|
Post by Sweet Pea on Apr 14, 2009 8:18:45 GMT -5
This is a debate which is being moved from another thread to the debate forum. Carry on (respectfully of course). Rukry -------------- So that's why I chose to use that word. I won't deny that it's a bit off the academic use, but nevertheless it's a correct term. You've been very clear about the fact that you're purposefully using an offensive term because you feel promiscuous women aren't "worthy" of anyone's respect or concern. "Promiscuous" is the objectively correct term for someone who sleeps with many people, by the way. "Slut" is informal and most definitely implies a subjective value judgment. Either way, technically correct usage is a wholly inadequate excuse for offensive epithets. It's the "I only call sluts sluts" argument. Rukry -------------- Perhaps just to provoke people a bit for my own amusement . However bad gays may feel when called faggots I don't care for if I don't respect them for whatever reason. I don't have any respect AT ALL for sluts, that's why I call them by that word. I have respect for gays just like other people, but let's say that a gay for whatever reason had killed a friend of mine, then I'd truly dislike or almost hate him, and I wouldn't have minded at all calling him a "fucking faggot". You don't seem to realize that it's not as a favor to any individual that it's considered moral to refrain from calling anyone a "slut" or a "faggot" or one of any number of demeaning ethnic slurs just because you don't like them or their kind. When you decide you have a moral right to use those terms because you "hate" an individual, you're effectively saying that everybody gets to use those terms as long as they "hate" or disrespect a person or a group enough. When you call a woman a "slut" because she has 50 boyfriends, you make it legitimate for others to call a woman a "slut" for sleeping with anyone at all. Once you've established that some women deserve to be called "sluts," you're just quibbling over where to draw the line. You bet it's a free country and a free message board, so you are under no obligation to care about how anyone besides you feels about this kind of thing--but I highly recommend it. Rukry ---------------- But when I hear of girls shagging multiple guys for whatever reason {to gain interest at certain blokes, maybe?}, who act promiscuous and who tease others {both males and females} for not having had sex yet, then they are truly worthy of the term slut. This stuff about promiscuous women teasing guys who haven't had sex yet is in your head. The OP was worried women "might" not want a relationship with a guy who hadn't had sex yet, but realized those women might just be looking for a fling, and therefore were never real relationship possibilities to begin with. He wasn't judging anyone looking for just sex, so why do you care? What's the problem with girls "shagging multiple guys," and what makes you assume they're only doing it to win approval? What about promiscuity, by itself, makes a person unworthy of respect? Why is it important that you dismiss them as "sluts?"
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 14, 2009 8:35:08 GMT -5
It seems to me that he wasn't attacking anyone.
It's like saying "Some people are real assholes" Should we ban the word because someone finds it offensive? I think not.
If it's used as an attack, then we'll deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by rukryM on Apr 14, 2009 8:58:04 GMT -5
You've been very clear about the fact that you're purposefully using an offensive term because you feel promiscuous women aren't "worthy" of anyone's respect or concern. "Promiscuous" is the objectively correct term for someone who sleeps with many people, by the way. "Slut" is informal and most definitely implies a subjective value judgment. Either way, technically correct usage is a wholly inadequate excuse for offensive epithets. It's the "I only call sluts sluts" argument. No, since I believe promiscuous girls who have sex a lot are morons I have no problems calling them names like slut or skank. It's not an "offensive epithet" in that case, it's a fair statement, in my opinion. Whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with those two words, you might as well try to consult the people responsible for making dictionaries and asking them to remove them from the English language. You don't seem to realize that it's not as a favor to any individual that it's considered moral to refrain from calling anyone a "slut" or a "faggot" or one of any number of demeaning ethnic slurs just because you don't like them or their kind. When you decide you have a moral right to use those terms because you "hate" an individual, you're effectively saying that everybody gets to use those terms as long as they "hate" or disrespect a person or a group enough. When you call a woman a "slut" because she has 50 boyfriends, you make