Social views on having many partners and/or sex with strangers

[Lucid]

And what's the problem with slutty women? I happen to prefer mine that way.

Wow... please tell me that you didn't mean that the way it came off.

[Zzyber]

^^ I got that one as well. I was just not going to start a fire.

[Harmony]

Geez, I don't like being scrutinized & would never think of myself as a slut, but if I had to fathom a guess, I'd go with 33.

Been thinking about this... And I don't think the number of people someone has been with makes them a slut... I believe it's the way they act... If I see a girl throw herself at every guy she meets, I'd start to wonder if she was a slut...

For me, it's just that I'm okay with casual sex... So if me and my buddy get drunk one night and get frisky, no big deal. Now, if I go out and get drunk one night and throw myself at every guy that walks past me, I'd start to question myself. =P

[Chain]

I think we got this perception backwards... it's the ones with the low numbers that are most embarassed ... not the other way around...

take a look at the poll and compare the 0s to the number of posters who've claimed zero on this thread...

The last line about sluts was a different topic than the rest of the post. Guess I should've made that more clear.

[Lucid]

The last line about sluts was a different topic than the rest of the post. Guess I should've made that more clear.

You should continue to clarify exactly what you meant by 'sluts.'

[Chain]

You should continue to clarify exactly what you meant by 'sluts.'

:laugh: Highly sexual women that are comfortable with that and don't have many inhibitions about it.

[Lucid]

:laugh: Highly sexual women that are comfortable with that and don't have many inhibitions about it.

That's your definition of the word, or are you amending your statement?

[Henry]

Been thinking about this... And I don't think the number of people someone has been with makes them a slut... I believe it's the way they act... If I see a girl throw herself at every guy she meets, I'd start to wonder if she was a slut...

For me, it's just that I'm okay with casual sex... So if me and my buddy get drunk one night and get frisky, no big deal. Now, if I go out and get drunk one night and throw myself at every guy that walks past me, I'd start to question myself. =P

If you're blowing a guy that you're not dating, its a little questionable. And yes, numbers count.

[LaoTzu]

If you're blowing a guy that you're not dating, its a little questionable. And yes, numbers count.


I disagree.

If you're blowing random strangers, it's a little questionable. And numbers... don't count. (I prefer my women to know what they're doing personally)

But you might find people who think I'm the prude...


The problem with sex is that the wrong types of people built up the 'morality' behind it...and hence you have the sexual dysfunction that we find in today's modern life. I'm not going to judge anyone on anything. I know what I prefer, and I wouldn't tell anyone that's how they should act.
Right or Wrong when talking about someone else's life is just... sad...

[Kisai]

If you're blowing a guy that you're not dating, its a little questionable. And yes, numbers count.

I'm having Clerks flashbacks.

Look: different strokes for different folks, ok?

If you are a prude or a virgin, that's just fine.
If you're a lavicious carnival of lurid slut flesh, that's just fine.(call me!)


But each group of people stop judging the other end of the spectrum. If you're jealous and you want to change but don't know how: ask. If your jealous but don't want to change: stop calling sour grapes.

[Lucid]

Perhaps this is where it gets interesting here... see, personally, i wouldn't normally touch someone's goodies unless they were a close friend to start with... so it's an impossibility for me to be in the double digits...

It would be interesting to find out which way INTJs lean mostly
1) Close friendship a requirement for sex
2) Close friendship NOT a requirement for sex

My guess is #1... at least relative to other types... it would fit the 'reserved' personality

Personally, I have never had sex with a stranger. All 19 of the people I've had sex with were friends or boyfriends or people I was dating.
And I would not want to have sex with a stranger. It sounds like it would be awkward and scary. And who knows where they've been.

[Lucid]

What she said.

My number, high by some standards here, is low for my group of friends. :) It's really all relative.

[Harmony]

What she said.

My number, high by some standards here, is low for my group of friends. :) It's really all relative.

Same here... Some of my friends would probably give some of the people on here a stroke. =P

[dalidaisy]

Same here... Some of my friends would probably give some of the people on here a stroke. =P

Is this a big deal? I've had way more sex than most everyone I know. Should I be feeling bad about it? Cause I don't...

[Karamazov]

Is this a big deal? I've had way more sex than most everyone I know. Should I be feeling bad about it? Cause I don't...
No. I think as long as someone has their own standard on which they make these types of decisions, then there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about it. It's annoying when people try to force their own normative standards on everyone else who may not agree.

