What's A Slut?

allovertheshop

like another poster said, i think the word "slut" says way more about the person who uses it than the person being discussed. Each to their own, if someone wants to sleep around/ wear sexy clothing etc, let them...who are we to judge and name?
I hate hearing the word being used, it's so derogatory and demeaning to women

Peanut2011

allovertheshop wrote: »

like another poster said, i think the word "slut" says way more about the person who uses it than the person being discussed. Each to their own, if someone wants to sleep around/ wear sexy clothing etc, let them...who are we to judge and name?
I hate hearing the word being used, it's so derogatory and demeaning to women

I think you are on the point there but if that is what one wants to do they are welcome, however be open and honest about it with all.

If one day he/she wants to settle down, the person who they decide to settle with might not be of the same belief, therefore as long as they are not hiding their "liberal" past there is no problem.

If the person accepts them with knowing the past than that is ok. I for one would be quite prepared to split up with the wife / girlfriend if I found out that their past was so liberate!

In my view everyone is able to make their choice, that is in the free world, and I would not in any way try to undermine them, but all I would want to be able is to make an informed choice.

If you were that liberal and you don't think that is the problem than why hide it?

28064212

Peanut2011 wrote: »

If you were that liberal and you don't think that is the problem than why hide it?

Who said anything about hiding it? However, there's a difference between not hiding it and broadcasting it far and wide to everyone. And no, you are not entitled to know every detail of a partner's history. You can ask, but you are not entitled to it

Reward

Its similar to whore stigma, IMO slut is often used by women against other women to shame women that are having sex without securing secondary benefits and this is where the phrase "giving it away" comes from. Its also theorised that some men fear women that sleep around because of risk of paternity fraud and this generates slut shaming too.

Peanut2011

28064212 wrote: »

Who said anything about hiding it? However, there's a difference between not hiding it and broadcasting it far and wide to everyone. And no, you are not entitled to know every detail of a partner's history. You can ask, but you are not entitled to it

Unfortunately it would seem everything I say is taken very black & white. I never said about broadcasting it but come to think of it, if there is nothing wrong with what you are doing than why not?

That way you get like-minded people and not someone who would have more conservative approach.

On the other hand when you say you are not entitled to know every detail of partners history, well you know what. History makes us the person we are and there are absolutely no reasons why you would hide your history unless there are things you think were not right to be done in the first place.

Personally I would not brand people sluts if they chose to sleep around that is their choice but if any partner of mine was to hide their history guess what, I could not trust them.

Unfortunately without trust there is no future..

28064212

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Unfortunately it would seem everything I say is taken very black & white. I never said about broadcasting it but come to think of it, if there is nothing wrong with what you are doing than why not?

Do you broadcast the intimate details of your life? Do you tell your boss about your drinking binge at the weekend? Do you tell your parents about your sexual habits? Why not? Are you ashamed of your actions?

Peanut2011 wrote: »

On the other hand when you say you are not entitled to know every detail of partners history, well you know what. History makes us the person we are and there are absolutely no reasons why you would hide your history unless there are things you think were not right to be done in the first place.

So we all have a standardised form that everyone fills out before starting a relationship, giving the necessary details? Of course not. Someone's past sexual history means virtually nothing to me. If I'm starting a relationship with someone, I won't ask because I don't care.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Personally I would not brand people sluts if they chose to sleep around that is their choice but if any partner of mine was to hide their history guess what, I could not trust them.

That's fine, but it's up to you to find out that information, it is not the partner's responsibility to inform you "just in case". Your partner is also entitled to not tell you if they choose (note: not lie to you, but choose not to answer)

metrovelvet

28064212 wrote: »

Do you broadcast the intimate details of your life? Do you tell your boss about your drinking binge at the weekend? Do you tell your parents about your sexual habits? Why not? Are you ashamed of your actions?


So we all have a standardised form that everyone fills out before starting a relationship, giving the necessary details? Of course not. Someone's past sexual history means virtually nothing to me. If I'm starting a relationship with someone, I won't ask because I don't care.


