Slut is a pejorative, so if you decide that someone’s a slut, knock yourself out, there’s nothing wrong with slut shaming. Does anybody but racists complain about racist shaming?
The argument should be over the definition of slut.
There’s no argument to have.
Back in the day female virtue had a market value. Turns out we don’t own them or the right to ‘value’ them anymore.
Argument over: we grew up.
Well, it’s easy to blame the third-party in an instance of adultery rather than the person you love and are married to.
So maybe we should work really hard to change human nature…just like walking around drunk in scant clothing at 3am and being shocked that bad dudes are out looking to take advantage of you.
I don’t know that billions of conversations will change the basic moral failings of humans. It seems like a cop-out to deny realities and ask for more discourse.
If you don’t think men still value a woman’s (relative) sexual sanctity you apparently didn’t grow up. Men typically don’t want to marry sexually promiscuous women.
Slut shaming is not the shaming of sluts. It’s suggesting someone engaged in “slutty” behavior in order to shame them. It’s the implication that their behavior was slutty so they should be ashamed.
Behavior, including sexual behavior, does signal value. When someone enters a relationship with someone else it’s based on something right? Part of that something is how a person behaves.
Signalling theory is extraordinarily important to understand in society. You are continuously judged by your speech, your dress, how you accessorize, your manners etc. Why should sexual behavior be excluded?
Well, whoever invented the phrase made a big mistake then.
I don’t think most of the posters in this thread are going to understand this. They think sluts are a real thing, a species all unto themselves, a subset of women who don’t even need to be defined…we all know who they are and what they look like because we’ve been whispering about them since middle school.
If the average man who puts stock in these notions only knew how many “sluts” there were…lol, their heads would explode. They could be married to them and don’t even know!
My objection is to the phrase itself.
Fruit smoothie = smoothie made with fruit.
If you ask someone who’s against slut shaming if there is such a thing as a slut, probably most of them would either say no, or they would say, well, a lot of people are getting called sluts who aren’t. And so the latter group allows for the possibility that labeling someone a slut might be appropriate, and additionally that it’s derogatory.
I don’t disagree with the description of the behavior that gets labeled as being slut shaming.
But the phrase itself is just another example of dumb linguistics courtesy of the internet.
Think of it as hyphenated. Slut-shaming: the act of shaming someone by implying they’re a slut.
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? For some men, the idea that they can’t control women’s sexual behavior is intolerable and infuriating.
Maybe if you want to live in a Little House on the Prairie in the last century.
Or are you some kind of Islamic fundamentalist?
You’re making a conscious choice to judge based on … what? Gender privilege.
I would expect any modern women to tell you exactly what you can do with that.
I have no idea where you guys live or your work/social mix but you don’t get away with shit like this where I am.
Agreed.
Also, did you know dog whistles aren’t made out of dogs?
I think Stringbean’s comment is accurate. Many men still consider promiscuity to be a negative quality in women (*if *a woman is promiscuous). Attacking **Stringbean **for pointing out that fact is ad hominem; shooting the messenger.
But it’s an attitude worth trying to address. One of the ways we address it is recognizing its underlying assumptions that are unfair to women, shine light on them, and start changing the dialog. Reducing slut-shaming helps to change those attitudes.
Wasn’t too long ago that a divorced woman was seen as tainted and morally suspect. That attitude was able to be changed over time.
That’s not what ad hominem means, and you don’t get to speak for men in general about the “sexual sanctity” of women.
For fuck’s sake. You know what sanctity means, right?
Of course they aren’t, that would be cannibalism.
“Many men” of your age, demographic and sense of entitlement.
A lot of old white guys support foreign wars as well. Thankfully the world is changing.
Indeed. Millenials will have fewer sex partners than did the old white guys of yore:
Seems the stridency of the women’s sexual liberation movement is starting to show its strains. Or maybe we’re just turning into Islamic fundamentalists.