[Lucid]

My definition. Promiscuity is a sign of that- for lack of better words at the moment.

It seems that you have a very narrow minded outlook about women and sexuality. That's too bad. I'd really hope our society had moved beyond this kind of crap. :(

[Chain]

It seems that you have a very narrow minded outlook about women and sexuality. That's too bad. I'd really hope our society had moved beyond this kind of crap. :(

How so?

If I'm reading this right- and I'm probably not- it's a sign, not the sign. I've known a number of women that were quite comfortable and open in their sexuality, yet very, very picky and often opted to go long bouts without. And I think it's a shame that society believes that women ought to be the virgin Mary, rather than simply be how it is that they are or choose to be.

[Chain]

Personally, I have never had sex with a stranger. All 19 of the people I've had sex with were friends or boyfriends or people I was dating.
And I would not want to have sex with a stranger. It sounds like it would be awkward and scary. And who knows where they've been.

Looking back, I wish I could say that I hadn't done that.

[Lucid]

How so?

If I'm reading this right- and I'm probably not- it's a sign, not the sign. I've known a number of women that were quite comfortable and open in their sexuality, yet very, very picky and often opted to go long bouts without. And I think it's a shame that society believes that women ought to be the virgin Mary, rather than simply be how it is that they are or choose to be.

Then I grossly misread your post. The word 'slut' has the connotation of someone who will have sex with anyone and who doesn't really have any self esteem. So it seemed you were saying that women who enjoy sex and have had more than a few partners were sluts.

[Karamazov]

Well, actually it's etymology denotes it's female connotations. Namely, to describe a woman of moral turpitude, etc. Now it's gone beyond that, and it can be applicable to anyone. Frankly, I would define it someone who has no operating standards.

[Chain]

Then I grossly misread your post. The word 'slut' has the connotation of someone who will have sex with anyone and who doesn't really have any self esteem. So it seemed you were saying that women who enjoy sex and have had more than a few partners were sluts.

Understood. I rarely use that word in a negative or degrading way.

[intjdude]

Personally, I have never had sex with a stranger. All 19 of the people I've had sex with were friends or boyfriends or people I was dating.
And I would not want to have sex with a stranger. It sounds like it would be awkward and scary. And who knows where they've been.

i can see the appeal of sex with a hot stranger... especially if not a word is said from the beginning of meeting her... it works in my imagination

lust full blast :wideeyed:

[nacht]

Then I grossly misread your post. The word 'slut' has the connotation of someone who will have sex with anyone and who doesn't really have any self esteem. So it seemed you were saying that women who enjoy sex and have had more than a few partners were sluts.

Interestingly, there is a book that was considered one of the early defining works for consensual non-monogamy titled The Ethical Slut (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It defines "slut" as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you."

This is a semi-radical departure from its more common societal use, however.

[LaoTzu]

I'd support putting that definition in the dictionary.... time to email Webster's.

[Shinqui]

An orange is an orange, screwing an orange is, um, slutty? Haha, really though, blowing a stranger just means you felt like having a cock in your mouth and you don't happen to know it's owner very well. Slut is an old word used to continue the oppression of female sexuality. I suggest it be stricken from our vocabulary.

My name is Shinqui, and I support the blowing of strangers. :)

[Karamazov]

An orange is an orange. Blowing someone you aren't dating is questionable. Blowing a stranger would pretty much make you a slut. Why, exactly, is this questionable? And on what standard are you judging this on?

[nacht]

An orange is an orange. Blowing someone you aren't dating is questionable. Blowing a stranger would pretty much make you a slut.

Of course that's IMO, just as all of this is; this is social reality, which is totally unverifiable and impossible to "prove".

The use of slut in this context is a clear pejorative and carries a negative societal connotation. In this context it expresses a value judgement, so the question comes up "by what standard are you judging them?"

This deals with "society at large," of course, which is probably the least useful set of criteria to work with, because I'd venture to say quite a few of us belong to some organization or group or act in some manner which "society" judges poorly.

[Henry]

Why, exactly, is this questionable? And on what standard are you judging this on?

My perception of social reality. How else is anyone to for a social judgement?

I shouldn't need to explain why putting a stranger's genitals in your mouth is a questionable behavior. There are a half a dozen reasons why, some of them value judgements, some of them objectively very stupid.

The use of slut in this context is a clear pejorative and carries a negative societal connotation.

:'( The use of "slut" was in response to someone else using the same term.

