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?
I think that is it exactly.
"They say she'd fuck anyone, but she turned me down. What does this say about me?"
I wonder what the percentages of rapists like Ted Bundy, who was considered to be a good-looking popular guy, are as opposed to guys who would either have to pay a prostitute or resort to abject masturbation? My guess is there are plenty of good-looking rapists who one would think would be able to get laid without force, but for whatever reason they feel the need to inflict themselves on women.
There are plenty more ways to avoid that truth. If you are rejected by a slut then she is a dumb slut. Or a bitch, that he didn't really want anyway.
What I discovered recently is that irish men rarely attack women by calling the sluts but other women are viscous in that regard.
Somewhat relevant:
http://jezebel.com/5923855/turns-out-getting-slutty-on-the-first-date-can-lead-to-marriage?tag=relationships
QuoteThe point is that if you do want to have sex, and he wants to have sex too, then what the fuck is stopping you? Objectively? What is it? Some made-up rules about the purity of your vagina? Please. Which got me thinking—who invented this system, who benefits from it, and who perpetuates it?
The answers are men, men, and everybody. First of all, this paradigm is hella old. It was probably invented by, like, the 4th dude. This is basic stuff. The idea that a woman is property that can be "soiled" and then lose its value once it becomes "used" is the basis for the majority of the subtle patriarchal oppression that still crushes women all over the place. And nowadays, the dude gets to have sex with as many women as he wants and, thanks to our primordially ingrained double standard, still maintain the moral high ground—he's better than her because she gave it up "too soon" (according to some arbitrary Gregorian boner calendar). "Eeeeew, gross, lady! You're a terrible person for doing that thing that I was literally begging you to do five minutes ago!"
Sounds about right. Most men are absolutely horrible at handling rejection. I've witnessed it so many times when out drinking.
Many men equate flirting with "I want to have naked secks with this strange man" and can't quite cope with the fact that that is not how it is.
Also somewhat relevant: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethical-Slut-Relationships-Adventures/dp/1587613379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342539342&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ethical+sult
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 17, 2012, 04:35:15 PM
Sounds about right. Most men are absolutely horrible at handling rejection. I've witnessed it so many times when out drinking.
Many men equate flirting with "I want to have naked secks with this strange man" and can't quite cope with the fact that that is not how it is.
I think in general most people are horrible at rejection, but men can more easily DO something about it.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:29:13 PM
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?
:mittens:
THIS is the payoff for sticking out PD through shit like &drugs&drugs&drugs.
Fucking INCISIVE.
I also question if sluts even truly
exist. The trope is that they fuck
anybody who wants it. Being hit with the reality that a woman they think of as a "slut" is a person with likes, dislikes and a degree of autonomy, not some kind of old sock to jack off into, is probably some of what pisses these guys off, too.
One of my bestest guy friends has told me that he will not take a woman seriously if she puts out on the first date. He will still sleep with her, but he won't call her back. If you want to fuck and have a one-night stand, or be fuck buddies, that's cool, but, if you wish to enter a dating relationship, having sex on the first date is a no-no. Though, as a man, when offered vagina, he won't turn it down, but it will change the relationship's dynamic in his head. He may not view her as a "slut" per se, but he won't respect her as potential girlfriend material.
Slut shaming is more of what women do to women. I'm guilty of slutting occasionally (ie. fucking on the first date,) but I wouldn't call myself *A* slut. Those are cases of me being stupid and horny, and not using my best judgement, and, because of my own stupid moves, I don't feel like I can really shame anyone for doing the same thing. My sister doesn't have a solid relationship with anyone right now, she just plays regularly with some of the Philadelphia Phillies, and I don't mean baseball. Again though, it's her decision, even if I downright don't approve of it.
Dear Coke Talk has covered this subject before. She's damn good at discussing/slamming the idea of "sluts".
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:33:26 PM
One of my bestest guy friends has told me that he will not take a woman seriously if she puts out on the first date. He will still sleep with her, but he won't call her back. If you want to fuck and have a one-night stand, or be fuck buddies, that's cool, but, if you wish to enter a dating relationship, having sex on the first date is a no-no. Though, as a man, when offered vagina, he won't turn it down, but it will change the relationship's dynamic in his head. He may not view her as a "slut" per se, but he won't respect her as potential girlfriend material.
You realize that's completely fucking bullshit, right? The majority of my long-term relationships started with first-date fucking (or at least heavy petting). Including the woman I married. Writing off a potential long-term partner
just because she's as horny as you are is fucking ridiculous.
But...that's his opinion. To him it's not bullshit, but to you it is.
There's really no right or wrong answer in this type of argument as everybody has a completely different view of morality and sexuality.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:55:09 PM
But...that's his opinion. To him it's not bullshit, but to you it is.
There's really no right or wrong answer in this type of argument as everybody has a completely different view of morality and sexuality.
I think a lot of people's opinions are bullshit. Especially opinions that negatively judge a person's personality based upon their biological desires.
