The slut issue

[Shadowstar38]

Oh come on, another little trick like that? Context makes it pretty obvious. Are you just claiming you made an inane reply that had jack shit to do with what I actually said on purpose?

>Implying this is a trick
>Implying the reply was inane
>Implying it had jack shit to do with what you're saying

Hostile replies like this is why I tried to end it with "We cant agree so F-it". Because this conversation has gone nowhere.

And no, this isn't dodging your question. It's just a loaded question.

 

[el_kabong]

Interesting stuff. I only use the term "slut" when I know someone's inner workings and personal history. It's entirely situational. If a women's sexual activities disgust me on a personal level, then they get the label "slut". My personal sexual put-down for a man is to call him a "skeevy/shifty ************/pervert".

While I know that this can be personally biased, I think there's a huge difference between a woman who's comfortable talking/engaging in sex (or dressing provocatively) and someone that I find morally reprehensible. I understand how important healthy sexual activity is to human beings. It's when people make it either unhealthy or completely trivial that I get offended.

Example of what I use the term "slut" for. I have an acquaintance (a women) who's at least had over 25 sexual partners. She had a child as a result, which she doesn't give the proper care to (essentially, she lets her parents take care of it while she goes to get smashed at bars and pick up guys). In hearing from a couple friends who made the mistake of sleeping with her, she apparently doesn't use protection (though, thankfully, my friends insisted). One night, she came over to me and my friends while we were having a pint, pointed out two guys that she was with and asked which she should sleep with that night. I, disgusted that she is making sex so trivial that she's asking outside opinions from guys she barely knows, said sarcastically, "why don't you just flip a coin?". And she did...it was heads.

I definitely use the term "slut" in referring to her. She's disgusting and deserves a title that carries my feelings of disgust towards her.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Ask the typical man(not married/in a relationship) and more often than not, they'd like to get with the slut.

You might quantify you are possibly right with that statement because you said "typical", but I don't think that is the case. The sex crazed man is a stereotype. I've known plenty of actual typical guys to know that the sex crazed men that talk about getting with the "sluts" and any other girl, aren't typical.

I agree with this statement here:

No, most hetrosexual men don't. Unfortunately society still has this "men will crawl over broken glass for sex" concept. Most men don't want to have sex with "the slut," on the basis that she has been with "everyone in town;" if yiou'll excuse the hyperbolism of that statement.

You definitely hit it on the nose.

The girl I want to get with is the girl I love on multiple levels(not just physical) and know that she has the same mentality towards me.

Anything else is a fantasy and not everybody wants all there fantasies to come true.

 

[Kuhkren]

Yeah, I don't like how slut is used to describe women who dress provocatively or who enjoy sex and pursue it regularly. It has a very negative tone and demeans women. I feel men and women should be allowed to enjoy sex and dress sexily without negative or positive labels attached to them.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are not true, yes.

*Edited for spelling*

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are nor ture, yes.

Nope, besides the unlikely possibility you deliberately intended to just post shit that had nothing to do with my post those are the only other logical possibilities. Mistake is either deliberate or unintentional. Unintentional means mistake, deliberate would mean dishonesty most likely. But you'll evade and not reply to my argument here, just deny. Because you know it's right.

I know what your argument is. No need to retype it. I'm denying it because it is incorrect.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are nor ture, yes.

Nope, besides the unlikely possibility you deliberately intended to just post shit that had nothing to do with my post those are the only other logical possibilities. Mistake is either deliberate or unintentional. Unintentional means mistake, deliberate would mean dishonesty most likely. But you'll evade and not reply to my argument here, just deny. Because you know it's right.

I know what your argument is. No need to retype it. I'm denying it because it is incorrect.

Right and this is the part where you prove it's incorrect. If you're not just lying.

Prove I posted something that had nothing to do with the preceeding post.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, I'm saying it was. Because it didn't have anything to do with what I actually said. Either it was intentional or not. If it was intentional then either you were doing as I said or you were dishonest. If it wasn't, you clearly missed something.

And I'm saying that none of your assumptions are correct. Like I said posts ago. This is getting us nowhere.

They aren't assumptions though. It's based off one fact, your reply had jack shit to do with mine. Then there's only logical options, not assumptions. But hey, keep denying!

I deny things when whatever I'm being accused of(namely lying and or/missing something) are nor ture, yes.

Nope, besides the unlikely possibility you deliberately intended to just post shit that had nothing to do with my post those are the only other logical possibilities. Mistake is either deliberate or unintentional. Unintentional means mistake, deliberate would mean dishonesty most likely. But you'll evade and not reply to my argument here, just deny. Because you know it's right.

I know what your argument is. No need to retype it. I'm denying it because it is incorrect.

Right and this is the part where you prove it's incorrect. If you're not just lying.

Prove I posted something that had nothing to do with the preceeding post.

Except it'd be absurd to take it at face value, even if it'd make the world nice and simple. There's a social context to the word. It doesn't vanish.

Always assuming that a word has the more negative connotation is just as absurd. A large number of words can be used with other meanings, but you ant let your mind default on the lesser one.

Let's see... I deny that we should take things at face value, you jump t always assuming it is negative. Easy!

You say you cant take things at face value.

If you're not taking something at face value, you have to make some type of assumption as to the meaning. Said assumption could be false without context.

Those lines look related.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nope, because you said jack shit about context originally. Sorry, can't really insert new things to fix your mistake. Btw, I mentioned social context there so...

Insert new things? Nope. Explaining why they have something to do with each other. Because you didn't see it. If you still dont see it, meh, I guess.

 

[VoidWanderer]

So I have a question...

We call someone a liar if they lie, especially if they lie a lot.

We call someone a cheater if they cheat, especially if they cheat a lot (Whether we speak from a videogame sense or a marriage-breaking stance)

We call someone a gamer if they play a lot of games... I could go on, you get the point.

So then why is it "wrong" to call someone a player/slut if they sleep around a lot? It seems to me like you're just stating the obvious with this, you know?

Let me put it this way, when you think of a 'player' who do you immediately think of? Specifically what gender?

Now do the same thing for 'slut'.

Notice the difference?

 

[Icehearted]

So then why is it "wrong" to call someone a player/slut if they sleep around a lot? It seems to me like you're just stating the obvious with this, you know?

No matter what people say it will be, most likely, completely slanted and self-serving. Someone once pointed out that it's okay to criticize people for being skinny, but not for being fat. That men are rightfully judged for being emotional, but women coddled and comforted.

I think calling anyone anything without a reason for doing so (however one justifies that sort of thing) is useless, shaming does nothing but embitter others, but if one calls it as one sees it, and they are knowingly doing so rather than jumping to conclusions, then it seems fair enough a thing to do. I would caution, though, that most do not know all of what is happening; that slut may very well have numerous underlying issues, and may be unfairly judged a slut because of only the obvious behavior others around the implied slut actually see.