Its social reality as I perceive it. That's all you have on this topic too. Sorry you don't like my ideas, but they're no more or less valid than anyone else's.

In this context it expresses a value judgement, so the question comes up "by what standard are you judging them?"

This deals with "society at large," of course, which is probably the least useful set of criteria to work with, because I'd venture to say quite a few of us belong to some organization or group or act in some manner which "society" judges poorly.

See above. Tell me what standard you'd like to base this conversation on other than individual perception of social reality.

Its your right to have sex with a stranger, or be a layabout, or have a malignant personality, or use hard drugs, but it will incur social judgement.

[nacht]

See above. Tell me what standard you'd like to base this conversation on other than individual perception of social reality.

Its your right to have sex with a stranger, or be a layabout, or have a malignant personality, or use hard drugs, but it will incur social judgement.

Such judgements are not useful because they are based on an arbitrary societal standard and will only come to bear under very specific circumstances.

For example, let's take--for example--the BDSM community. As a group they are going to be judged as "perverse," "sluts," "deeply troubled," or simply "fracked up" according to society-at-large's standards. We could also look at the polyamory community: "sluts," "unwilling to settle," "cheaters," "hedonists," etc.

Thankfully no one within those circles applies such standards in a negative fashion, and by and large members who are open would not hang out with those who do.

I will venture to guess that we could take most members on this board who are over the age of 18, ask them some fairly personal questions, and find out that society has a list of really nasty things to say about them. They have had casual sex, are poly or have open relationships, they may have dated married individuals, belong to the SCA, are roleplayers, are furries, are pagan, are atheists, are buddhists, practice BDSM, fall somewhere on the geek hierarchy flowchart (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), have attended play parties, or any one of a number of other things.

What this general monster called "society" thinks is only relevant if you are running for public office.

Your observation of society's standards may be true, but that doesn't mean that it should be true, nor does it mean that society's standards are objective or non-hypocritical, nor does it mean that we--as individuals or as a group--have to ascribe to them or even tolerate them.

I sort of like the statement that "there's no such thing as normal or abnormal, there's only common and rare."

[Lucid]

Henry:

You're right... these things are social realities... but I think a more relevant question would be should they continue to be. Just thinking something because the rest of society does too isn't rational in my opinion.

[firebee]

My perception of social reality. How else is anyone to for a social judgement?

Which society? I could throw a stone tomorrow at noon and hit five people who have different opinions from yours and from each other. And that's in a relatively homogenous community, mind.

I shouldn't need to explain why putting a stranger's genitals in your mouth is a questionable behavior. There are a half a dozen reasons why, some of them value judgements, some of them objectively very stupid.

What's to question? How to do it? The Internet is really really great for answering such questions. And why should we accept an assertion as self-evident if it's supported by value judgements and reasons that are "objectively very stupid"?

Its your right to have sex with a stranger, or be a layabout, or have a malignant personality, or use hard drugs, but it will incur social judgement.
It's your right to use pejorative language and associations in lieu of a serious discussion, but in many communities this will incur social judgement. Whether this set of communities contain any where you care about their judgement is left as an exercise to the reader.

From my perspective, I'll note that there are a number of social standards that I care exactly zero as to how I rate, and a number more where my only concern is maintaining a civil public interface. One can't please all of the people all of the time.

[True Rune]

Interestingly, there is a book that was considered one of the early defining works for consensual non-monogamy titled The Ethical Slut (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It defines "slut" as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you."

This is a semi-radical departure from its more common societal use, however.
I wouldn't call that courage, honestly. I can't help but have a cynical view, but I'm biased. To me, it just looks like trouble.

Screwing anything that walks doesn't sound "rational" at all. I don't care for societal norms and tradition, but it's not a lifestyle I would endorse. Asexuality and beliefs aside, it's just not smart. Living life for pleasure is all there is, when life is all there is I guess. Everyone has a core..and everything proceeds from it.

[Henry]

Which society? I could throw a stone tomorrow at noon and hit five people who have different opinions from yours and from each other. And that's in a relatively homogenous community, mind.

Well the only society you or I can credibly comment on, the ones we live in.


What's to question? How to do it? The Internet is really really great for answering such questions. And why should we accept an assertion as self-evident if it's supported by value judgements and reasons that are "objectively very stupid"?