Women should be encouraged to be sluts, I think. I have a hard time understanding this cultural stereotype that men are driven literally berserk by their libidos, and women have sex drives approaching zero. It also turns me off completely to see sex being used to sell so many things (to men, of course). I wish I could say it was a moral objection I have to it but really it's just that I have a thing for seeing women embracing their own sexual desires for their own benefit (as opposed to flaunting their attractiveness for the benefit of men), probably because it tends to validate my own libido.
Quote from: v3x on July 17, 2012, 07:13:59 PM
Women should be encouraged to be sluts, I think.
HEAR HEAR!
*cough*
I mean... right on?
Quote from: v3x on July 17, 2012, 07:13:59 PM
Women should be encouraged to be sluts, I think. I have a hard time understanding this cultural stereotype that men are driven literally berserk by their libidos, and women have sex drives approaching zero. It also turns me off completely to see sex being used to sell so many things (to men, of course). I wish I could say it was a moral objection I have to it but really it's just that I have a thing for seeing women embracing their own sexual desires for their own benefit (as opposed to flaunting their attractiveness for the benefit of men), probably because it tends to validate my own libido.
YES!
I think most of this kind of behavior is due to feelings of inferiority.
Most women I meet that have problems in their LTR is because their other simply won't fuck them. They play video games, or watch teevee, or go fishing, etc. And they get all pissy when confronted with it.
That happens a LOT. A lot more than our culture permits, apparently. I mean, there's this constant push for sex, this incredible sex drive that men are supposed to have. But once they get settled in they just sort of get...tired all the time. Like male lions, laying back in the sun, cooling their balls because, hell, shit's all set up now.
It's just bizzare.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 17, 2012, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:33:26 PM
One of my bestest guy friends has told me that he will not take a woman seriously if she puts out on the first date. He will still sleep with her, but he won't call her back. If you want to fuck and have a one-night stand, or be fuck buddies, that's cool, but, if you wish to enter a dating relationship, having sex on the first date is a no-no. Though, as a man, when offered vagina, he won't turn it down, but it will change the relationship's dynamic in his head. He may not view her as a "slut" per se, but he won't respect her as potential girlfriend material.
You realize that's completely fucking bullshit, right? The majority of my long-term relationships started with first-date fucking (or at least heavy petting). Including the woman I married. Writing off a potential long-term partner just because she's as horny as you are is fucking ridiculous.
This.
Sex for men is a conquest. Having sex with the same person exclusively for 50 years can feel like sending the Army to invade Fort Knox. Especially if it's the same routine every single time.
Quote from: Alty on July 17, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Most women I meet that have problems in their LTR is because their other simply won't fuck them. They play video games, or watch teevee, or go fishing, etc. And they get all pissy when confronted with it.
I see you've met my ex-husband. Sex cooled off almost instantly once we had rings on our fingers. I guess you really do "settle". Your mental and physical state just sorta changes when relationships seem to get more permanent. It's not the first time I've heard this, either.
Quote from: v3x on July 17, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Sex for men is a conquest. Having sex with the same person exclusively for 50 years can feel like sending the Army to invade Fort Knox. Especially if it's the same routine every single time.
Doin' it wrong. Just sayin'.
Quote from: v3x on July 17, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Sex for men is a conquest. Having sex with the same person exclusively for 50 years can feel like sending the Army to invade Fort Knox. Especially if it's the same routine every single time.
No. I cannot speak for the entirety of the male population, but sex is about fun and intimacy.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 17, 2012, 07:42:26 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 17, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Sex for men is a conquest. Having sex with the same person exclusively for 50 years can feel like sending the Army to invade Fort Knox. Especially if it's the same routine every single time.
Doin' it wrong. Just sayin'.
Maybe conquest was the wrong word. I meant it's more exciting when it isn't just another routine. I DID have this problem for a while. But there are ways to avoid this trap without resorting to extramarital sex or deepening layers of deviance.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 07:40:49 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 17, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Most women I meet that have problems in their LTR is because their other simply won't fuck them. They play video games, or watch teevee, or go fishing, etc. And they get all pissy when confronted with it.
I see you've met my ex-husband. Sex cooled off almost instantly once we had rings on our fingers. I guess you really do "settle". Your mental and physical state just sorta changes when relationships seem to get more permanent. It's not the first time I've heard this, either.
I think the permanence removes (or can remove) the need to worry about impressing each other.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 17, 2012, 07:42:26 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 17, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Sex for men is a conquest. Having sex with the same person exclusively for 50 years can feel like sending the Army to invade Fort Knox. Especially if it's the same routine every single time.
Doin' it wrong. Just sayin'.
I may not have a cock and balls, but I agree with LMNO. If you're with the right person, sex with them should shatter worlds, every time, no matter how long you've been together.
It also probably has to do with deep urges to impress other people. When you commit to someone, if you assume that they are going to be with you no matter what, when you're sure you've impressed them as much as you can, it starts to get dull. You still have the drive to impress and all your old tricks and habits aren't very exciting any more.
Anyhow, the idea that men can fuck a thousand women and beg for more is so prevalent they inevitably feel threatened when a woman acts the same way. Especially if they feel some kind of righteousness.
