favor of reclaiming those words like the queer community has reclaimed "queer".

Among the few people I hold a grudge against are those who have used either the word or the concept of "slut" against me pejoratively. In my opinion, if you hold such a view of women that you will hold their exercise of sexuality against them as an excuse for dismissing them as equal and valid human beings, then you are not a full person and are not worth even a small fraction of my respect, until/unless you can develop enough awareness to realize that you were wrong, and make an appropriate apology.

The book I linked to earlier in the thread is trying to do just that, reclaim the word "slut" as a positive term for, as an example, non- monogamous people of any gender.

Yeah, I have that book... it's alright. Kind of full of its own value judgements against monogamists, though. Since I am perfectly happy being monogamous when I'm in a committed relationship, I found that aspect pretty hard to swallow.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


The Good Reverend Roger

Well, EOT, I'm just gonna leave it at this:  I am in no manner so perfect that I can render judgement on anyone else's sex life, as long as it's between consenting adults.  If someone gets their kicks sleeping with loads of different people, good on 'em.  If it's not healthy for them in some manner, what can I do about it?  Nothing.  It certainly doesn't help if I slap labels on them.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:13:01 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:24:23 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 10:47:35 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 18, 2012, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:37:16 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 18, 2012, 06:25:07 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 17, 2012, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 09:23:05 PM
It's a game. It's TOTALLY a game. Winners get laid, losers go onto the next round.

Truth. :lol:

I emphatically encourage everyone who likes this game to find the nearest cleaver and fornicates with it.  I fucking despise this game, because as much of a gamer as I am I resent that you can lose at having sex with an interested party, and I don't understand the rules, and some people cheat at it.

Fuck this shit.

Aw, Freeky, if you both stay interested, you still do it.
No game would = no seduction. Just:

"Hi."
"Hi."
"You wanna fuck?"
"Yeah, I guess so."
"OK let's go."

Bullshit.

"Hey."
"Hey."
"Holy jesus I think you are the hottest shit ever."
"Really?  I was thinking the same about you!"
"GET IN MAH PANCE NAO."
"K. :fap: "

Just because there aren't any games doesn't mean there doesn't have to be any passion.

:lulz:

Several ways that could go horribly, horribly wrong, that have nothing to do with any kind of perceived "feminine virtue":

1) He looks hot now, but what happens after you know him a little more? Is he borderline retarded? Is he going to install himself on your couch and try to send you to food pantries? WHO IS THIS MOTHERFUCKER?

2) Guys who rush things, whether it's sex or a "serious relationship", are often abusive and almost always controlling. Even if it's just a casual fuckbuddies thing, he's going to think he has some kind of hold on you and can just pop in and knock off a chunk whenever he happens to feel like it. Even if you haven't seen him in a couple of years and you've forgotten him and it's TOTALLY THE WRONG TIME.

3) Next time you're in a so-called serious relationship, look back at the whole thing - what was the best part? The early days. The seduction and then the sex when it was still new. Why not stretch the fun part out as long as you can before everthing gets routine?

4) The fact that he could be one of THOSE GUYS. If you really like him and he turns out to be one of those assholes who thinks you're a jackrag because you put out, you KNOW he's the asshole who's at fault, but it still stings.

1. Then you stop sleeping with him. No harm, no foul.

2. Guys who rush into sex are horny and into you. Guys who try to push sex, or relationships, or commitments are more likely to be abusive/manipulative. Make the distinction. If he starts acting like a jackass, then you stop sleeping with him. No harm, no foul.

3. If the early days are the best part, you probably did it wrong. The early days were, biologically and neurologically speaking, the most EXCITING part, and the excitement/adrenaline is partly because of the lack of security. But long-term couples report being just as much in love as they were in the beginning, and actually report being MORE happy in the relationship over time, once they get through the inevitable crisis points within the first eight years when they experience their first two relationship cycles. Happily, neuroscience backs this up; these couples actually DO have the kind of activation in the particular parts of their brains that signifies romantic love as people who are newly in love.

4. He could turn out to be that jackrag whether or not you have sex with him. So, uh, I guess I'm not seeing the connection.

I'm not gonna throw down the gauntlet. Because Nigel knows her shit, and I might NEED this.

Tell me more about "the inevitable crisis points within the first eight years when they experience their first two relationship cycles"?

Stelz
Is a backwoods yahoo and has been winging it.

The short form is, the brain's romance chemicals ride a wavelength that peaks during courtship, and again at about five years into the relationship. And so on. But it valleys in between those peaks, and those chemical valleys are when breakups are most likely to happen... at least, during the first two valleys. After the first two valleys, couples that are otherwise happy and don't have any major problems start to recognize the valleys as transient, and they usually stop generating crises in and of themselves.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 19, 2012, 03:52:11 AM
Slut does have one practical application, as a word.

Between consenting adults as part of a healthy regime of dirty talk!

MITTENS

I don't personally like it in bed. I can appreciate why people do, though.

I kind of prefer "You're amazing"

or

if it's the right person

"I love you".
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:22:06 AM

YOU GUYS

          seem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted, but it's also kind of a habit of hers. like, she sleeps with people she may not want to remember the details about the next day. yet, again, does this type of thing often. enough so, that as cool as she may be as a person, her sexual activity makes her unappealing, because she has no standards.

I think there are other, more appropriate descriptors for such women,


         BUT THEN I'M


all into sociology and psychology and whatnot.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 05:01:33 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 04:58:40 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:54:23 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 04:44:39 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:43:42 AM

HA HA

          i'm not certain what point you're referring to, but i don't think i mentioned not approving of peoples partners.