Objectively, sleeping with strangers is very stupid. You have no idea who the person is. You have no idea if they have STDs. You have no idea if the person may be attempting to rob you. You have no idea if they're prone to violence. You have no idea if the person is or is not trying to get pregnant to get you on the hook for support. You have no idea of any number of things about the person that could harm you. Its not smart, particularly for females.

It's your right to use pejorative language and associations in lieu of a serious discussion, but in many communities this will incur social judgement. Whether this set of communities contain any where you care about their judgement is left as an exercise to the reader.

L2read. My use of the term "slut" was in response to another's.

Such judgements are not useful because they are based on an arbitrary societal standard and will only come to bear under very specific circumstances.

For example, let's take--for example--the BDSM community. As a group they are going to be judged as "perverse," "sluts," "deeply troubled," or simply "fracked up" according to society-at-large's standards. We could also look at the polyamory community: "sluts," "unwilling to settle," "cheaters," "hedonists," etc.

Thankfully no one within those circles applies such standards in a negative fashion, and by and large members who are open would not hang out with those who do.

I will venture to guess that we could take most members on this board who are over the age of 18, ask them some fairly personal questions, and find out that society has a list of really nasty things to say about them. They have had casual sex, are poly or have open relationships, they may have dated married individuals, belong to the SCA, are roleplayers, are furries, are pagan, are atheists, are buddhists, practice BDSM, fall somewhere on the geek hierarchy flowchart, have attended play parties, or any one of a number of other things.

What this general monster called "society" thinks is only relevant if you are running for public office.

Your observation of society's standards may be true, but that doesn't mean that it should be true, nor does it mean that society's standards are objective or non-hypocritical, nor does it mean that we--as individuals or as a group--have to ascribe to them or even tolerate them.

I sort of like the statement that "there's no such thing as normal or abnormal, there's only common and rare."

The thing is you have zero control over society at large. Thinking about how society "should" accept this or that atypical attribute is pointless.

If this were a conversation about how social reality should be, I would probably be inclined to agree with you. This is not. Someone made statements suggesting that sleeping with friends is not questionable and that sleeping with strangers is questionable. I challenged that assumption from a perspective that I don't think its in line with society's use of the term "slut".

[firebee]

I wouldn't call that courage, honestly. I can't help but have a cynical view, but I'm biased. To me, it just looks like trouble.

Screwing anything that walks doesn't sound "rational" at all. I don't care for societal norms and tradition, but it's not a lifestyle I would endorse. Asexuality and beliefs aside, it's just not smart. Living life for pleasure is all there is, when life is all there is I guess. Everyone has a core..and everything proceeds from it.

Is not avoiding trouble, not courageous? It's easy -- as is amply demonstrated by this thread, really -- to make unexamined assumptions that a given approach to life is "not smart" or irrational, and to organize one's life so that one does not have to examine those assumptions.

Beyond that, all I can say is that it might help to read the book or even to actually follow nacht's link -- characterizing consensual non-monogamy as "screwing anything that walks" indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the material.

[Lucid]

I wouldn't call that courage, honestly. I can't help but have a cynical view, but I'm biased. To me, it just looks like trouble.

Screwing anything that walks doesn't sound "rational" at all. I don't care for societal norms and tradition, but it's not a lifestyle I would endorse. Asexuality and beliefs aside, it's just not smart. Living life for pleasure is all there is, when life is all there is I guess. Everyone has a core..and everything proceeds from it.

I think there's a lot of space between only having a few partners ever and 'screwing anything that walks.' I think that's what nacht is talking about. It's not an either/or, there are all kinds of gray areas in this regard. Nor is having many sexual partners necessarily living life only for pleasure.

[Sinequanon]

Henry:

You're right... these things are social realities... but I think a more relevant question would be should they continue to be. Just thinking something because the rest of society does too isn't rational in my opinion.
See, but herein lies the problem - why do you assume he hasn't considered it, and then made a personal judgment which happens to align with the prevalent social norm?

Ultimately, there are only two choices - do, or do not do (there is no try! ;)); a person either commits an act or they don't. A person chooses to judge that act negatively or not. There can be degrees of informed choice that go into the decision to commit an act or not (as in, the unexamined choice to sleep with a relatively random person, or the examined choice), and there can be degrees to the judgment as well.

A girl once explained to me (through stick figures) that feminism was an image of a woman standing in pants saying "No blowjob!"; post-feminism was an image of a woman in a skirt, giving a blowjob, saying (I presume muffled) "Yay, blowjob!" We constantly want people to examine their beliefs, question societal norms and all that, but what it seems like most people are saying is "When you question them, part of what I'm implying is that you should also reject them," because we get very, very disappointed whenever someone examines those mores, then comes back full-circle to the societal position (but in a more informed way)...