That's fine, but it's up to you to find out that information, it is not the partner's responsibility to inform you "just in case". Your partner is also entitled to not tell you if they choose (note: not lie to you, but choose not to answer)

Do you think its fair enough to ask when their last std test was? Or if they've been vaccinated for hpv virus? Or divorce history? How many broken relationships behind them?

28064212

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you think its fair enough to ask when their last std test was? Or if they've been vaccinated for hpv virus?

To ask if they're clean (and ask for proof), yes. But that refers to their current status, not their past

metrovelvet wrote: »

Or divorce history? How many broken relationships behind them?

Fair enough to ask. Anything's fair enough to ask. Demand an answer though? And make the continuation of the relationship contingent on the answer? No

Wagon

Simple answer:

Any woman/man who sleeps around frequently but cheats on people, lies and generally doesn't care how low they will go to get their hole.
A good example:

whatsamsn wrote: »

But do you know what happened next? 'Jane' got into a relationship with a guy (a guy outside the friend circle who she even introduced to the friend circle) Guess what did she one night when the new guy wasnt out with her? she slept with one of her mates (One of the same mates she slept with before)

A complete bollix.

Sexual liberation is one thing, but you don't have to act like a dickhead while doing it.

starlit

Someone whether male or female who will engage in sexual relations with other people but won't with you. Possibly known to get around though and then doesn't anymore. Sometimes if you are seen to lead someone on you might be classed as a 'slut' and not engage with what the person requests as a sexual favour or something like that. Many definitions and can apply to both men and women not just women in the case of men the male version would be manwhore which I think both slang names are derogatory.

RonFan

A slut is a derogatory term for a woman who engages in casual sex.

Deleted User wrote: »

for most men to call a woman a slut is nothing less than hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical for a promiscuous male to call a similar female a slut. This is a typical feminist attitude. Woman and men are not the same. Yes, they deserve equal rights, but biologically they are very different.

Men have a psychological drive to engage in sex that woman don't and are subsequently not capable of understanding. When either gender goes out to engage in casual sex, they do so with the most attractive partner available. As men have a much stronger desire towards woman than visa versa, women will always have a lot more partners to choose from, and the same most attractive guys will always get picked. Leaving a huge majority of unselected males. Men on the other hand, have a lot less to choose from and will usually resort to whatever option available, should their even be one. Men are not valued sexually by their opposite sex the way women are.

For women who cannot understand, think of it in this metaphorical way: Imagine living in a world where every woman is starving for food yet can never die of hunger. Every man naturally feels full, but some like to have dinner with a woman for the fun of it. So every so often, they select only a minority of women, and buy them a full course meal. How would the rest of the women feel in this situation? They'd feel like inventing a derogatory term for these men, that's how.

FISMA

They're like art, I know it when I see it.:)

Dudess

RonFan wrote: »

It's not hypocritical for a promiscuous male to call a similar female a slut. This is a typical feminist attitude.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And no, it isn't. Why "feminist" as a perjorative by the way?

Men have a psychological drive to engage in sex that woman don't and are subsequently not capable of understanding. When either gender goes out to engage in casual sex, they do so with the most attractive partner available. As men have a much stronger desire towards woman than visa versa, women will always have a lot more partners to choose from, and the same most attractive guys will always get picked. Leaving a huge majority of unselected males. Men on the other hand, have a lot less to choose from and will usually resort to whatever option available, should their even be one. Men are not valued sexually by their opposite sex the way women are.

For women who cannot understand, think of it in this metaphorical way: Imagine living in a world where every woman is starving for food yet can never die of hunger. Every man naturally feels full, but some like to have dinner with a woman for the fun of it. So every so often, they select only a minority of women, and buy them a full course meal. How would the rest of the women feel in this situation? They'd feel like inventing a derogatory term for these men, that's how.

Funny how Darwinian explanations are always trotted out with the millions of years of evolution and socio-cultural engineering just conveniently discarded. Men who call women sluts but still have sex with those very women whom they speak about like that... are hypocrites with a virgin-whore complex.

