A thought on sluts

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is nothing earth-shaking, and surely has been thought/written about before, but I was just showering today and pondering a couple of recent incidents in which I turned down a would-be suitor, and it occurred to me that the underlying thing that men who are threatened by female sluts are threatened by, is not that they are free to sleep with whomever they wish, but that they are free to to turn down whomever they wish.

Attach some notion of virtue to women's sexuality that dictates that her sexuality belongs to one man only, or at least one man at a time; if a woman turns a man down because she's married or has a boyfriend (and thus her sexuality is already "owned" by someone else) or she's "not that kind of girl" (ie. she equates having sex with as entering a contract, and she doesn't want to enter that contract with you), and he can rationalize that she wanted him, but... and walk away with his ego intact. If a slut turns him down, though, there is nothing he can do but face the unpalatable reality of actual rejection; she said no because she simply doesn't want him.

Thoughts?

Unless a woman takes cash or other tangible compensation for sex, she is not a "slut".  The word slut comes out of the mouths of 4 kinds of people:

1.  A certain type of guy, once he's been turned down.
2.  A different type of guy, before he even approaches (if he ever does) a woman he feels is out of his league.
3.  Another kind of guy, who thinks so little of himself that anyone who sleeps with him must be a slut.
4.  A certain type of woman who disapproves of the actions of other types of women.

It is under no circumstances an exceptable term, even if you are discussing women who take pay for sex.  It's a dehumanizing term which relegates women to subhuman status.

[Suu]

Oh, not at all, but to hell with games. If sex is the main goal, I don't see why one can't just cut the bullshit.

Games that other people tell you you're supposed to play (PUA shit, that book for women that said "don't call guys, don't be on time, etc.", christian shit, blah blah) yeah. Fuck that.

Oh I don't play that shit. I'm just a chubby angry geek chick who somehow attracts guys easily when I want to. It must be chemical or something, because I couldn't get a date in high school to save my fucking life. Or, I just do what everyone should do, BE MYSELF. If you don't like what you see, then oh well. There's someone who does, and I'd be fucking DAMNED if I'm going to dress provocatively for the sake of a date. In my opinion that says, "TRYING TOO HARD." Even when I worked at the bar, I never wore a low-cut shirt. I knew my skills were enough for a tip, you don't need to see my boobs, damnit.

Seriously, I've had better luck just being Suu, not Suu with a pushup bra.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think there's an argument to be made that a lot of the 'slut' perception comes from morals created by the monotheistic religions (woman can only have one man). Many of the earlier polytheistic religions included orgies as part of their rituals.

However, with the advent of the Jewish system, you had a religion, a government and a social system all in one... and everything was managed via the male lineage. If your Daddy was a Levite in the line of Aaron, you might get to be a priest. If he was from Judah or Benjamin or one of the other tribes, it defined what land you would inherit and where that land would go if you died without heirs. If you were from Judah, it also meant you might have a child/grandchild/etc who was the Messiah.

If women could get sperm from anyone... the whole inheritance system would have fallen apart. So it suddenly became "God's Law" that women could only have one man (but men could have multiple women cause the female line is easy to follow). When the Christians and Muslims were formed from the roots of Judaism, they inherited "Gods Laws" from the Hebrew system.

Had the ancient Israelites had DNA testing, who knows what our moral system might have looked like

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

This is nothing earth-shaking, and surely has been thought/written about before, but I was just showering today and pondering a couple of recent incidents in which I turned down a would-be suitor, and it occurred to me that the underlying thing that men who are threatened by female sluts are threatened by, is not that they are free to sleep with whomever they wish, but that they are free to to turn down whomever they wish.

Attach some notion of virtue to women's sexuality that dictates that her sexuality belongs to one man only, or at least one man at a time; if a woman turns a man down because she's married or has a boyfriend (and thus her sexuality is already "owned" by someone else) or she's "not that kind of girl" (ie. she equates having sex with as entering a contract, and she doesn't want to enter that contract with you), and he can rationalize that she wanted him, but... and walk away with his ego intact. If a slut turns him down, though, there is nothing he can do but face the unpalatable reality of actual rejection; she said no because she simply doesn't want him.

Thoughts?

Unless a woman takes cash or other tangible compensation for sex, she is not a "slut".  The word slut comes out of the mouths of 4 kinds of people:

1.  A certain type of guy, once he's been turned down.
2.  A different type of guy, before he even approaches (if he ever does) a woman he feels is out of his league.
3.  Another kind of guy, who thinks so little of himself that anyone who sleeps with him must be a slut.
4.  A certain type of woman who disapproves of the actions of other types of women.

It is under no circumstances an exceptable term, even if you are discussing women who take pay for sex.  It's a dehumanizing term which relegates women to subhuman status.

Totally agree it's dehumanizing.

I heard it defined a little differently, though. I've actually been told that there are "four ranks of women". The person who told me this said he "didn't think that way" but "it's how men think".