[firebee]

Well the only society you or I can credibly comment on, the ones we live in.

I don't know as I could accurately characterize the society that I live in, or the society that you live in, but I rather doubt they are the same.


Objectively, sleeping with strangers is very stupid. You have no idea who the person is. You have no idea if they have STDs. You have no idea if the person may be attempting to rob you. You have no idea if they're prone to violence. You have no idea if the person is or is not trying to get pregnant to get you on the hook for support. You have no idea of any number of things about the person that could harm you. Its not smart, particularly for females.

All of these are risks that can be mitigated, and they apply just as much in the context of a relationship. STDs can be prevented. Pregnancy can be prevented. The odds of someone coming to a private sex club to rob the members is probably fairly low. And many people find that you don't actually know that the person who you feel you have a 'relationship' with, doesn't have a STD or isn't prone to violence, or isn't inclined to put you on the hook for support. These things are common enough that no one is immune from having to think about them.


The thing is you have zero control over society at large. Thinking about how society "should" accept this or that atypical attribute is pointless.


Please indicate to me where I asserted that "society" -- whatever that is -- "should" accept anything. Such an assertion was unintentional.


If this were a conversation about how social reality should be, I would probably be inclined to agree with you. This is not. Someone made statements suggesting that sleeping with friends is not questionable and that sleeping with strangers is questionable. I challenged that assumption from a perspective that I don't think its in line with society's use of the term "slut".

To the point of what is "questionable" and what is not, I'd say that I don't see the use in making a determination. It's a vague category that suggests no action. Why not just determine the answer, instead of debating whether you can ask the question?





firebee added to this post, 7 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Oh, I missed your "l2read". Do so yourself. I made that statement in reference to the line I quoted.

[Harmony]

I don't know as I could accurately characterize the society that I live in, or the society that you live in, but I rather doubt they are the same.

Yeah, I was just sitting here thinking about how there are many different societies across the US, let alone the world. I guarantee a place like Miami, FL or Panama City, FL has a completely different view on society as a place like Salt Lake City, UT....

All of these are risks that can be mitigated, and they apply just as much in the context of a relationship. STDs can be prevented. Pregnancy can be prevented. The odds of someone coming to a private sex club to rob the members is probably fairly low. And many people find that you don't actually know that the person who you feel you have a 'relationship' with, doesn't have a STD or isn't prone to violence, or isn't inclined to put you on the hook for support. These things are common enough that no one is immune from having to think about them.

If I'm reading this right... I have a friend that is a prime example of your point about people you may have relationships with... She wasn't sleeping with just a random stranger. She was sleeping with her boyfriend of over a year, who gave her herpes. He never told her he had it.

[Lucid]

See, but herein lies the problem - why do you assume he hasn't considered it, and then made a personal judgment which happens to align with the prevalent social norm?

It's possible that he has and if that's the case then I can't fault him for it. But the post I was responding to seemed to be saying that it's reasonable to think of someone as a slut (although that's the wrong word - he didn't put it using such a perjorative term, that's just me being lazy) because it's a social reality... but didn't seem to explain why it was a reasonable social reality in his opinion. Or if it was.

[Tyrant Soup]

My name is Shinqui, and I support the blowing of strangers. :)
As a blower or blowee?

[nacht]

Yeah, I was just sitting here thinking about how there are many different societies across the US, let alone the world. I guarantee a place like Miami, FL or Panama City, FL has a completely different view on society as a place like Salt Lake City, UT....


I think a key feature here is that very few of us have to deal with "society" in the form that Henry is talking about. We build social circles that--to our a large extent--define our own society. What is completely unacceptable to the "society" of the US in a president if it were splashed across headlines may be entirely acceptable within one's circle of peers.


If I'm reading this right... I have a friend that is a prime example of your point about people you may have relationships with... She wasn't sleeping with just a random stranger. She was sleeping with her boyfriend of over a year, who gave her herpes. He never told her he had it.

It is also worth noting that--all trust issues aside--we take risks every time we step outside or get into a car, much less have to deal with another human being. 107k people died in accidents in 2004, let alone those who got injured. I also dated a woman who contracted HSV from someone before either of them realized that's what causes cold sores.

Life involves a lot of risk management.