it legitimate for others to call a woman a "slut" for sleeping with anyone at all. Once you've established that some women deserve to be called "sluts," you're just quibbling over where to draw the line. You bet it's a free country and a free message board, so you are under no obligation to care about how anyone besides you feels about this kind of thing--but I highly recommend it. No. When I say that some girls who have sex a lot and don't seem to care for the consequences or other effects of it deserve to be called sluts, that doesn't mean that everyone who dislike girls should be using the word slut when they describe them . That's got nothing to do with this, and is unfair. It means that everyone who doesn't respect PROMISCUOUS GIRLS have the MORAL RIGHT to call them "sluts". I however make it legitimate for everyone to call a woman who sleeps with 50 guys a slut, not every woman who sleeps with one or two. You're exaggerating. If you are seriously so offended by a word used to describe certain girls with a rather off-putting behaviour and lifestyle that doesn't apply to you at all, then maybe you should consider to switch to a board with more strict language limitations? This stuff about promiscuous women teasing guys who haven't had sex yet is in your head. The OP was worried women "might" not want a relationship with a guy who hadn't had sex yet, but realized those women might just be looking for a fling, and therefore were never real relationship possibilities to begin with. He wasn't judging anyone looking for just sex, so why do you care? What's the problem with girls "shagging multiple guys," and what makes you assume they're only doing it to win approval? What about promiscuity, by itself, makes a person unworthy of respect? Why is it important that you dismiss them as "sluts?" True, I may have misunderstood what the OP meant. BUT, the situation which I went into explaining it's not in my head. It's real and it exists practically in every corner of the world today. Now, as I've previously said, I don't have a problem with those kind of girls as long as they keep their activities to themselves. Since I don't like that kind of life they choose to have {and I assume you don't either}, then I have no problem at all seeing them as inferior to other girls with a normal lifestyle, and therefore no problem calling them sluts. It's not "important" to me to use the word, but it happens every now and then, and frankly, I don't care. You, on the other hand, seem to have a much bigger problem with this.
|
|
|
Post by rukryM on Apr 14, 2009 8:58:37 GMT -5
It seems to me that he wasn't attacking anyone. It's like saying "Some people are real assholes" Should we ban the word because someone finds it offensive? I think not. If it's used as an attack, then we'll deal with it. Exactly. Thank you for your understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 14, 2009 14:25:07 GMT -5
Naptaq -------------- It seems to me that he wasn't attacking anyone.
It's like saying "Some people are real assholes" Should we ban the word because someone finds it offensive? I think not.
If it's used as an attack, then we'll deal with it. Ok, this is really starting to get weird. NOTICE TO ALL MODERATORS: this is not, and never has been, a discussion of whether to ban a word or a person, so please quit insinuating that it is. "It's a free country" is a defense from legal action, not from social action. We had a conversation about this before with a certain SolitarySomeone, and everyone criticized him for calling any woman who slept with anybody a slut, and he was roundly criticized for being purposefully offensive, just as he was when he referred to fat girls as "fatty Patties." Both times he defended himself that it was merely "accurate" to call every sexually active person a slut, and "accurate" to call fat women Fatty Patties. I thought people objected to SS being judgmental of other people's sex lives, but I guess people only objected to the fact that they themselves were being categorized on the slut side of the line?? If it's offensive to someone with a minimally active sex life to be called a "slut" for their choices, it's offensive to a promiscuous person to call them a slut. It is like calling someone an asshole. My question is, why does the amount or type make someone worthy of being called a slut or an asshole or anything else? I'm not arguing whether it's right to call "bad" people bad names; I'm arguing that because you personally object to their sex life doesn't make them "bad" or wrong in any way. How does promiscuity, on its own, hurt anyone? In terms of the logic, it'd be like me calling people "assholes" for eating cheerios, except that people who eat cheerios have never considered lesser people unworthy of common decency because of their cereal choices. Nobody has to like promiscuous women or Cheerios-eaters, but that's not really their problem, is it?