"I don't let my baser male instincts take over. Why can't you control yourself? Because you're a slut."
When the reality is most women I know (in the biblical sense) can just keep going and going and going, and I am a lazy man. I've even felt that kind of inferiority and the aggression that comes with it when you can't keep up.
But that's stupid monkey brain talking. Waffle Iron is right, but I think it takes some thought to get to that place.
So it basically goes back to archaic thought.
"I'm a man, it's okay for me to screw my way in circles around a bar...but you're a woman, and if you do that, it makes you a skank. Now get home and wash dishes barefoot where you belong."
Okay, maybe not that last part, but you have to admit the entire school of thought in itself is entirely chauvinistic. Why should I, the bearer of the vagina, be called a slut? Because the original vagina bearer ate the fruit that gave us knowledge because the Debil told her too? Oh fuck off.
Exactly. "You're not good enough to be my girlfriend/wife because you get horny and do something about it" is douchebag thinking.
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
This is post is why I love Suu.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:33:26 PM
One of my bestest guy friends has told me that he will not take a woman seriously if she puts out on the first date. He will still sleep with her, but he won't call her back. If you want to fuck and have a one-night stand, or be fuck buddies, that's cool, but, if you wish to enter a dating relationship, having sex on the first date is a no-no. Though, as a man, when offered vagina, he won't turn it down, but it will change the relationship's dynamic in his head. He may not view her as a "slut" per se, but he won't respect her as potential girlfriend material.
Slut shaming is more of what women do to women. I'm guilty of slutting occasionally (ie. fucking on the first date,) but I wouldn't call myself *A* slut. Those are cases of me being stupid and horny, and not using my best judgement, and, because of my own stupid moves, I don't feel like I can really shame anyone for doing the same thing. My sister doesn't have a solid relationship with anyone right now, she just plays regularly with some of the Philadelphia Phillies, and I don't mean baseball. Again though, it's her decision, even if I downright don't approve of it.
Dear Coke Talk has covered this subject before. She's damn good at discussing/slamming the idea of "sluts".
I think what
he's doing is a form of slut shaming. It might be a test from his perspective to see how likely a woman is to screw around, but it still amounts to slut shaming. The woman who liked him enough to put out on the first date is made to feel like garbage.
What's odd is, I think us women decide in
the first five minutes if a guy is going to get sex or not (if he doesn't say or do something stupid and blow it) and everything else is just an elaborate social ritual. IOW, we might want it on the first date but we don't do it out of fear of losing the guy.
The double standard does have some basis in biology, after all, we're the ones who get knocked up. The guy who left his DNA in every port was a "success", the woman with kids from all different daddies, not so much, since she probably had trouble getting anybody to help support them ("How do I know it's mine?"). Of course now we have birth control, DNA testing and child support enforcement, but it might be a long time before our wiring catches up.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
She sounds a lot like Ninon L'Enclos, who was awesome. :) If you don't know her, give her a google.
Quote from: Hoopla on July 17, 2012, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
This is post is why I love Suu.
Because I'm a nerd? :lulz:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 17, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
What's odd is, I think us women decide in the first five minutes if a guy is going to get sex or not (if he doesn't say or do something stupid and blow it) and everything else is just an elaborate social ritual. IOW, we might want it on the first date but we don't do it out of fear of losing the guy.
I knew I was eventually going to sleep with Navyguy while on the first date, but it didn't happen til the 3rd. You just /know/. It's hard to explain to guys I think, but women get it. Maybe it's hormones, or something that you're instantly attracted to, but there's something that clicks in your mind and goes, "Yes to sex with him." It's purely biological if not animalistic I'm sure, but I assure you, that our brain seals the deal before the first kiss is even at hand.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on July 17, 2012, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
This is post is why I love Suu.
Because I'm a nerd? :lulz:
Because you know stuff like that.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on July 17, 2012, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
This is post is why I love Suu.
Because I'm a nerd? :lulz:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 17, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
What's odd is, I think us women decide in the first five minutes if a guy is going to get sex or not (if he doesn't say or do something stupid and blow it) and everything else is just an elaborate social ritual. IOW, we might want it on the first date but we don't do it out of fear of losing the guy.
I knew I was eventually going to sleep with Navyguy while on the first date, but it didn't happen til the 3rd. You just /know/. It's hard to explain to guys I think, but women get it. Maybe it's hormones, or something that you're instantly attracted to, but there's something that clicks in your mind and goes, "Yes to sex with him." It's purely biological if not animalistic I'm sure, but I assure you, that our brain seals the deal before the first kiss is even at hand.
I think some guys are onto it and can play a woman like a fiddle by turning the tables and making US wait a little while. Also hard to explain, but not knowing where you stand at first is AWESOME.
It's a game. It's TOTALLY a game. Winners get laid, losers go onto the next round.
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:
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.
That drives me mad because I never know the rules.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:33:26 PM
One of my bestest guy friends has told me that he will not take a woman seriously if she puts out on the first date. He will still sleep with her, but he won't call her back. If you want to fuck and have a one-night stand, or be fuck buddies, that's cool, but, if you wish to enter a dating relationship, having sex on the first date is a no-no. Though, as a man, when offered vagina, he won't turn it down, but it will change the relationship's dynamic in his head. He may not view her as a "slut" per se, but he won't respect her as potential girlfriend material.