RonFan

Dudess wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And no, it isn't. Why "feminist" as a perjorative by the way?

Feminists beliefs don't take into account the very differing biological differences between the sexes.

Dudess wrote: »

Funny how Darwinian explanations are always trotted out with the millions of years of evolution and socio-cultural engineering just conveniently discarded. Men who call women sluts but still have sex with those very women whom they speak about like that... are hypocrites with a virgin-whore complex.

So are you trying to argue against the fact that women have higher physical standards for casual sex partners than men? Otherwise, I don't see your point at all.

bisex

A slut is a girl who, likes to give a little extra to mankind.
Men only call a girl a slut if she wont sleep with him and girls
call a girl a slut if they dislike her, usualy because she may be hotter than them. But sometimes, its because shes just mad for man meat, :cool::D

28064212

RonFan wrote: »

So are you trying to argue against the fact that women have higher physical standards for casual sex partners than men? Otherwise, I don't see your point at all.

Some women have higher physical standards. Some women have higher emotional standards. Some women want to be ridden sideways and don't particularly care who it is so long as they know what they're doing.

Some men have higher physical... etc. etc.

Your all-encompassing statements (with out even the slighest backup other than your own opinion) have no place here

Maple

bisex wrote: »

A slut is a girl who, likes to give a little extra to mankind.
Men only call a girl a slut if she wont sleep with him and girls
call a girl a slut if they dislike her, usualy because she may be hotter than them. But sometimes, its because shes just mad for man meat, :cool::D

Banned 1 week offensive posting.

Maple.

Maple

Ron Fan, please take the time to familiarise yourself with the charter of The Ladies Lounge before posting again. Your sweeping generalisations have no place here.

Thank you,

Maple.

micro_dot

A slut is something that should be desirable but it is devalued very fast, so that it is easily affordable.

I say 'something', in that what a woman has is very powerful. Otherwise, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't put the naked Cavewoman Diet on the front of his Sunday Times newspaper to bump up readership last week.

Cars, chocolate, books, movies (money shots) - everything is sold with a sexualised image of a woman. It is the original currency. So sometimes it has to be devalued.

In the same way that God is made in our image and by us, the slut is created in the eye of the beholder.

LambsEye

In my opinion a slut is a woman who attempts to validate herself (her sexuality, her self worth, etc.) by sleeping with a lot of men, and not being discrete about it.

I think there's a huge difference between sexual liberty and sluttiness, and I think that differentiation lies with the woman in question's attitude towards herself.

LambsEye

RonFan wrote: »

A slut is a derogatory term for a woman who engages in casual sex.



It's not hypocritical for a promiscuous male to call a similar female a slut. This is a typical feminist attitude.

Dudess wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And no, it isn't. Why "feminist" as a perjorative by the way?

Funny how Darwinian explanations are always trotted out with the millions of years of evolution and socio-cultural engineering just conveniently discarded. Men who call women sluts but still have sex with those very women whom they speak about like that... are hypocrites with a virgin-whore complex.

"Feminism" should not be used as an umbrella term to describe what you feel is the female experience. Firstly you should clarify what feminism you are referring to? First wave? Second wave?

Third wave feminism, (which is the kind with which we are most familiar,) does not lend itself to examine masculinity or male hypocrisy in any way. Third wave feminism actually has NOTHING to do with men. That is the whole point. It its most basic form, feminism is concerned with studying society, culture and art from a FEMALE perspective. It is a reaction to a dominant, phallocentric culture that was in effect for centuries. It seeks to understand models of thought that had previously only been examined from a male outlook. Yet over and over again it is used in a negative context.

Please, Please, Please do not use "feminism" or " a typical feminist attitude" to validate your point.