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 14, 2009 14:49:54 GMT -5
Slut debste? I love the title. I think having lots of sex can be OK if done responsibly But if you only care about your sex and hurt people physically or emotionally that is obviously bad and can be called slutty behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 14, 2009 15:42:53 GMT -5
in that case you would have to individually examine each situation and the people involved to determine whether their behavior is somehow bad and even then different people may not agree
however the first post of the slut debate had absolutely 0 information on which to draw such conclusions
also the person getting rejected is ALWAYS getting hurt the sexual life of the person doing the rejection has nothing to with it
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 14, 2009 16:11:39 GMT -5
NOTICE TO ALL MODERATORS: this is not, and never has been, a discussion of whether to ban a word or a person, so please quit insinuating that it is. You say that it's offensive therefore he should not choose.. oh I'm sorry, therefore he should not use that word. If you don't like to make judgemnts on promiscuity, then that's your thing. But you can't make it everybody elses.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 14, 2009 17:38:41 GMT -5
No, since I believe promiscuous girls who have sex a lot are morons I have no problems calling them names like slut or skank. It's not an "offensive epithet" in that case, it's a fair statement, in my opinion. Whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with those two words, you might as well try to consult the people responsible for making dictionaries and asking them to remove them from the English language. You've just supported everything I said, so I'm not sure why you're saying "no" and again parading your non sequiturs about the literal meaning of the term. You've exactly clarified the "I only call sluts sluts" circular argument: you believe "fair" and "accurate" to call certain women sluts because you personally think they have too many sec partners and are therefore objectively "inferior" "morons" not worthy of any respect "AT ALL," which is basically exactly the kind of judgmental nonsense that is implied by the word "slut," so congratulations for your technically correct usage, I guess..? Rukry --------------- No. When I say that some girls who have sex a lot and don't seem to care for the consequences or other effects of it deserve to be called sluts, that doesn't mean that everyone who dislike girls should be using the word slut when they describe them . That's got nothing to do with this, and is unfair. It means that everyone who doesn't respect PROMISCUOUS GIRLS have the MORAL RIGHT to call them "sluts".
I however make it legitimate for everyone to call a woman who sleeps with 50 guys a slut, not every woman who sleeps with one or two. You're exaggerating. No, it's not unfair. You've said you dislike promiscuous women and you consider them inferior morons (your words) FOR being promiscuous. Your use of "slut" is derogatory, but to you it's ok because you feel the women you're directing it toward deserve to be demeaned. It's not an "exaggeration" or at all a stretch to suggest that your personal positioning of the "slut" bar at 50 lovers (or 100, or whatever) DOES make it legitimate for someone else to set their personal "slut line" at 5 partners, or 10, or 2, or any outside of marriage. It's a word that is used to demean a woman involved in ANY sexual activity the observer doesn't approve of, which is exactly what you're doing with it. You either support the use of the word, or you don't. I've actually heard an argument that "n*gger" isn't really an offensive ethnic slur, because it "really" means a black person who is acting stupid. The logic there is a real head scratcher. Rukry ------------- If you are seriously so offended by a word used to describe certain girls with a rather off-putting behaviour and lifestyle that doesn't apply to you at all, then maybe you should consider to switch to a board with more strict language limitations? Maybe if you're so offended by promiscuous women, you should go live in an Amish colony..? I'm not sure if I'm being deliberately misrepresented as asking for board-wide censorship of the word "slut" or if people simply aren't used to the idea that just because you can doesn't mean you should. This isn't gradeschool anymore; there's no teacher making you play nice or face the consequences. This is just one adult to another, leveling a little social pressure and hoping to convince you not to use a sexual slur in your conversations about women. Rukry ------------- True, I may have misunderstood what the OP meant. BUT, the situation which I went into explaining it's not in my head. It's real and it exists practically in every corner of the world today. You didn't just misunderstand; you had a whole scenario in your head about how promiscuous women are hurting your or other men. This situation where women are abusing men for sex and laughing at them for their inexperience is something I've really never heard of except from self-conscious shy guys who think women are just out to break their balls. From everything I've seen and heard, it is far more common for guys to ridicule other guys for not having had sex yet than for girls to care much at all. But hey, you know what is "a real situation and it exists in practically every corner of the world today," and that is exceedingly well-documented and definitely not a fantasy? Women being ridiculed or marked as social outcasts using words like "slut" and "whore" for sleeping with "too many" men, however the locals choose to define it. In some countries, a woman sleeping around before marriage is still a crime against her father. In the West we have it pretty damn good by comparison, but some people still use the word "slut" to remind women they're not really equal; that it's not socially acceptable to display "the morals of a man," as you defined it. Rukry ---------------- Now, as I've previously said, I don't have a problem with those kind of girls as long as they keep their activities to themselves. Since I don't like that kind of life they choose to have {and I assume you don't either}, then I have no problem at all seeing them as inferior to other girls with a normal lifestyle, and therefore no problem calling them sluts. It's not "important" to me to use the word, but it happens every now and then, and frankly, I don't care. You, on the other hand, seem to have a much bigger problem with this. You've repeatedly defended your "moral right" to express the fact that you consider certain women "inferior," so apparently it is important to you. I wouldn't date a bisexual guy, but it wouldn't even occur to me to call them "inferior" or "faggy." It is definitely important to me that people not be marginalized for lifestyle choices that harm nobody, and that's why I'm still talking. Why are you? If you truly believe that women and men who sleep around are equally reprehensible, why don't you choose a different word that doesn't have extra special nasty connotations for the women? Why don't you call everyone a "player?"