In what way is this not an elemental part of slut-shaming? He may not call her a slut, but he's clearly viewing her as a slut, and therefore as not worthy of love.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:33:26 PM
Slut shaming is more of what women do to women. I'm guilty of slutting occasionally (ie. fucking on the first date,) but I wouldn't call myself *A* slut. Those are cases of me being stupid and horny, and not using my best judgement, and, because of my own stupid moves, I don't feel like I can really shame anyone for doing the same thing. My sister doesn't have a solid relationship with anyone right now, she just plays regularly with some of the Philadelphia Phillies, and I don't mean baseball. Again though, it's her decision, even if I downright don't approve of it.
Dear Coke Talk has covered this subject before. She's damn good at discussing/slamming the idea of "sluts".
It's interesting that you use that language/view your decisions the way you do.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
I'm gonna have to look this lady up!
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 02:30:52 AM
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.
No, you're not. I'm surprised she even has any female friends left.
That's not even about sex, really, it's about spite and malice.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 02:17:27 AM
It's interesting that you use that language/view your decisions the way you do.
It's amazing what the power of words can do to someone. Even though I was obviously comfortable enough in the position to have sex at the time, I've always had this horrific nag in the back of my head that it was wrong. My friend's opinion has nothing to do with this, because he didn't tell me that until I told him my feelings on my actions. I now wonder if he was just saying that to make me feel better about my own regrets.
I've also found that as I've gotten older, though, my views on sex have changed significantly. I mean, I went from being a teenager with a 3 month rule (which I'm sure pissed Herbert off to no end, oh well.) To such a casual view of sex in a decade. I'm sure both maturity and experience have a lot to do with this, though.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 02:21:26 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Veronica Franco from 16th Century Venice wrote amazing dialogs regarding this. Of course, she was also a courtesan, but one so educated that men would go to HER for advice on everything from warfare to philosophy. The other women loathed her for it. Not just because she fucked their husbands, but because she knew how to read more than just the Psalms, and she rails into them as well for sitting back and whining about her instead of trying to break out of their own cages.
They made a movie about her called Dangerous Beauty, based on the biographical novel called The Honest Courtesan by Margaret Rosenthal, who is well known in the Italian Renaissance sphere of studies, I have a couple of her works because she's a translator of middle Italian, including Franco's collection of letters and poetry. I highly recommend it if you have a thing for smutty poems and letters to the King of France regarding an alliance with Venice against the Ottomans...ALL IN THE SAME VOLUME. She had a hardcore slut shamer who wrote nasty things about her...She retorts and makes him look like a total fucking douchebag, even by Renaissance standards.
I'm gonna have to look this lady up!
You should. And the movie is worth watching. It's pretty dramatized, but still gives a great view of what life was like for her.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 02:30:52 AM
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.
That's not slut-shaming, that's telling a bitch to back the fuck off.
What she is doing IS morally wrong, and unfortunately it sounds like she has severe problems with self-confidence.
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.
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."
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:37:16 AM
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."
sounds good to me.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 18, 2012, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:37:16 AM
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."
sounds good to me.
I'm getting a feeling a lot of people consider suspense and romance and all that disposable. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 18, 2012, 09:39:30 AM
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:29:13 PM
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.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 18, 2012, 09:39:30 AM
:lulz:
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.
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 :D
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:29:13 PM
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. :lol: )
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.)
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
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.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:10:30 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
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. 8)
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 02:30:52 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Lenin/McCarthy on July 18, 2012, 05:38:41 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 02:30:52 AM
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". :x
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". :x
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.
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.
I like that one. :)
Other possibilities might involve "certifiable", "shit" and "buffoon".
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.
Thanks for pointing that out. The guy who told me that is a bit of a douche, so it doesn't surprise me.
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.
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. :/
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
QuoteThe 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]
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
QuoteThe 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]
I went to one. I even got to lead the chanting once. One of the chants was "Hey hey, ho ho, 100110". <= Not at all relevant, but funny.
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.
OK, that last one has to do with "perceived feminine virtue"...but it's all in people's heads.
A lot of SEX is in peoples heads, I think. (Shut up with the skullfuck jokes, haha) Anticipation is great.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 18, 2012, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:37:16 AM
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."
sounds good to me.
I'm getting a feeling a lot of people consider suspense and romance and all that disposable. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I LIKE romance. I am not such a huge fan of suspense. The most successful couples I know personally didn't bother with the jerking-each-other-around-emotionally portion of the game... they liked each other, they had sex, they continued to like each other, and the thrill came from getting to know each other and doing things that make each other feel good. Bam. There's your fucking romance! And your romantic fucking.
The people who need the endless up-and-down of suspense and anxiety and not knowing where they stand?
