A person? A person! RIIIGGGHHHT.
CMC fnord!
Yes, the “nuance” of the word slut is that the target is a woman.
And it isn’t used only for people carrying on with married people, or married themselves. It’s used by many people for any woman who’s having sex, or even looking like she might want to have sex, or even dressed in a fashion implying sex to the viewer even if not to the wearer, in any fashion not approved of by the person using the word.
So no; “slut” is in no way a precise term applying to anyone of any gender who’s trying to have sex with a person who’s in a supposedly monogamous relationship. The term for that, if there is a term for that, is “homewrecker”; though I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that applied to men.
Point of correction - she mentioned that Clinton and Vernon Jordan pressured her to lie.
Cite.
Which she did.
So yes to the mistake part, and the commendable character part, not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
When I was growing up, in the '60s and '70s, a slut was any woman or girl who you wanted to have sex with but said no. In high school I was very curvy, but also a virgin. I was also the ‘school slut’ because while I had the body of Rachel Welch, I said no to everyone.
Why do we need one?..
You can call people assholes. You can call people manipulators. You can call people toxic, or abusers. Sleazebag is also a particular favorite of mine. There is a large number of words we can use to describe people guilty of the things you list. None of those words I mentioned are gender-specific.
First of all, you’re being a little dishonest here. It wasn’t used about “a person who used sex in a shitty manner”; it was used about a woman who used sex in a way that other people found unacceptable. There are a few people in this thread who have tried to level up the gender question by claiming that men can be referred to as sluts, but if this usage occurs in greater than 1/100th of one percent of the times the word is used, I would be very surprised.
Second, there’s something of a contradiction here. You say that it “works really well” and “has a nuance others don’t,” but then you say in the next breath that it’s been misapplied in the past. But that’s the precise point of the criticisms of the word slut: in its whole history, it has been universally and almost exclusively used about women, often for the same sort of sexual behavior that men undertake with no social opprobrium.
Slut has also, among a significant section of the population, been used simply to describe women who like having sex, and who have sex with different men, even if the men are single, there is nothing “shitty” about the woman’s behavior at all, and where there is no marriage to disrupt. Hell, for a significant number of men, slut has often been used as a descriptor of “a woman who won’t have sex with me, but will have sex with someone else.” Or, as Jane Elliot suggests, just a woman who won’t have sex with you. It’s one of the paradoxes of the term, that it is often applied both to women who do have sex and women who don’t; another example of how women often can’t win no matter what decisions they make.
By all means, keep using it if you want, and keep rationalizing it if you want. I can’t stop you. Just know that using it makes some people think less of you.
MY Bolding.
Fucking bullshit, okay? You realized what you said, don’t you. " It takes two to tango " means just that.
Shared culpability. Neither was below the age of consent in the District of Columbia. Period. Full stop. They both engaged in sex.
Yeah, it takes two to fuck and both are culpable.
Now even the statistics are part of our profoundly misogynistic culture?
Facts are misogynistic?
Of course. But that doesn’t mean our society is profoundly misogynistic. You make it sound like I am some sort of sexism denier. That if even someone like me would admit that sexism exists then it must be profound or something. I suspect that most of the people I know would say that I believe in being fair and i make efforts to try to understand how social architecture can make things unfair.
This is mostly true in cases where there is a lack of physical evidence and we have to primarily rely on the testimony of the accuser. Should we adjust our justice system so that we convict men based on accusations alone?
That is word salad. In what way are slutshamers like NAMBLA?
Kavanaugh has denied every allegation. So it would be more like a high office being attained by an ACCUSED pedophile. An uncorroborated, unsubstantiated accusation.
America is better than the VAST majority of countries in the world, right? And it’s still “profoundly” misogynistic? So that means that the whole world must be profoundly misogynistic, right? Seems to dilute the meaning of “profound”
Does using the word profound to describe a characteristic in a society that exists in equal or greater degree in every other society in the world kind of make the word meaningless?
Don’t get me wrong. I love how you get all offended and riled up on behalf of others but I don’t think most women would agree that things are as bad as you say.
I find the way we treat minorities to be significantly worse. I find the way we treat the disabled to be significantly worse. I find the way we treat the poor to be significantly worse. For the most part we treat our mothers and wives and sister and daughter just fine. That’s the thing about misogyny, we all know and love women in our lives. The same cannot be said for minorities, the disabled, the poor, etc. We can other them. We cannot really relegate women as other.
The entire premise behind social shaming is that someone has dome something outside socially accepted norms. If it was socially acceptable for women to frequently change sexual partners noone would shame them for it. It would be like me shaming you for eating meat. It is a perfectly acceptable behavior in our society and even though some people find fault with it, it would be weird for me to try and point out your meat-eating and try to shame you for it.
Slut shaming is the result of social norms that say that women should not have frequent turnover in sexual partners. There are other forms of slut shaming but the primary form of slut shaming seems to be anchored in female promiscuity. Much of the rationale for that social norm evaporated with birth control but we maintain it as a relic largely fed by other women. It’s not really men that do the slutshaming so much as it is women. When a girl gets labelled a slut in high school, it’s not the guys that treat her like shit.