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 14, 2009 19:42:38 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------ You say that it's offensive therefore he should not choose.. oh I'm sorry, therefore he should not use that word.
If you don't like to make judgemnts on promiscuity, then that's your thing. But you can't make it everybody elses. The snideness is uncalled for. If you think it's unfair to judge you for calling women "sluts," why is it beyond reproach for you to judge those women in the first place? I didn't say you should approve of their sex lives, only that you not use a sexual slur to express it. It's hardly a violation of your rights to ask you to have the decency not to refer to anyone as a "slut," is it? Using sexual slurs like that puts social pressure on women to conform to other people's expectations of their sex lives by labeling them "inferior" and unworthy of respect. That hurts real people. Asking that someone make an informed decision not to participate in deliberately insulting women to keep them from having "too much" sex does not hurt that person in the slightest. To the contrary, I think it fosters a much healthier view of male/female relationships when you're not mentally dividing women into the "good" ones and the "sluts." We have timid women in here who don't need to be warned they'll be worthless if only they have the wrong kind or amount of sex; we've got guys in who may be susceptible to the kind of bitter woman-hating that we've seen in here before. Individual members should be able and willing to take that into account when they talk about the opposite sex. It'll serve them well in the real world, too. Skyhint ---------------- Slut debste? I love the title. I think having lots of sex can be OK if done responsibly But if you only care about your sex and hurt people physically or emotionally that is obviously bad and can be called slutty behaviour. I guess what doesn't make sense to me is how sleeping around can be considered the problem. If someone's passing around a nasty STD, it doesn't matter if the woman got it from her first husband before his tragic death and knowingly passed it on to her lawful second husband, or whether she got it at her weekly orgy club and carelessly passed it on to the whole high school football team; the problem is the wanton spread of disease, not the number of partners involved. If someone likes to emotionally abuse their partners, or if they lie about their feelings to get sex (and honestly, the only time I've ever heard of a girl doing this was in Flight of the Conchords), then the problem is that the person is a selfish jerk, not that they've had a lot of partners. If someone is using sex to manipulate people, the problem is that they're a user, not that they have too much sex. And "slut"refers specifically to the sex aspect. An emotionally abusive but chaste woman can never be a slut, but someone who does one ambiguously hurtful thing and sleeps around a lot could be considered as such. Promiscuous people can be jerks and assholes just like people who eat cheerios can be jerks and assholes, but I don't see how sleeping around or eating cheerios can be in themselves considered morally repugnant. If "cheerios-eater" was used as a derogatory term for people who eat cheerios because some people who eat cheerios might be rude and selfishly use up the last of the milk at breakfast, I'd object to that, too.
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 14, 2009 20:25:07 GMT -5
I think having lots of sex can be OK if done responsibly But if you only care about your sex and hurt people physically or emotionally that is obviously bad and can be called slutty behaviour. [/size][/color][/blockquote] I guess what doesn't make sense to me is how sleeping around can be considered the problem. If someone's passing around a nasty STD, it doesn't matter if the woman got it from her first husband before his tragic death and knowingly passed it on to her lawful second husband, or whether she got it at her weekly orgy club and carelessly passed it on to the whole high school football team; the problem is the wanton spread of disease, not the number of partners involved. If someone likes to emotionally abuse their partners, or if they lie about their feelings to get sex (and honestly, the only time I've ever heard of a girl doing this was in Flight of the Conchords), then the problem is that the person is a selfish jerk, not that they've had a lot of partners. If someone is using sex to manipulate people, the problem is that they're a user, not that they have too much sex. And "slut"refers specifically to the sex aspect. An emotionally abusive but chaste woman can never be a slut, but someone who does one ambiguously hurtful thing and sleeps around a lot could be considered as such. Promiscuous people can be jerks and assholes just like people who eat cheerios can be jerks and assholes, but I don't see how sleeping around or eating cheerios can be in themselves considered morally repugnant. If "cheerios-eater" was used as a derogatory term for people who eat cheerios because some people who eat cheerios might be rude and selfishly use up the last of the milk at breakfast, I'd object to that, too.[/quote] ya that is super true. you can get hurt from just having sex once. But if you are having sex responsibley (using a condom/getting you and your partner tested for deseases before hand) everytime you are very unlikely to spread deseases. Sometimes it isn't the reasons why they have sex that make them a slut sometimes its just the sex itself. Like, if a woman had sex with her boyfriend's brother, and his best friend, all in the same day. It doesn't matter if did it because she deeply cares about each of them, that is just uncool. We have different nasty names for people who are emotionally abusive and do not have sex. Or we might call them a slut anyways just to try hurt their feelings. Insults don't always make sense.