It is in every way hypocritical for a promiscuous man to call a promiscuous woman a slut. If all parties involved are safe and are partaking of the acts with a sound mind, and are happy to do so, there is NO difference between men and woman The only differences are social and cultural ideologies that dictate that women should remain chaste, which is, needless to say, complete crap.

metrovelvet

LambsEye wrote: »

In my opinion a slut is a woman who attempts to validate herself (her sexuality, her self worth, etc.) by sleeping with a lot of men, and not being discrete about it.

I think there's a huge difference between sexual liberty and sluttiness, and I think that differentiation lies with the woman in question's attitude towards herself.

I think you are right.

But there is no equivalent for a man who does the same. He is praised for it.

Handsome Bob

metrovelvet wrote: »

But there is no equivalent for a man who does the same. He is praised for it.

Not universally, there are some of us who couldn't give a rats ass or display indifference to it all. Not every bloke has the back slapping "well done playa'!" attitude.

BigDuffman

A slut is a woman who's has had more mickeys in her than the disney land employee canteen.

No problem with women enjoying themselves. But something unladylike about riding a different fella every weekend.

And yes as it has been said if a fella where to do it "thats different" etc. But fellas are not expected to be lady like.

metrovelvet

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Not universally, there are some of us who couldn't give a rats ass or display indifference to it all. Not every bloke has the back slapping "well done playa'!" attitude.

Right. But he is never described as needy or looking for validation.

thirtythirty

You're all wrong.

"Sluts" only exist in the eyes of a bitter gobsh1te.

Or when someone is making a funny quip. I'll give you an example.
TV: "Katy perry announces marriage to Russel Brand"
Lads watching tv: "Slut".


The rest of the time, people are just "gamey".

sbsquarepants

Speaking from my own personal experience, an ex of mine had slept with a hundred odd blokes before we hooked up, that, in my mind, didn't make her a slut, however afer us being together for a few years she slept with at least 3 others (that i know of). That's when she turned into a slut!
If you want to sleep around, then feel free to do so, but be honest with people, it's the lies and deciet that make it slutty, not the sex.
That applies equally to men and women.

LambsEye

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think you are right.

But there is no equivalent for a man who does the same. He is praised for it.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Not universally, there are some of us who couldn't give a rats ass or display indifference to it all. Not every bloke has the back slapping "well done playa'!" attitude.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. But he is never described as needy or looking for validation.

I think the point here is that society seems to have set certain standards for women and men. While not every man is of the "you go dawg," mentality, there is definitely more acceptance for men to sleep around over women.

(See the quote below)

BigDuffman wrote: »

No problem with women enjoying themselves. But something unladylike about riding a different fella every weekend.

And yes as it has been said if a fella where to do it "thats different" etc. But fellas are not expected to be lady like.

I seriously disagree with your point here. I don't think there should be any such "expectations" put on women in modern culture. This leads me to ask the questions "What defines a lady?" "WHO defines a lady?"

I agree that women should be RESPECTFUL of themselves and each other but I draw a line at "ladylike," which I feel in a concept pushed upon them by decades of male conditioning.

If I take pride in my appearance, am intelligent, have a good job, act appropriately, am confident and respect my own body but practice safe sex with 8 guys a week and keep it to myself of just tell a few close girlfriends, does that make me a slut? (I don't, but I personally don't think it would.)

iguana

RonFan wrote: »

Feminists beliefs don't take into account the very differing biological differences between the sexes.

Neither does the nonsense you are trotting out. It's just assumptive, uneducated pseudo-science, and has no bearing whatsoever on our biological impulses. There has never been any definitive proof at all that women enjoy sex less than men, none at all. And there has been plenty of, equally unsubstantiated, suggestions that women actually enjoy it a lot more.

iguana

Just thinking about it but the most common usage I currently hear of the world "slut" is from the embarrassed owners of female dogs who have sprinted across the park, at the first sniff of my two male dogs, and thrown themselves on the ground in front of them, legs akimbo so my dogs can give them a good licking. (That's the bitches, not the owners.) Their owners always follow over half amused/half mortified at how enthusiastic their bitch is in getting her sexual desires met and they always "laugh" about what a slut she is, and how slutty she is for not even caring who's looking.