DIVORCEVILLE. Trust me; I'm a three-timer. Thousands of dollars in therapy to figure out what I needed to fix, and I'm not, at this point, confident that it's fixed. I think the main reason people get divorced these days is because of unrealistic societal expectations for what being "in love" looks like. Look at absolutely any romance movie for examples of this.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:10:30 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
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.
THIS.
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 18, 2012, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 18, 2012, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:37:16 AM
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."
sounds good to me.
I'm getting a feeling a lot of people consider suspense and romance and all that disposable. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I LIKE romance. I am not such a huge fan of suspense. The most successful couples I know personally didn't bother with the jerking-each-other-around-emotionally portion of the game... they liked each other, they had sex, they continued to like each other, and the thrill came from getting to know each other and doing things that make each other feel good. Bam. There's your fucking romance! And your romantic fucking.
The people who need the endless up-and-down of suspense and anxiety and not knowing where they stand?
DIVORCEVILLE. Trust me; I'm a three-timer. Thousands of dollars in therapy to figure out what I needed to fix, and I'm not, at this point, confident that it's fixed. I think the main reason people get divorced these days is because of unrealistic societal expectations for what being "in love" looks like. Look at absolutely any romance movie for examples of this.
Probably should have been clearer, I meant suspense during the getting to know each other stage. When you're *just* worried enough to get that SQUEEEEE! feeling when the phone rings.
Suspense and anxiety after that stage would suck. It's no fun without the brain chemicals. :lol:
And yeah, movies. "Soul mates". :x :x :x
Another observation I find interesting; "slut" is almost exclusively used to describe a woman who has multiple partners at once, regardless of lifetime number of partners or frequency of finding new partners, rather than to describe serial monogamists. " I have been called a slut by a woman who burned through boyfriends at a mind-boggling rate, despite having fewer new partners in a year's span, because I didn't padlock myself to one guy's dick at a time.
"Slut" seems mostly to mean "Doesn't automatically, reflexively hand control of her vagina to the man she's sleeping with".
I am not at all opposed to monogamy; in fact, I prefer it when I'm in a relationship where monogamy is warranted, which is definitely not defined merely by "is having sex with someone". If/when the relationship moves to a stage when it's time to ask for that level of mutual acknowledgment and commitment, I'm all over it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
QuoteThe 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]
Slutwalk was HUGE here this year! Fantastic. My daughter, who is a "virgin" (we'll talk more about that concept at some point) wants to attend next year. I heart my tiny radical!
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.
The ONE valid reason I can think of to hold off on sex is because sex activates bonding hormones, and makes it more likely that you'll end up falling in love with a person who is bad for you.
Which is also an argument for maintaining a few steady lovers until you find one you know is right to make a long-term partnership with, so that you're not deprived of sex and intimacy, are less likely to make a bad choice, and have the comfort and support of another lover if someone you had high hopes for goes south.
In my neighborhood we'd say that a man would call a woman a slut because he was mad she would fuck everyone but him, very much in the spirit of the 1st post. What would i call a slut? A woman who uses sex to achieve ends or station vice pleasure or romance, or to "buy in" as if it were something to be bartered or offered up in lieu of some trait or quality that is inherently valuable.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:31:13 AM
The ONE valid reason I can think of to hold off on sex is because sex activates bonding hormones, and makes it more likely that you'll end up falling in love with a person who is bad for you.
Which is also an argument for maintaining a few steady lovers until you find one you know is right to make a long-term partnership with, so that you're not deprived of sex and intimacy, are less likely to make a bad choice, and have the comfort and support of another lover if someone you had high hopes for goes south.
I agree with both of these.
Stella, the "Hey, hey" in my situational thingy could be the place where you get to know someone. Or not.
I
hate hate hate not knowing where I stand. Hate hate hate. I can't go on long enough about how much being jerked about emotionally pisses me off, especially since I don't do that to other people. I'm awkward at being up front with what I want and need as it is, I don't need another layer to deal with stupid sex games. :x
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.
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.
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:
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 01:38:24 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:31:13 AM
The ONE valid reason I can think of to hold off on sex is because sex activates bonding hormones, and makes it more likely that you'll end up falling in love with a person who is bad for you.
Which is also an argument for maintaining a few steady lovers until you find one you know is right to make a long-term partnership with, so that you're not deprived of sex and intimacy, are less likely to make a bad choice, and have the comfort and support of another lover if someone you had high hopes for goes south.
I agree with both of these.
Stella, the "Hey, hey" in my situational thingy could be the place where you get to know someone. Or not.
I hate hate hate not knowing where I stand. Hate hate hate. I can't go on long enough about how much being jerked about emotionally pisses me off, especially since I don't do that to other people. I'm awkward at being up front with what I want and need as it is, I don't need another layer to deal with stupid sex games. :x
Jerking people around is flat WRONG, I agree.
But there's something attractive about a man who keeps you wondering, at least at first. A lot of my callers are in this position, and it makes them obsess. They drop five bucks a minute asking me what he's thinking, how he feels, is he going to call again?
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
That's what I mean by a game. I don't know why it's like that, but I see it over and over.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:29:08 AM
But there's something attractive about a man who keeps you wondering, at least at first.
