Totally fair. To quote Jim Jeffries:
“It’s easy to be a slut, but it’s fucking hard to be a stud. To be a stud you’ve got to be handsome, confident, well-dressed, witty, charming, affluent and have a fake job. To be a slut you just have to be…there. I’ve known fat ugly sluts. I’ve never met a fat ugly stud.”
Only with a LA Woman.
You never know what some people will blame misfortunes on: Pat Robertson Blames The Gays For The Stock Market Plunge | HuffPost Voices
I bet his girl friends could point some out for him. Oh, wait …
I think it’s a great topic. I’d focus on comparing ‘slut shaming’ to other social shaming.
When old people get duped by a scam, they’re shamed, or if not socially shamed, they’re certainly ashamed often causing them to not report the scam. How about when a child misbehaves to where there is some negative consequence (like that gorilla story) - the mother is shamed.
If you leave your keys in your car and your car is stolen, do you get blamed or shamed?
Also, do we propagate social shaming in our schools, churches and other social institutions. To what affect?
Is shaming ever a positive thing? If a little boy habitually whips out his weanie in public or picks his nose or farts, is shaming an acceptable way to get him to change his behavior?
I peed in my chair in Sunday School when I was four years old. I didn’t mean to of course, it just happened. The teacher-led shaming I received caused all sorts of negative feelings about the church and it’s people that still informs my thoughts and opinions some 50 years later. My Christianity never recovered.
An interesting take on the subject by Emily Ratajkowski. She “matured” at an early age and talks about the difficulties she had because of the way some people treated her or the things they said about her appearance.
IMHO, there’s nothing wrong with the topic of “slut shaming” or “victim blaming” but it would be nice if the OP came back and staked out a position to be debated instead of “What’s up with that?”
Counterpoint : Hugh Hefner. Actually, strike that, counterpoint : Ron Jeremy.
Or, to put it another way:
A key that can open any lock is a master key. A lock that can be opened by any key is just a lousy lock.
How totally not misogynistic an image.
Sometimes, when a feminist says “that’s not funny,” it’s because you’re telling really boring, dumb jokes.
Not really. It’s just more excuses at the top. Blame is finite. A lawyer of all people should know that. If it weren’t, there wouldn’t percentages given when deciding who is to blame in civil situations. Inherently, if I am 5% to blame, then the other party cannot be more than 95% to blame.
When you blame the victim, you inherently take the blame off of the criminal. There’s just no way around it. And, if you say if you wouldn’t do X, then Y wouldn’t happen, that is blaming the person. This is different from advice given when there is not yet a victim. The second there is a victim, telling them what they should have done is victim blaming.
And, yes, it does conflate slut shaming with rape victim blaming, which aren’t the same thing. Slut shaming is merely often a component of victim blaming.
Slut shaming is shaming a woman for dressing or acting in a sexual manner, or even having multiple sexual partners. It is the opposite of what we do to men, treating them like they are great when they do all these things. The more partners, the higher value the man. Only the guy who can’t get laid is considered a pervert for being sexual. The discrepancy is the problem.
And, no, Blake, burying people under citations you don’t actually try to understand because you think modern feminism is bullshit won’t change that. Maybe someone conflates the terms a couple times. But victim blaming and slut shaming aren’t the same thing. The fact they use both terms should make that obvious.
These are academic terms. They have definitions. It’s like letting evolution be defined the way it is in popular culture. Those who think individuals evolve are wrong.
And I’m sorry if this seems lecture-y. But this seems the appropriate tone for this thread, seeing as it’s full of lecturing.
As for the OP, there’s enough information in books that you don’t need to ask here. Just read the Wikipedia article, and follow the sources back to the originals. Like I said, this is an academic subject.
You don’t have to be any of those things in bold to be a “stud”. Seriously, whoever came up with this needs to meet more people.
Either gender can get laid a-plenty if their standards are low enough and they know where to look.
But, by definition, a stud is someone who sleeps with lots of desirable women. A guy who sleeps with lots of ugly women is just the butt of his friends’ jokes. Harsh, but true.
Wait, so are you saying these are actually reasonable things to say to a woman? I don’t want to misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying these statements aren’t problematic.
If I get drunk and decide to sleep it off on my male friend’s couch, should I expect him to rape me? In the world that I inhabit, that expectation would not make any sense, because friendship and rape don’t belong together. Just as I don’t expect a friend to steal my precious jewels the minute I leave them alone in my room, I wouldn’t expect a friend to prey on my body the minute my physical defenses are down. But I guess with the decision to drink, I’m now accepting whatever consequences come my way, right? Because rape is an inevitable consequence to being inebriated, just like being robbed and murdered are. Well, except for the fact no one says that about being robbed and murdered by friends and acquaintances.
You know why these are uncontroversial statements? Because 1) who in the hell ever does this frequently enough to merit discussion about and 2) this type of shaming would apply equally to men and women. Victim-blaming for rape is different because often the “advice” is coming from people who, by virtue of being male, would never be subjected to the same admonishments and judgments they glibly dispense to women. Which make the discourse loaded with patriarchal thoughtlessness and oversimplification.
A guy getting sodomized by a creep after passing out drunk on his buddy’s couch would never be told he should’ve “seen that coming”. A guy getting kidnapped and raped by a stranger after having the temerity of being attractive, flirty, and alone at a bar on a Saturday night would not be called foolish, reckless, or stupid for not watching his drink like a hawk. A guy could be topless, showing off his tight six-pack abs to a beach full of drunken idiots, and that would not be regarded as him giving blanket consent to sex to every straight woman or gay man within eyesight. But when a woman does similar things, she is often seen as “provoking” her own assault.
Wut? Your normal obviously is different from my normal. But that aside, your analogy to rape and risk is illuminating in this discussion.
Here’s the set up: A woman doing X is to her provoking rape as is a guy cursing someone out is to him provoking a physical assault.
What is “X” that women do that makes this analogy work? I’m wracking my brain trying to think of what this thing could be, that doesn’t require a stretch of a misogynist’s imagination and is common enough to merit discussion about in a heated discussion about slut-shaming, and sufficiently places moral culpability on the woman. But I’m totally turning up empty-handed. Care to offer some ideas here?
Okay, but a slut just sleeps with lots of men, period. Right? She doesn’t score extra points for limiting her conquests to rich handsome men. In fact, I daresay she’d be looked at worse if she only slept with desirable men, because clearly that would make her a goldigging whore plus a slut.
Rich, handsome men are still men. By and large, they’ll still sleep with any woman who shows a passing interest. The difference between a stud and a slut is the amount of effort required by each. Virtually any woman can be a slut. That’s why sluts are sluts. It’s extremely difficult for a man to be a stud. That’s why studs are studs. If it was easy to be a stud, all men would be studs. Then they wouldn’t be studs. They’d just be sluts.
Just so we’re all on the same page: we’re grown adults defining “stud” and “slut,” in conformance with a C-list comedian’s bit?
Exactly like we did at the lunch table in 8th grade. This is happening.
Yes. It’s the definition most people use. That’s why the bit works.