|
|
|
Post by rukryM on Apr 15, 2009 13:01:19 GMT -5
No, it's not unfair. You've said you dislike promiscuous women and you consider them inferior morons (your words) FOR being promiscuous. Your use of "slut" is derogatory, but to you it's ok because you feel the women you're directing it toward deserve to be demeaned. It's not an "exaggeration" or at all a stretch to suggest that your personal positioning of the "slut" bar at 50 lovers (or 100, or whatever) DOES make it legitimate for someone else to set their personal "slut line" at 5 partners, or 10, or 2, or any outside of marriage. It's a word that is used to demean a woman involved in ANY sexual activity the observer doesn't approve of, which is exactly what you're doing with it. You either support the use of the word, or you don't. I've actually heard an argument that "n*gger" isn't really an offensive ethnic slur, because it "really" means a black person who is acting stupid. The logic there is a real head scratcher. Now, I just locked up the term "slut" at www.dictionary.com where it says: n. 1. 1. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous. 2. A woman prostitute. A slut is NOT a word meant to "demean" a woman, it's just you who're so extremely delicate when it comes to dealing with the word. It's NOT a word for a woman taking pleasure in ANY sexual activity which the user doesn't "approve", it's a word used to describe, according to the dictionary, a "sexually promiscuous" woman. Care to argue with the dictionary folks about what's the proper use of that word? Though some, like you, react so extremely when having heard the word, it's nevertheless there and it's free for us to use. So what's your problem with it? Sexually promiscuous women who reject guys because they lack experience are what I call sluts. Maybe if you're so offended by promiscuous women, you should go live in an Amish colony..? I'm not sure if I'm being deliberately misrepresented as asking for board-wide censorship of the word "slut" or if people simply aren't used to the idea that just because you can doesn't mean you should. This isn't gradeschool anymore; there's no teacher making you play nice or face the consequences. This is just one adult to another, leveling a little social pressure and hoping to convince you not to use a sexual slur in your conversations about women. LOL, what? When did I say I was "offended" by promiscuous women? I don't care for them as long as they stay away from me. "To not care" is not the same as "To be offended" ^^. I deeply thank you for having provided me with a new word which I'll add to my vocabulary and use whenever I find it appropriate, by the way. You didn't just misunderstand; you had a whole scenario in your head about how promiscuous women are hurting your or other men. This situation where women are abusing men for sex and laughing at them for their inexperience is something I've really never heard of except from self-conscious shy guys who think women are just out to break their balls. From everything I've seen and heard, it is far more common for guys to ridicule other guys for not having had sex yet than for girls to care much at all. Either you're deluding yourself or you've been living on another planet this whole time. If you seriously don't know that there are girls like that there, I'd like for you to come to my place and I'll show you. Or, perhaps, if you choose to broaden your horizon on your own, I've got a tip for you where you can find them; clubs, look for the most wasted ones with the most slutty behaviour. In case you wonder, I'm past the point where I dismiss girls as sluts if they let me down, instead I've realised that there are true sluts out there who, when for example cheating on their boyfriends, then come crying back and convincing the fool to take them back, cheat again. And then along their journey they may dismiss some guys who they wanted to cheat with but who weren't skilled enough. Oh, I don't know about you, but I call those sluts. I frankly don't care if that's offending because their lifestyle is a lot more offending than that word. But hey, you know what is "a real situation and it exists in practically every corner of the world today," and that is exceedingly well-documented and definitely not a fantasy? Women being ridiculed or marked as social outcasts using words like "slut" and "whore" for sleeping with "too many" men, however the locals choose to define it. In some countries, a woman sleeping around before marriage is still a crime against her father. In the West we have it pretty damn good by comparison, but some people still use the word "slut" to remind women they're not really equal; that it's not socially acceptable to display "the morals of a man," as you defined it. I'm not one of those, in case your wondering. The above paragraphs should