[firebee]

Yeah, I was just sitting here thinking about how there are many different societies across the US, let alone the world. I guarantee a place like Miami, FL or Panama City, FL has a completely different view on society as a place like Salt Lake City, UT....

Exactly. I'd also add that there are many communities within a given geographic area -- the college I attend has a relatively homogenous student body as these things go, but I've met Christian homemakers and poly Pagans and everyone in between. And all of them living right according to the standards of their community.


If I'm reading this right... I have a friend that is a prime example of your point about people you may have relationships with... She wasn't sleeping with just a random stranger. She was sleeping with her boyfriend of over a year, who gave her herpes. He never told her he had it.

I just observe Congress and report the facts ;)

[Anreader]

In TN, in my white suburban area, getting caught having sex with anyone who is married, of a different ethnic group, of the same gender, of a different socio-economic group, or anyone at all if you are younger than 30 or unmarried, makes you a slut if you are a girl. Or a hero if you are male.

[Zhen]

personal immediate thought: manwhore, slut...(with STDs)

but I highly value ideals of diversity and tolerance so I keep it to myself...I really can't stand people who dogmatically criticise and impose on others lifestyles and way of thinking...

Live and Let Live.

[Indubitably]

Well, for practicalities sake it simply doesn't make sense to sleep with a great number of different people, even if you do practice safe sex. I do however find the whole victorian "Sex is evil and you should hate yourself for experiencing physical pleasure, especially if you are a woman" thing, rather obnoxious. The last thing we need is even more sexually repressed self hating people running around artificially making life more complicated and difficult than it already is.

If people had more orgasms the world would be a better place, and I hate to say it, but a lot of girls are coming up on the short end of that stick. God only knows what life must have been like for men before women had vibrators.

PS: Oh yeah, and guys, mechanical advantage is your friend too. If she doesn't have one, you should. There is no such thing as a woman who is too satisfied with sex.

[Lucid]

There is no such thing as a woman who is too satisfied with sex.

Everyone should be taking notes on this. There will be a pop quiz later.

[Hatsumomo1]

In TN, in my white suburban area, getting caught having sex with anyone who is married, of a different ethnic group, of the same gender, of a different socio-economic group, or anyone at all if you are younger than 30 or unmarried, makes you a slut if you are a girl. Or a hero if you are male.

That's what really irks me. Double standards.

As for people sleeping with a huge number of people, I personally would never do it nor do I understand why anyone would want to do that (the risks aren't worth it to me.) But I'm not going to feed my preferences to others if it doesn't affect me personally. Have sex with everything that moves for all I care. Just don't cry to me when you suddenly have a little oopsie with some guy you don't know.

[amaryllith]

"In most of the world, "slut" is a highly offensive term, used to describe a woman whose sexuality is voracious, indiscriminate and shameful. It's interesting to note that the analogous word "stud," used to describe a highly sexual man, is often a term of approval and envy. If you ask about a man's morals, you will probably hear about his honesty, loyalty, integrity and high principles. When you ask about a woman's morals, you are more likely to hear about who she fucks and under what conditions. We have a problem with this."

—Dossie Easton & Catherine A. Liszt, The Ethical Slut


Great book. ^_^

[Lucid]

"In most of the world, "slut" is a highly offensive term, used to describe a woman whose sexuality is voracious, indiscriminate and shameful. It's interesting to note that the analogous word "stud," used to describe a highly sexual man, is often a term of approval and envy. If you ask about a man's morals, you will probably hear about his honesty, loyalty, integrity and high principles. When you ask about a woman's morals, you are more likely to hear about who she fucks and under what conditions. We have a problem with this."

—Dossie Easton & Catherine A. Liszt, The Ethical Slut


Great book. ^_^

Excellent excerpt. I can't wait to hear the inevitable responses explaining why, from an evolutionary standpoint (though the responses will come from laypeople on the subject of evolution) this double standard makes perfect sense and women should, at all costs, be forbidden from wearing shoes, voting or enjoying sex.

[daydreamer]

i have heard "slut" applied to gay or bisexual men just as frequently or moreso, as to women.

[Anreader]

It is still a negative term when used against men. I do think it makes sense for women to have less partners, simply due to self interest. However, I just think it makes them stupid, rather than immoral, for them to have numerous partners. In previous times it made more sense for men to be indiscriminate than it does today. Today you will pay child support for 18 years if that breeder can prove you are the father. So you probably will need to be much more careful.