To
you.Quote
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
For
you.Neither of these is the case for me, and while I will agree to disagree that this is a matter of taste, I refuse point blank that your generalization is correct.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:29:08 AM
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
I'm gonna have to go with Nigel's interpretation of that phenomenon, because I know more than a couple of people who were friends before they got together.
The "friend" is usually someone who thinks that paying attention, etc, is all that should be required for the other person to "come to their senses".
In reality, while people like being adored, they mostly want to adore the person
they adore.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 03:39:02 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:29:08 AM
But there's something attractive about a man who keeps you wondering, at least at first.
To you.
Quote
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
For you.
Neither of these is the case for me, and while I will agree to disagree that this is a matter of taste, I refuse point blank that your generalization is correct.
Me and about a gazillion others.
You're different, Freeky. And whoever had the chance to snag you and didn't is a fucking retard.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 03:43:00 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:29:08 AM
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
I'm gonna have to go with Nigel's interpretation of that phenomenon, because I know more than a couple of people who were friends before they got together.
The "friend" is usually someone who thinks that paying attention, etc, is all that should be required for the other person to "come to their senses".
In reality, while people like being adored, they mostly want to adore the person they adore.
Precisely!
I have never understood the whole "To close to love you
that way" deal. Forgive me for saying so, but it's retarded. I adore and love many of my friends, and I would have no problem attaching romantic adoration onto that. Seems like it would be simpler, anyway.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 03:43:00 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:29:08 AM
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
I'm gonna have to go with Nigel's interpretation of that phenomenon, because I know more than a couple of people who were friends before they got together.
The "friend" is usually someone who thinks that paying attention, etc, is all that should be required for the other person to "come to their senses".
In reality, while people like being adored, they mostly want to adore the person they adore.
Yeah. Impractical as fuck, but there it is.
Slut does have one practical application, as a word.
Between consenting adults as part of a healthy regime of dirty talk!
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 03:46:54 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 03:43:00 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 19, 2012, 03:29:08 AM
Guys who are just ALWAYS RIGHT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING tend to be treated like girlfriends by women. Women confide in them. They lean on them. And then they go fuck somebody else. A little indifference is a motivator.
I'm gonna have to go with Nigel's interpretation of that phenomenon, because I know more than a couple of people who were friends before they got together.
The "friend" is usually someone who thinks that paying attention, etc, is all that should be required for the other person to "come to their senses".
In reality, while people like being adored, they mostly want to adore the person they adore.
Precisely!
I have never understood the whole "To close to love you that way" deal. Forgive me for saying so, but it's retarded. I adore and love many of my friends, and I would have no problem attaching romantic adoration onto that. Seems like it would be simpler, anyway.
I can see "not wanting to fuck up the friendship". People TRIP over sex. They expect ALL KINDS of shit, they don't see the PERSON anymore.
Your friend could turn into an ex. And "THE EX" is something like "THE WICKED STEPMOTHER". :lol:
So I totally get that fear. But I wouldn't bang anybody I didn't consider a friend. And I've always accepted them totally as is.
This usually gets me "fuckbuddy" though.
Hey, never said I had ANSWERS. :lol:
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!
This is just me, personally, but I don't like the word slut in my dirty talk. It makes me feel like the guy wants me to be inferior to him.
As a hijacked word, I think it would work well as a word describing a woman who is promiscuous, has likes and dislikes in people of her preferred sexes/genders, will definitely tell you to fuck off if she doesn't want to fuck you, and then beat you to death with your own penis.
Just because.I'd want to be a slut if it meant that.
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 DON'T PERSONALLY
consider "slut" to be a put down, really, it's just a way of doing things. nigel's "friend/ whatever" is, imo, not so much a slut as she is just an asshole. i've known guys just like that chick. being "slutty" may mean that one eventually sleeps with anyone and everyone in their friend/ social circle, but i think a lot of people mistake sexual intimacy for intimate communication. for some people, sex is the foot in the door to getting to know someone.
THAT SAID,
when i consider male slut friends, this term is more reserved for guys (i am thinking of mostly gay guy friends, since straight guy friends probably wish they could be sluts, if enough girls would just pay attention to them) who generally are so oversexed, that they really don't care what the anatomical parts are connected to, and will repeat this type of sexual encounter without shame, 'cause they're getting some. sluts can find true love though, i've seen this happen. even if it doesn't change their sexual habits, they just need to find the right partner.
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 DON'T PERSONALLY
consider "slut" to be a put down, really, it's just a way of doing things. nigel's "friend/ whatever" is, imo, not so much a slut as she is just an asshole. i've known guys just like that chick. being "slutty" may mean that one eventually sleeps with anyone and everyone in their friend/ social circle, but i think a lot of people mistake sexual intimacy for intimate communication. for some people, sex is the foot in the door to getting to know someone.
THAT SAID,
when i consider male slut friends, this term is more reserved for guys (i am thinking of mostly gay guy friends, since straight guy friends probably wish they could be sluts, if enough girls would just pay attention to them) who generally are so oversexed, that they really don't care what the anatomical parts are connected to, and will repeat this type of sexual encounter without shame, 'cause they're getting some. sluts can find true love though, i've seen this happen. even if it doesn't change their sexual habits, they just need to find the right partner.