Quoteseem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted,

RIGHT,

          i also went on to say that these choices in partner are often ones that the individual may very well themselves not be happy about, yet it's a pattern in how they likely choose sexual partners.

AND

          then i went on to say that for me, the term "slut" is not a negative judgement, it's just how some people do what they do which differs from say, "traditional" dating.

IF,

          what this thread is seeking is to establish that "slut" is some kind of negative which ought never to be applied to anyone, then i have no access point or opinion on this topic.

You clearly didn't read my posts.

DUDE

          i read this whole thing twice. what's the big issue?

Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:54:23 AM
IF,

          what this thread is seeking is to establish that "slut" is some kind of negative which ought never to be applied to anyone, then i have no access point or opinion on this topic.


Since I started this thread, and I think I stated fairly clearly that I am opposed to using the word "slut" as a pejorative and am in favor of reclaiming the word, I think it is fairly clear that the thread is not "seeking is to establish that "slut" is some kind of negative which ought never to be applied to anyone".
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 05:03:16 AM
Well, EOT, I'm just gonna leave it at this:  I am in no manner so perfect that I can render judgement on anyone else's sex life, as long as it's between consenting adults.  If someone gets their kicks sleeping with loads of different people, good on 'em.  If it's not healthy for them in some manner, what can I do about it?  Nothing.  It certainly doesn't help if I slap labels on them.

AND,

           This.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:08:02 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:13:01 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:24:23 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 10:47:35 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 18, 2012, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:37:16 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 18, 2012, 06:25:07 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 17, 2012, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 09:23:05 PM
It's a game. It's TOTALLY a game. Winners get laid, losers go onto the next round.

Truth. :lol:

I emphatically encourage everyone who likes this game to find the nearest cleaver and fornicates with it.  I fucking despise this game, because as much of a gamer as I am I resent that you can lose at having sex with an interested party, and I don't understand the rules, and some people cheat at it.

Fuck this shit.

Aw, Freeky, if you both stay interested, you still do it.
No game would = no seduction. Just:

"Hi."
"Hi."
"You wanna fuck?"
"Yeah, I guess so."
"OK let's go."

Bullshit.

"Hey."
"Hey."
"Holy jesus I think you are the hottest shit ever."
"Really?  I was thinking the same about you!"
"GET IN MAH PANCE NAO."
"K. :fap: "

Just because there aren't any games doesn't mean there doesn't have to be any passion.

:lulz:

Several ways that could go horribly, horribly wrong, that have nothing to do with any kind of perceived "feminine virtue":

1) He looks hot now, but what happens after you know him a little more? Is he borderline retarded? Is he going to install himself on your couch and try to send you to food pantries? WHO IS THIS MOTHERFUCKER?

2) Guys who rush things, whether it's sex or a "serious relationship", are often abusive and almost always controlling. Even if it's just a casual fuckbuddies thing, he's going to think he has some kind of hold on you and can just pop in and knock off a chunk whenever he happens to feel like it. Even if you haven't seen him in a couple of years and you've forgotten him and it's TOTALLY THE WRONG TIME.

3) Next time you're in a so-called serious relationship, look back at the whole thing - what was the best part? The early days. The seduction and then the sex when it was still new. Why not stretch the fun part out as long as you can before everthing gets routine?

4) The fact that he could be one of THOSE GUYS. If you really like him and he turns out to be one of those assholes who thinks you're a jackrag because you put out, you KNOW he's the asshole who's at fault, but it still stings.

1. Then you stop sleeping with him. No harm, no foul.

2. Guys who rush into sex are horny and into you. Guys who try to push sex, or relationships, or commitments are more likely to be abusive/manipulative. Make the distinction. If he starts acting like a jackass, then you stop sleeping with him. No harm, no foul.

3. If the early days are the best part, you probably did it wrong. The early days were, biologically and neurologically speaking, the most EXCITING part, and the excitement/adrenaline is partly because of the lack of security. But long-term couples report being just as much in love as they were in the beginning, and actually report being MORE happy in the relationship over time, once they get through the inevitable crisis points within the first eight years when they experience their first two relationship cycles. Happily, neuroscience backs this up; these couples actually DO have the kind of activation in the particular parts of their brains that signifies romantic love as people who are newly in love.

4. He could turn out to be that jackrag whether or not you have sex with him. So, uh, I guess I'm not seeing the connection.

I'm not gonna throw down the gauntlet. Because Nigel knows her shit, and I might NEED this.

Tell me more about "the inevitable crisis points within the first eight years when they experience their first two relationship cycles"?

Stelz
Is a backwoods yahoo and has been winging it.

The short form is, the brain's romance chemicals ride a wavelength that peaks during courtship, and again at about five years into the relationship. And so on. But it valleys in between those peaks, and those chemical valleys are when breakups are most likely to happen... at least, during the first two valleys. After the first two valleys, couples that are otherwise happy and don't have any major problems start to recognize the valleys as transient, and they usually stop generating crises in and of themselves.

So if you make it five years, it's virtually in the bag?

WOOT!
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

E.O.T.

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:14:14 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 19, 2012, 04:22:06 AM

YOU GUYS

          seem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted, but it's also kind of a habit of hers. like, she sleeps with people she may not want to remember the details about the next day. yet, again, does this type of thing often. enough so, that as cool as she may be as a person, her sexual activity makes her unappealing, because she has no standards.

I think there are other, more appropriate descriptors for such women,


         BUT THEN I'M


all into sociology and psychology and whatnot.
"a good fight justifies any cause"

E.O.T.



Ok,

          i don't get it
"a good fight justifies any cause"