[daydreamer]

what self-interest is that exactly? do you mean from a survival-of-the-species standpoint? or from the pov of what the woman may actually desire?

if a woman likes sex, and likes different partners, it could be argued that it's in her interest to have more partners, particularly in this day and age when she has access to protection and birth control/ much more mastery over potential outcomes than women did in the past.

to some, making the best of the life given to them, including sexual freedoms afforded them, is the very definition of self interest.

[Anreader]

Financial self interest. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Look under Status of Father.

[nacht]

I like the Ethical Slut a lot, though it is more sex-focused than my practice tends to be.

Excellent excerpt. I can't wait to hear the inevitable responses explaining why, from an evolutionary standpoint (though the responses will come from laypeople on the subject of evolution) this double standard makes perfect sense and women should, at all costs, be forbidden from wearing shoes, voting or enjoying sex.

It is amazing to me how many people think that strict monogamy is desirable because of evolution. It's just so wrong I don't even know where to begin...

[daydreamer]

ah ok. thanks for clearing that up. but having fewer partners does not correlate with financial self interest. the two are separate. even the link you give says nothing about the number of partners women on welfare have, as if that were a fair indicator of all women anyway.

[Indubitably]

Excellent excerpt. I can't wait to hear the inevitable responses explaining why, from an evolutionary standpoint (though the responses will come from laypeople on the subject of evolution) this double standard makes perfect sense and women should, at all costs, be forbidden from wearing shoes, voting or enjoying sex.

Well of course, didn't you know? All women should be virgins, until a man wants to sleep with them. At which point you should have as much sex as the man wants when ever he wants it. Don't worry about the fact that you are simultaneously expected to screw everyone and no one, these things are clearly too complicated for a woman to understand. That is why we will be doing all your thinking for you.

Most important of all, is of course the fact that every man you talk to has an impossibly gargantuan penis. A six and a half inch long tube of veins and skin is the most incredibly intimidating thing you have ever seen, and just being in its presences makes you worship the individual it is dangling from with absolute and unfaltering adulation.

This is how the flying spaghetti monster made things at the dawn of time and it will always be true. Clearly the FSM is a mass of flying penises, so if you doubt the unquestionable authority of the phallus you doubt the FSM. Basically god designed you as a penis receptacle. If you disagree you are not a woman, and since you have no penis, doing so negates your right to exist.

[Anreader]

I didn't go that far. I am merely stating it is illogical for a woman to allow a man's reproductive fluids to have even the most remote risk of reaching her cervix, without some kind of financial arrangement. Such as marriage. Anything less is acceptable.





Anreader added to this post, 0 minutes and 46 seconds later...

less than risk of pregnancy.

[Sliderule]

Many partners=Eww, but whatever floats your boat.

Strangers=gross and dangerous

As far as the double standard I can understand why it came to be; women were considered property (and still are in many parts of the world) naturally used things are less desirable than new things. If you've ever bought a new car you know what happens as soon as you drive it off the lot.

I guess capitalism is to blame? Damn you free market!

Of course I can't offer any explanation as to why these attitudes still persist, women are considered free people now aren't they?

[Lucid]

It is amazing to me how many people think that strict monogamy is desirable because of evolution. It's just so wrong I don't even know where to begin...

Well I view it as a personal choice. As much fun as I'm sure an open relationship is, I just couldn't do it with someone I was emotionally involved with on a more-than-friends level. I'm just not that secure. If others can though, more power to them.

This is how the flying spaghetti monster made things at the dawn of time and it will always be true. Clearly the FSM is a mass of flying penises, so if you doubt the unquestionable authority of the phallus you doubt the FSM. Basically god designed you as a penis receptacle. If you disagree you are not a woman, and since you have no penis, doing so negates your right to exist.

Hopefully, they'll peek in this thread, see that you've already said what they were coming here to say themselves and leave, thinking the issue is already well in hand. :)

I didn't go that far. I am merely stating it is illogical for a woman to allow a man's reproductive fluids to have even the most remote risk of reaching her cervix, without some kind of financial arrangement. Such as marriage.

I, personally, invest a great deal of time and money in birth control. I'm 28, I've had 19 partners and I've never had an STD or been pregnant. It's not just luck, it's also science.

Of course I can't offer any explanation as to why these attitudes still persist, women are considered free people now aren't they?

I think it probably depends on who you ask. :)

[Sliderule]

I think it probably depends on who you ask. :)

Perhaps you gals should start some sort of movement to help combat some of these issues.