prove that. You've repeatedly defended your "moral right" to express the fact that you consider certain women "inferior," so apparently it is important to you. I wouldn't date a bisexual guy, but it wouldn't even occur to me to call them "inferior" or "faggy." It's important to me that you at least try to understand my view on this since you started this whole discussion, especially when you're making such outlandish accusations as for example me being offended. It is definitely important to me that people not be marginalized for lifestyle choices that harm nobody, and that's why I'm still talking. Why are you? If you truly believe that women and men who sleep around are equally reprehensible, why don't you choose a different word that doesn't have extra special nasty connotations for the women? Why don't you call everyone a "player?" So you're saying promiscuity doesn't harm anyone? Well, how about the cheating example above? How about the possibility to risk being raped for being an easy catch with a "sexually teasing" behaviour when saying "no" to sex? And lot's and lot's of other examples and situations which I cannot think of now. You're just extremely intolerable for degrading words on women, and if you think that "slut" has "nasty connotations" than that's YOUR problem and not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 15, 2009 16:32:01 GMT -5
If you think it's unfair to judge you for calling women "sluts," why is it beyond reproach for you to judge those women in the first place? Ok, it seems to me you don't just have a beef with the word "slut", but you're against judging promuscuity, like it's some idle thing that does no damage. Since I've already adressed the "slut" part, I'll elaborate on promuscuity. I'm not that big on using the world unless it's to say: "I'm a YouTube slut" In my view of it, promiscuity is bad. I'll give you an example: Mora than 3% of Washington DC residents have AIDS. The Washington Post article won't say it, but it's promiscuity. So, you're not just dealing with sexually transmitted diseases, you're dealing with something much more serious that's being passed around, because of promiscuity - it's the #1 reason. Definitely not. What I said was that you're not going to convince anybody, which is what we're seeing here, but I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 15, 2009 16:39:15 GMT -5
most people refrain from using that word as they understand IT IS OFFENSIVE you have full right to be a jerk, but all we are doing is just pointing it out
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 15, 2009 21:00:29 GMT -5
Rukry ------------ Now, I just locked up the term "slut" at www.dictionary.com where it says:
n. 1. 1. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous. 2. A woman prostitute.
A slut is NOT a word meant to "demean" a woman, it's just you who're so extremely delicate when it comes to dealing with the word. Um, FAIL. Did you seriously think I wouldn't check dictionary.com? That's brazenly disingenuous. You purposefully selected the second set of definitions provided, which are accurate, but only half . The FIRST two definitions listed are as follows: 1. a dirty, slovenly woman. 2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute. You wanna revise your claim that it's not demeaning? Last time I checked, "dirty" and "immoral" were not objective designations. Still not convinced? Try the wikipedia entry for Slut. First sentence: "Slut or slattern is a pejorative term for a person who is deemed sexually promiscuous. The term is generally applied to women and used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning "dirty or slovenly." How is that unclear? You also quoted the first definition of "slut" listed in Urban Dictionary: "a woman with the morals of a man." Did you not read further down? The first sentence of the third definition down: "a derogatory term." It then goes on to list all the definitions you've advanced and more, which, surprise! Are derogatory. The entry underneath that does a pretty good job of explaining why "no one should be call a 'slut:'" there can be 2 definitions: one negative, the other positive...
1. a girl who has sex but does not enjoy it, who is used by guys and lets them do it. She does not have the self respect to make them stop.
2. a girl who likes sex, so she does it. She probably is not in a relationship, and she equalizes herself to guys by treating sex the same way they do.
The difference between the two examples of what society labels as "sluts" is that one has self respect, the other does not. No one should be called a slut anyway, especially when the name "slut" is a purely judgemental and stereotypical one, and no one really knows the real story behind it all, which is pretty much always the case. "She has sex...therefore she must be a slut."