That's a little judgemental, doncha think?
You don't approve of their partner(s), so they're sluts?
Yeah, man, that's a whole lot of skeezy on a lot of different levels.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 19, 2012, 04:24:56 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 DON'T PERSONALLY
consider "slut" to be a put down, really, it's just a way of doing things. nigel's "friend/ whatever" is, imo, not so much a slut as she is just an asshole. i've known guys just like that chick. being "slutty" may mean that one eventually sleeps with anyone and everyone in their friend/ social circle, but i think a lot of people mistake sexual intimacy for intimate communication. for some people, sex is the foot in the door to getting to know someone.
THAT SAID,
when i consider male slut friends, this term is more reserved for guys (i am thinking of mostly gay guy friends, since straight guy friends probably wish they could be sluts, if enough girls would just pay attention to them) who generally are so oversexed, that they really don't care what the anatomical parts are connected to, and will repeat this type of sexual encounter without shame, 'cause they're getting some. sluts can find true love though, i've seen this happen. even if it doesn't change their sexual habits, they just need to find the right partner.
That's a little judgemental, doncha think?
You don't approve of their partner(s), so they're sluts?
HA HA
i'm not certain what point you're referring to, but i don't think i mentioned not approving of peoples partners.
AND
i'm the kinda person that thinks skeezy is hot. i never said that
i'm not a slut!
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,
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).
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: ?
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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!
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.
Ok,
i don't get it
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
This one. :)
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:25:52 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
This one. :)
Well, I also like much more graphic things. I'm not ALL rainbows and puppies. Just not personally denigrating things.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:42:25 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:25:52 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
This one. :)
Well, I also like much more graphic things. I'm not ALL rainbows and puppies. Just not personally denigrating things.
:lol: NUH UH YOU ARE FULL OF RAINBOW-FARTING UNICORNS.
Just to be clear, because it seems like some people out there aren't getting it: I'm talking about the typical/common/pervasive use of the term "slut", not every special-snowflake-jackass's personal take on the term (which usually falls under the typical/common/pervasive definition, even if he/she's in denial about it).
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:44:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:42:25 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:25:52 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
This one. :)
Well, I also like much more graphic things. I'm not ALL rainbows and puppies. Just not personally denigrating things.
:lol: NUH UH YOU ARE FULL OF RAINBOW-FARTING UNICORNS.
KITTENS AND NASTURTIUMS AND FLUFFY CLOUDS! :lol:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:48:40 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:44:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:42:25 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:25:52 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
This one. :)
Well, I also like much more graphic things. I'm not ALL rainbows and puppies. Just not personally denigrating things.
:lol: NUH UH YOU ARE FULL OF RAINBOW-FARTING UNICORNS.
KITTENS AND NASTURTIUMS AND FLUFFY CLOUDS! :lol:
And now we know what happened to Nast.
Nigel
ate him. :cry:
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:50:17 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:48:40 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:44:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:42:25 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 05:25:52 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
This one. :)
Well, I also like much more graphic things. I'm not ALL rainbows and puppies. Just not personally denigrating things.
:lol: NUH UH YOU ARE FULL OF RAINBOW-FARTING UNICORNS.
KITTENS AND NASTURTIUMS AND FLUFFY CLOUDS! :lol:
And now we know what happened to Nast.
Nigel ate him. :cry:
:lulz: NASTURTIUMS: DELICIOUS IN SALADS!
HOW COULD YOU EAT NAST, NIGEL!? Poor, adorable little Nast. :cry:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
Those are, of course, great also (and far more frequently used) but hey, sometimes I just gotta be called a slut.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 06:07:36 AM
HOW COULD YOU EAT NAST, NIGEL!? Poor, adorable little Nast. :cry:
I DIDN'T MEAN TO
HE JUST LOOKED SO DELICIOUS.
Quote from: Suu on July 17, 2012, 06:55:09 PM
But...that's his opinion. To him it's not bullshit, but to you it is.
There's really no right or wrong answer in this type of argument as everybody has a completely different view of morality and sexuality.
No, there IS a wrong answer and it's your retarded buddy's. What a dipshit.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 19, 2012, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
Those are, of course, great also (and far more frequently used) but hey, sometimes I just gotta be called a slut.
:fap:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 19, 2012, 06:07:36 AM
HOW COULD YOU EAT NAST, NIGEL!? Poor, adorable little Nast. :cry:
I DIDN'T MEAN TO
HE JUST LOOKED SO DELICIOUS.
Do never test DENigel's hunger. You might end up like Nast. :cry:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 19, 2012, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
Those are, of course, great also (and far more frequently used) but hey, sometimes I just gotta be called a slut.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2012, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 19, 2012, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 19, 2012, 05:11:17 AM
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".
Those are, of course, great also (and far more frequently used) but hey, sometimes I just gotta be called a slut.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You're a
guy*, EOC. :lulz:
*Not sayin' "Yay double standard!" or anything...just being realistic.