What's disturbing is that a lot of them really seem to.

1. Ladies. Ladies are usually virgins when they get married and they stay with one guy their whole life. (I don't think I've known any "ladies" born after 1930, and I sometimes wonder about the ones I did know.  )

2. Women. A woman is basically a serial monogamist. Has one husband or boyfriend at a time.

3. Whores. A prostitute. Bangs anybody, but "at least she gets paid for it".

4. Sluts. Bangs anybody. Period. (By this standard, I don't think I've known any "sluts" who weren't on the verge of alcohol poisoning, either.)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I heard it defined a little differently, though. I've actually been told that there are "four ranks of women". The person who told me this said he "didn't think that way" but "it's how men think".

Meaning:  He thinks that way, and believes that everyone secretly believes what HE secretly believes.

There are two ranks of people, period.

And WE aren't EITHER ONE.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I heard it defined a little differently, though. I've actually been told that there are "four ranks of women". The person who told me this said he "didn't think that way" but "it's how men think".

Meaning:  He thinks that way, and believes that everyone secretly believes what HE secretly believes.

There are two ranks of people, period.

And WE aren't EITHER ONE.

Damn right.   

[Lenin McCarthy]

There is a woman in my circle of friends who has recently accused several of my friends of "slut-shaming" her. The interesting thing is that the reason for this accusation is because she thinks it's funny to make a game of sleeping with other people's partners, and then watch the drama fly, and several people told her that this is not an ethical thing to do, particularly to your friends. Using sex as a weapon or a game that messes with people's heads is not OK. She is very beautiful and not used to being turned down, but there have been a couple of recent incidents where she has gone way over the top, in public, in pursuit of a friend's sex partner... both of which resulted in humiliation for her. One guy actually pushed her off his lap. Needless to say, she is furious about this, and blames... us.

I would have to argue that we are in no way "slut shaming" her by telling her this behavior is unacceptable.

A guy I know once defined "slutty behavior" as something like that bolded part, separating it from general promiscuity, which he was completely fine with.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Uhhh, TDRR...you meant people who dictate to other people how to think and people who pay attention to that shit, right?
Don't want to assume.

There is a woman in my circle of friends who has recently accused several of my friends of "slut-shaming" her. The interesting thing is that the reason for this accusation is because she thinks it's funny to make a game of sleeping with other people's partners, and then watch the drama fly, and several people told her that this is not an ethical thing to do, particularly to your friends. Using sex as a weapon or a game that messes with people's heads is not OK. She is very beautiful and not used to being turned down, but there have been a couple of recent incidents where she has gone way over the top, in public, in pursuit of a friend's sex partner... both of which resulted in humiliation for her. One guy actually pushed her off his lap. Needless to say, she is furious about this, and blames... us.

I would have to argue that we are in no way "slut shaming" her by telling her this behavior is unacceptable.

A guy I know once defined "slutty behavior" as something like that bolded part, separating it from general promiscuity, which he was completely fine with.

That's the same as "A n- is a low person". 

ETA: I should probably clarify, her behavior is fucked up because it's malicious, not because it's sexual.

I guess I'm as damaged as a lot of people, because my immediate go-to words would be "cunt" or "skank". 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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.

I like that one. 

Other possibilities might involve "certifiable", "shit" and "buffoon".

[Lenin McCarthy]

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.

Thanks for pointing that out. The guy who told me that is a bit of a douche, so it doesn't surprise me.

[Freeky]

It's a game. It's TOTALLY a game. Winners get laid, losers go onto the next round.

Truth.

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. "

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

[Freeky]

On topic:

I've been thinking about this for a couple weeks.  I am in agreement that when guys use the term, it is most likely because they heard she was promiscuous and then she turned them down.  I was trying to think of ways to subvert the word, turn it back in the faces of people who only think in that way subconciously, to make them examine themselves more fully.

Not any really good ideas came to mind. :/

[LMNO]

Relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

The SlutWalk protest marches began on April 3, 2011,[1] in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and became a movement of rallies across the world.[2] Participants protest against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman's appearance.[3] The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, "women should avoid dressing like sluts."[4][5] The protest takes the form of a march, mainly by young women, where some dress provocatively, like sluts. There are also speaker meetings and workshops.[6] Some objectors have remarked that this approach is an example of women defining their sexuality in male terms.[7]

[hooplala]

Relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

The SlutWalk protest marches began on April 3, 2011,[1] in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and became a movement of rallies across the world.[2] Participants protest against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman's appearance.[3] The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, "women should avoid dressing like sluts."[4][5] The protest takes the form of a march, mainly by young women, where some dress provocatively, like sluts. There are also speaker meetings and workshops.[6] Some objectors have remarked that this approach is an example of women defining their sexuality in male terms.[7]

That's what they say... in reality Enrico came to visit me, and when he took a walk he just began attracting "poon", as he put it.