[nacht]

co-sign

I would have thought most INTJs would not be promiscuous... The end game for a relationship is companionship and children. Sex and lust is the bonding process. Social construct is irrelevant.


The ISTJs are --> that way.

Slightly less facetiously: On the part where I've added emphasis, on what are you basing this? I know plenty of people who have decided to never have children, and "companionship" is a default state--it can't be argued here, but it also isn't especially meaningful. It may be that way for you, but it is dangerous to generalize this.

Sex and lust are a bonding process if used for that, but they do not necessarily need to be used for such.

INTJs fall all over the spectrum here. They are more inclined to challenge social norms or ask the question like "does it work." The conclusions they come to on this are going to be varied.





nacht added to this post, 11 minutes and 30 seconds later...

Well I view it as a personal choice. As much fun as I'm sure an open relationship is, I just couldn't do it with someone I was emotionally involved with on a more-than-friends level. I'm just not that secure. If others can though, more power to them.


Absolutely, I won't claim one path is better than another or that any given individual should choose one over another. There are many reasons people could rationally choose any of the above, and I mostly choose to judge them on whether they are honest and ethical about it, as opposed to worrying about their partner count or any particular "ick" factor (to borrow a term: your kink is okay but it's not my kink).

On the other hand, if people start arguing evolutionary justification for strict monogamy--especially while practicing serial monogamy--I reach for my pitchfork.

[Anreader]

I don't believe in monogamy, I just believe children should only exist in marriage. THe social institution is still the presumed ideal. What you do after you get hitched is your business. As a matter of fact its all your business. This is just what I believe. And I know I have a cultural bias.

[daydreamer]

do you think gay couples are entitled to be parents?

[Anreader]

if they're hitched, sure.

[Shinqui]

Excellent excerpt. I can't wait to hear the inevitable responses explaining why, from an evolutionary standpoint (though the responses will come from laypeople on the subject of evolution) this double standard makes perfect sense and women should, at all costs, be forbidden from wearing shoes, voting or enjoying sex.

Hey, I'm not even sure why we allow women to post here. At least do it with your shoes off, mmmkay?





Shinqui added to this post, 1 minutes and 45 seconds later...

As a blower or blowee?

Oh either is fine I suppose, but the post wasn't about me and my needs, it was about oranges if I remember correctly.

[Harmony]

Hey, I'm not even sure why we allow women to post here. At least do it with your shoes off, mmmkay?

Ah well, no shoes or socks here, so I suppose I'm clear.

[Mozzes]

What is it about this issue that makes so many people spit fire?

[Harmony]

OKay, now I'm curious... So people believe that children should only exist in a marriage... What if a single man or single woman that is stable financially and has love to give to a child adopts or is artificially inseminated (women here, obviously)? Is that wrong?

I know what you meant by your statements. I'm just hoping that you weren't implying that a single person shouldn't be allowed to adopt just because they aren't married.

[Henry]

OKay, now I'm curious... So people believe that children should only exist in a marriage... What if a single man or single woman that is stable financially and has love to give to a child adopts or is artificially inseminated (women here, obviously)? Is that wrong?

Who is saying that?

[Anreader]

^^I am. And I'm not sure, Kimberleigh. I don't think its wrong, exactly. It's more that society, especially where I live, would continue to gossip and question if the mother is truthful about her circumstances, and even if they did believe your story, they would tell people how sad it is that you couldn't find a man, etc., even after your child gets to college. It would be better to move than face that, in my opinion. I want my children to grow up as a member of a respected family, rather than be gossipped over and insulted on the playground.

[Harmony]

^^I am. And I'm not sure, Kimberleigh. I don't think its wrong, exactly. It's more that society, especially where I live, would continue to gossip and question if the mother is truthful about her circumstances, and even if they did believe your story, they would tell people how sad it is that you couldn't find a man, etc., even after your child gets to college. It would be better to move than face that, in my opinion. I want my children to grow up as a member of a respected family, rather than be gossipped over and insulted on the playground.

Wow, that's really sad. =( It's a shame more people can't think outside the box and accept people and their situations.

[Anreader]

Wow, that's really sad. =( It's a shame more people can't think outside the box and accept people and their situations.
Yes its sad. But that's the way it is here and this is where my history is. So, better to be aware than unaware. I'm not saying its an issue of morality. More an issue of practicality I suppose.