Comments on: Whores and Sluts

By: Mira

Mira — Thu, 20 May 2010 00:22:55 +0000

You know what's really preventing hetero women from finding happiness with men?

Men.

Hahaha, that's what I wrote (more or less) in my post on women and casual sex.

Sometimes it's difficult to understand what society wants us all to do, and double standards are overwhelming.

I have no idea what is like to be a guy, but for some reason I believe I wouldn't have much patience for women who are playing hard to get and who pretend that sex is an ugly thing unless it's in a long term relationship. Ok, if she's really "not ready" (whatever that means), then I'd wait, but if I discover she's doing it just to make herself more respectable or something… No way!

I am not sure if I'd be able to love- really, truly love someone I never had sex with.

By: Godheval

Godheval — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:34:52 +0000

I think that the meaning and the connotation aren't separate for most people, English speakers or not, and that's a problem. And while the word itself is not that important, that lack of separation between meaning and connotation is an indicator of the larger problem – which, as you say, is a way of thinking about sexuality – especially women's.

God, I just listened to some asshole "advising" women on what they should do if they want to get a "good man". His "advice" pretty much amounted to being celibate for 8 months to a year, so that when the "good man" asks you about your sexual history, he isn't turned off by the fact that you've had sex too recently.

You know what's really preventing hetero women from finding happiness with men?

Men.

By: Mira

Mira — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:29:54 +0000

Then I guess I misunderstood the meaning of the word "slut". My English is not perfect, so I guess I was thinking about meanings in my language.

True, the way you put it, the word that describes sexually promiscuous woman is neutral- only if we choose to see female sexual promiscuity as a bad thing it becomes a bad word.

Still, the word itself it's not that important; it's the way of thinking.

By: Godheval

Godheval — Wed, 19 May 2010 17:49:45 +0000

Well I didn't mean to be as abstract as "no word has meaning without context", although of course that's true, too. A racial slur is nothing without its history, so naturally this applies. It has no meaning, other than to dehumanize a group of people. "Slut" is different, in that it means "a sexually promiscuous woman", and that meaning is not in itself a bad thing. Puritanical societies attach a stigma to sexual promiscuity, that is, they give an additional connotation to the meaning. So, in other words, slut doesn't mean anything bad, inherently. Racial slurs are by definition bad. Very different.

By: Mira

Mira — Wed, 19 May 2010 12:06:58 +0000

You say "slut" is a disrespectful term, but it is ONLY disrespectful where we regard promiscuous women are looked down upon. The word in itself carries no negative connotation; the connotation comes from Western culture's sexist puritanical ideals.

Of course it's all about the context. The word itself is neutral; it's just a word. Racial slurs are just words, too. But all these words have a certain meaning in our world, and within that context, they are definitely disrespectful.

So untrue. There are plenty of downright hideous men who, by virtue of their confidence, their "swagger", or their money who can get just as many or more women than attractive guys who don't have any of those things.

I guess I used the wrong word, "attractive" might not be the best here. I mean on a man who is, for whatever reason, unable to attract a partner. If no woman wants you, you can't have all the casual sex you want.

Still, I am sure- well, I hope- that most of the women would choose an attractive (and intelligent, etc) guy with no money over a rich guy without any values. Also, confidence is ok, but it's overrated. Too much confidence can be a turn off. Nobody wants to be with a guy who thinks he's the best thing that happened to her (or the world).