I realize you're being glib, but enough with the over-gerealizations already.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 19, 2012, 06:52:18 PM
I realize you're being glib, but enough with the over-gerealizations already.
OK. Thanks for catching the "glib" part.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:29:13 PM
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?
If a "slut" turns the guy down, his ego is still insulated by the idea that she's an inferior being. If he's already dehumanized her as a slut, why would he stop there upon rejection? "She probably has an STD," is probably the next rationalization. Or, "I bet she's a gold-digger." The sour grapes rationalizations are pretty endless....
I take issue with the idea that being turned down by a monogamous woman who is already in a relationship somehow hurts less. I have been turned down in the recent past and it was clear she had some feelings for me. There's only so much long conversation, mutual blushing, and embarassingly wide grins that someone can give you before you can safely conclude they like you quite a bit. Eventually she said in a confessional tone that she had a boyfriend and it hurt bad.
I was thankful for the time I had to bask in her awesomeness and was glad that she was with someone who made her happy and appreciated that she asserted her boundaries with compassion, but it still killed me.
I don't think I'm rationalizing that she liked me, perhaps I am, but either way, being rejected by someone you have strong feelings for sucks. In my experience, it doesn't matter so much what the given reason is. If the bottom line is that they don't want to pursue a romantic relationship with you but you do, it's going to be a painful experience.
"STD" is part of the "she's a slut" thing, IME.
Being turned down by a monogamous gal certainly hurts many men more because they can rationalize it that she can't because another man already has sexual ownership over her (and many men do subconsciously believe this - please see martial rape).
A single lady who says no is a) not owned and b) still rejecting the guy hurts more because she's rejecting him of her own free will.
Somewhere along the way, I lost sight of the examination of the misogynist mind, rather than males in general.
I get it now.
Quote from: Net on July 19, 2012, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:29:13 PM
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?
If a "slut" turns the guy down, his ego is still insulated by the idea that she's an inferior being. If he's already dehumanized her as a slut, why would he stop there upon rejection? "She probably has an STD," is probably the next rationalization. Or, "I bet she's a gold-digger." The sour grapes rationalizations are pretty endless....
I take issue with the idea that being turned down by a monogamous woman who is already in a relationship somehow hurts less. I have been turned down in the recent past and it was clear she had some feelings for me. There's only so much long conversation, mutual blushing, and embarassingly wide grins that someone can give you before you can safely conclude they like you quite a bit. Eventually she said in a confessional tone that she had a boyfriend and it hurt bad.
I was thankful for the time I had to bask in her awesomeness and was glad that she was with someone who made her happy and appreciated that she asserted her boundaries with compassion, but it still killed me.
I don't think I'm rationalizing that she liked me, perhaps I am, but either way, being rejected by someone you have strong feelings for sucks. In my experience, it doesn't matter so much what the given reason is. If the bottom line is that they don't want to pursue a romantic relationship with you but you do, it's going to be a painful experience.
Yeah, but I don't think the kind of guys I'm talking about in the OP... the kind who would dismiss a woman as being a slut... are the kind who would understand, acknowledge and analyze their feelings like that.
Just saying.
Quote from: Net on July 20, 2012, 02:29:34 AM
Somewhere along the way, I lost sight of the examination of the misogynist mind, rather than males in general.
I get it now.
BAMF
Disregard my previous response.
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 DON'T PERSONALLY
consider "slut" to be a put down, really, it's just a way of doing things. nigel's "friend/ whatever" is, imo, not so much a slut as she is just an asshole. i've known guys just like that chick. being "slutty" may mean that one eventually sleeps with anyone and everyone in their friend/ social circle, but i think a lot of people mistake sexual intimacy for intimate communication. for some people, sex is the foot in the door to getting to know someone.
THAT SAID,
when i consider male slut friends, this term is more reserved for guys (i am thinking of mostly gay guy friends, since straight guy friends probably wish they could be sluts, if enough girls would just pay attention to them) who generally are so oversexed, that they really don't care what the anatomical parts are connected to, and will repeat this type of sexual encounter without shame, 'cause they're getting some. sluts can find true love though, i've seen this happen. even if it doesn't change their sexual habits, they just need to find the right partner.
This is how I've always used the word, although I do know straight male sluts. One of my friends is an attractive guy, he's also marginally musically talented and he is definitely an object of desire for women. He has no real discretion and sleeps with pretty much anyone. He's also had his heart broken several times because women don't want to get seriously involved with him.
I don't see slut as an insult, I'll happily be friends with a slut and there was a lot of time when I would have been a slut if I could have pulled it off. Its not really healthy, but fuck, neither is smoking and I won't judge you for that and I indulge in it myself now and then.
I'm also way more likely to use the word slut in reference to a male than a female, because it's more likely to be seen as insulting and degrading by a woman. Doesn't mean I won't call a woman a slut if I know her and know she's reasonably comfortable with that side of herself.
YOU'RE A SLUT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTGCHnPBUxc the music video
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 22, 2012, 07:46:49 AM
YOU'RE A SLUT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTGCHnPBUxc the music video
YOU are.