Society does not have a similar social prohibition against male promiscuity. It’s still looked down on but not in the same way. This is called a double standard. AKA profound misogynism.
Huh? These statistics and facts just further demonstrate the misogyny present in our society and culture… Just like so many statistics and facts can demonstrate widespread racism.
The rest of your post just shows how profoundly ignorant you are about this topic, and I don’t feel like trying to help you understand right now. Maybe I’ll feel like it later. But if you feel like learning, you could start here:
While slutshamers can be pretty sexists, I don’t think they’re near as bad as NAMBLA.
Maybe a slight bit of hyperbole there. But slutshaming is monstrously misogynistic, and it’s just one of those everyday little misogynistic things that women put up with everyday. Slutshamers should be ashamed, and in a truly decent society, they’d be afraid to slut-shame in public, because they’d probably lose most of their friends and social circle.
Sucks that you have to say that last part outright, lest posters assume you support vigilantism. It’s like people have forgotten that society can make some things taboo.
Bill Clinton had no goddam business bedding his intern. Period. It creates an environment where other interns need to worry that that’s the way one gets ahead.
As for Hillary, had she been informed that she could not expect sexual exclusivity?
I’m poly. (big surprise; sorry I know I’ve made an issue of it a bit too often, but I think I shouldn’t assume everyone reading this already knows).
I once got intimate with a married woman who hadn’t officially given her husband notice that he couldn’t expect monogamous exclusivity. They’d been on the outs for quite a while and HE had had outside-the-marriage dalliances. But the fact remains that we were doing this behind his back.
I went into it thinking “I don’t subscribe to this whole sexual possessiveness shit”. But at 4 am he was banging on the door and I wasn’t at all feeling good about it. Turns out he was banging on the WRONG door, accusing someone down the hall of being with his wife. (We were stifling our giggles at this point).
But it condensed in me the attitude that if a married person (or a nonmarried person who has promised exclusivity to a partner, for that matter) hasn’t rescinded their exclusivity, it’s beneath my dignity and below my sense of behavioral okayness to go there. I don’t regard it as being the partner’s authority to approve or disapprove it, but he (or she, as the case might be) needs to be at least informed that this is how it is now.
I think even if you’re poly or otherwise not sexually exclusive, it is not kosher to be with someone who has made sexually exclusive promises to someone else. Yes, it’s primarily their responsibility to deal with whatever promises they have made. But you’re participating in deceiving someone and that’s wrong.
Please tell me you did NOT just blame Hillary?
I’m pretty sure he didn’t.
We have no idea; and I doubt we’ll ever have any idea.
It is none of my business whatsoever to know; but I suspect that Hillary Clinton had known for some time that she’d married a tomcat, and that she’d decided, for whatever reason, that overall he was worth it. That’s a decision that a whole lot of women in a whole lot of cultures have made, for a whole lot of reasons, some of them forced by apparent lack of other options and some of them not.
While there has been a running surface culture for a whole long time in the United States that marriages are supposed to be monogamous, there has also been a running subculture to the effect that human men will behave like tomcats and women just need to put up with it. I don’t know whether either or both Clinton grew up in such a subculture, but it’s quite possible. (This stuff isn’t passed out in church or in the newspapers; it’s passed out in conversations among women and among men, usually separate conversations.) And there are also people of any gender who genuinely don’t mind if their partner screws around at lunchtime as long as they come home for dinner. I have no idea whether Hillary Clinton is one of them. Considering the behavior of her husband, I hope that she is. But in either case, I don’t think it’s reprehensible of her to have decided to stick with him. Different people have different dealbreakers.
She may well have been furious at him for having sex on the job while POTUS, because it screwed up his presidency. That would be a separate issue from whether she was furious at him for betraying their marriage. Even presuming that she did consider it a betrayal of the marriage (which, again, we have no way of knowing), it’s up to her, and only her, to decide whether, overall, she thinks he’s worth staying married to.
(And no, I don’t think AHunter3 is blaming Hillary; I think the question is whether Hillary had agreed to Bill’s having additional sexual partners, and I don’t think the expectation was for the Clintons to publicly announce this if so.)
This is not an argument. This is vomiting wiki links on a post and hoping something sticks.
I still don’t see evidence of this “profound misogyny” that you claim exists in the USA. A country that is significantly more progressive on women’s rights than the vast majority of countries in the world. So by your standard, the entire fucking world is profoundly misogynistic.
Why not just admit you were talking out of your ass again and using hyperbole instead actual arguments because your arguments were too weak to support your over the top position?
You want to say that it was wrong to slut-shame Monica Lewinsky? Sure, I can be convinced that is the case. You want to use it as proof that America is Profoundly misogynistic, you’re going to need more. You’re going to need stuff not in evidence.
A lot of the stuff you say is hyperbole.
Now it’s monstrously misogynistic? What happened to profund?
Who do you imagine is the most common culprit of slut-shaming?
Do you think men accuse women of being sluts more frequently or do you think its women?