I completely disagree with that, but thats how society sees it. Rukry ---------------- It's NOT a word for a woman taking pleasure in ANY sexual activity which the user doesn't "approve", it's a word used to describe, according to the dictionary, a "sexually promiscuous" woman. Care to argue with the dictionary folks about what's the proper use of that word? Though some, like you, react so extremely when having heard the word, it's nevertheless there and it's free for us to use. So what's your problem with it? Rukry, first and foremost, you are not "the dictionary," and as we've seen, you're somehow unclear on how dictionaries actually work (hint: you can't just pick and choose your favorite definitions and ignore the rest). But you're also ignoring the fact that connotation is just as important as literal meaning. Sometimes dictionaries mention the real world connotations, and sometimes they don't. Also: ALL offensive terms are "free for us to use." Are you trying to claim that there is no such thing as an offensive word? Rukry ------------ Sexually promiscuous women who reject guys because they lack experience are what I call sluts. So, a woman who is promiscuous and does have sex with guys who lack experience is not a slut? What's especially revealing about your pejorative usage is that the woman you're calling "sluts" are actually being more discriminating, demonstrating more self respect, and having less sex than the women you're calling "sluts," since they're excluding inexperienced men from their pool of partners. I guess what you're actually trying to say here is that women looking for sex with experienced guys are shallow and selfish and bad for hurting inexperienced guys' feelings. Or that women who are looking for sex instead of long-term relationships are bad. Or perhaps something in between. Rukry ------------- LOL, what? When did I say I was "offended" by promiscuous women? I don't care for them as long as they stay away from me. "To not care" is not the same as "To be offended" ^^. You've gone out of your way to repeatedly defend your "moral right" to label these women, who you've called worthless, inferior morons, as "sluts." That sounds oddly unlike someone who doesn't care. I've never insisted on using a term when I'm told it's offensive and I--wait for it--"don't care" one way or the other about it. I don't think "don't care" means what you think it means. Rukry ---------------- Either you're deluding yourself or you've been living on another planet this whole time. If you seriously don't know that there are girls like that there, I'd like for you to come to my place and I'll show you. Or, perhaps, if you choose to broaden your horizon on your own, I've got a tip for you where you can find them; clubs, look for the most wasted ones with the most slutty behaviour. I'm happy right here on the planet Earth, thank you. You're welcome to come down and join us whenever you're ready to step outside your little bubble where you're entitled to redefine words and use offensive slurs without getting called on it. You claimed that promiscuous women were making fun of guys for being virgins and refusing to sleep with them, and you projected this onto the OP, initially claiming that the women you referred to as "sluts" are those who sleep around and "who tease others" for being virgins. Maybe you've had an embittering personal experience that you'd like to share, but that's really no excuse. Are there women out there who would make fun of a guy's inexperience? I'm sure of it. Is it an inherent characteristic of women who have lots of sex? Nope. Rukry -------------- In case you wonder, I'm past the point where I dismiss girls as sluts if they let me down, instead I've realised that there are true sluts out there who when for example cheating on their boyfriends, then come crying back and convincing the fool to take them back, cheat again. And then along their journey they may dismiss some guys who they wanted to cheat with but who weren't skilled enough. [...] How about the possibility to risk being raped for being an easy catch with a "sexually teasing" behaviour when saying "no" to sex? Wtf?Let me get this straight... Once upon a time you used "slut" as a catch-all insult for ANY woman who wouldn't do what you wanted. Now you've decided that a "slut" is a woman who has too many sex partners, because she's probably makes fun of inexperienced guys, or cheats on her boyfriend, or 'teases' guys by being attractive and thereby stupidly allows herself to be raped. So you've now concluded that because those women deserve to be demeaned because promiscuous people do bad things, and because you've determined they're objectively "inferior" morons, this means "slut" can no longer be insulting. HUH? I thought at first you just lacked the empathy to understand why "slut" is offensive, but it looks like you've got a whole suite of issues with women. Blaming "sluts" for 'teasing' guys into raping them is just... wow.Yeah, there's a healthy view of male/female relations. Do you think maybe if guys like you weren't going around calling them "sluts" and "inferior" and "morons" who don't deserve "ANY" respect... maybe other guys wouldn't feel entitled to RAPE them?? You can't get less respectful than that. And I just don't know what to say about the claim about these women who are supposedly rejecting inexperienced guys on their "journey" to cheating on their boyfriends--which I guess is worse than just cheating..? It's another scenario unique to your own mind. I don't know what making up stories about what all the men you imagine being hurt or rejected by promiscuous women has to do with anything. Rukry ----------------- You're just extremely intolerable for degrading words on women, and if you think that "slut" has "nasty connotations" than that's YOUR problem and not mine. Ohhhh no, it is most definitely your problem. You can choose not to address it, and you can choose to deny reality, but believe you me: it is very much your problem.
|
|