Why are sluts so hated and reviled by other women?

In My Humble Opinion
61

Oh, he’d be deemed a bum and an ex-friend, no doubt.

However, if he had solicited the help of someone else to help him steal, and that person had refused, I would have a high opinion of that person for refusing to help him steal. And if that person had agreed to help him steal, with the mindset that he was “gonna get someone to help him steal, so that someone might as well be me,” well, my opinion of the person who tried to help would also be low. And if they were a friend, they’d be an “ex-friend” just as quickly as the guy who initially came up with the idea to steal.

But is is punished as severely as actual murder? Is there a dead murder victim? Do they put people who merely attempt murder on death row? I don’t think so.

Attempting to do something is still bad, but no way, no how is it the same as actually succeeding. And in the case of the betrayed wife, if her no-good husband attempts (but fails) to cheat, at least she (the wife) doesn’t have to worry about being exposed to any “bugs” her husband brings home. She also might be convinced by her husband (and her husband might be actually sincere) that while he may have made an attempt to pick up another woman, he never really would have followed through. But once he follows through–it’s been done. No going back, no second thoughts, no, “I thought I wanted to do it, but when it came right down to it, I couldn’t.” And the wife will know that. And for most wives, I daresay it’ll hurt at least a little bit more. And if he does it more than once, but does it again and again and again, then that will probably hurt even more.

Sigh. The distinction really isn’t that obscure, is it?

In the case of the ex-girlfriend, she was his EX. She knows the score–that any understanding they had with each other when they were going together (regarding fidelity, etc.) are now null and void. However, when a man is still married to his wife, the vow he made to her is, (as far as she knows) still valid, and therefore she has a reasonable expectation that he will remain faithful to her. (And she also has a reasonable expectation that if she has sex with her husband, she’s not not risking getting a disease that he picked up from someone else.) If he didn’t want her to believe that the vow he made to her is still valid, there’s this thing called a divorce. And it is very handy in making a wife an EX-wife.

Obviously.

And while you may have your reasons, and you may feel your reasons are valid, it will never change many other people’s low opinion of your actions and/or your reasons. ::shrug:: That’s how it goes.

62

Let’s just stay on the ex-friend, not his accomplice. The point I’m making here is simply that there isn’t an important difference between trying to do something and actually doing something in this case.

To be honest I’ve never understood why attempted murder isn’t punished as severely as murder (I think I’ve posted that here before in fact). I certainly wouldn’t feel any safer living next door to an attempted rapist than I would to an actual rapist.

“My husband’s a rat, but at least he won’t give me any diseases [this time]?” I would’t really see that as much of a consolation.

All the “committed” guys I’ve slept with (and it hasn’t been a huge number) did follow through though, so this does not apply in my case.

Yeah, but the point is, I’m still doing something which I don’t really need to be doing and which I know will cause another person hurt. In fact it’s more likely to cause her hurt than my sleeping ONCE with a guy whose wife/girlfriend is probably never going to find out about it anyway. In neither case do I think my actions should be dictated by their potential to cause hurt to someone who I don’t even know, or only barely know.

63

Why? My lack of respect for the accomplice is equal to my disrespect for the one who came up with the idea.

And I remain unconvinced that there is not much of a difference between trying to do something and actually doing it.

But is there a difference, or isn’t there?

Are attempted murderers given the gas chamber? No. Because they didn’t actually do it. Trying to do it is scary and sleazy. But it isn’t the same as doing it.

You’re kidding, right?

Tell that to someone who has contracted a life-threatening STD, or at the very least an uncomfortable STD, simply because they were foolish enough to trust their spouse. It’s not just an ego brusier, it’s a physical reminder (and perhaps a fatal one) of their spouse’s infidelity.

And they followed through with you. Because you said, “OK.” That’s the point. You didn’t have to say “OK,” but you did. You said, “OK. I’ll help you break your vows.” The fact that he’d done it before and was going to do it anyway does not erase the fact that you helped him do it once again.

Some people hold a dim view of such behavior. Whether you like it or not, that’s how it is.

The person who wanted a used car is hurt when you get to it first, but them’s the breaks. They are mighty disappointed, but no one promised that they’d sell the car to them. No one made a contract with them and then broke it later and sold the car to you instead. The disappointed car buyer had no real expectation that they’d get the car–just a hope. That’s not the same as a contract.

The ex had no claim over her boyfriend, so while she may be disappointed, she’s had no real expectations either. Her hopes were dashed, but that’s not the same as having a contract broken.

But a wife, being a wife, assumes that she does have a “contract.” That’s kinda what the whole “marriage vows” schtick is about.

You can spin it any way you want, I suppose. You can’t predict the future, you don’t know what she will or will not find out in the future. You choose to help someone else do something that could possibly hurt his wife. You know this going in, and you do it anyway.

Oh, so if you don’t know them, it doesn’t count? They aren’t hurt? Huh?

So, if you help someone break a contract with a third party, and you don’t know that third party, it doesn’t count? Would you want someone to do that to you–to help break a contract with you? Would it be hurt less to have a contract that you considered important to be broken as long as the person who helped it happen was a stranger?

64

Because I’m trying to focus here on the narrow issue of whether the person who actually commits the act is a worse person than the person who tries to commit the act and fails.

Let’s see. John puts a bullet through someone’s head and they die. Mark puts a bullet through someone’s head and they survive. Obviously Mark’s victim is better off than John’s (well assuming he doesn’t end up a vegetable), and Mark won’t get the gas chamber, but at the end of the day Mark is no less of an evil, dangerous person than John, is he?

No, I’m not. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of STDs, but it wouldn’t improve my opinion of the guy that he failed (and not for lack of trying) to expose me to them on this occasion. After all, he’s obviously shown a potential for exposing me to them on another occasion.

Absofuckinlutely it would. My ex had an affair with a girl I didn’t know. It hurt, but I bore no particular animosity toward her - she didn’t owe me anything. If she’d been a friend of mine it would have been a double betrayal.

By the same token, I wouldn’t have slept with the guy whose ex was still in love with him if she’d been a friend of mine. The fact that she no longer had a claim on him wouldn’t matter so much as the fact that I, as her friend, have a duty not to inflict needless pain on her. I don’t feel that duty to every random woman in the world out there, whether or not they (think they) have a claim on a guy.

BTW, you really don’t need to keep telling me that some people take a dim view of this. Obviously I’m aware of that, I just feel differently.

65

OFTEN a man who is cheating will not say he is married. The women he cheats with is not a mind reader nor a detective. She believes the line he gives. If that man is out there giving the line then he has already been unfaithful, in his mind anyway. Any women who bonks this bloke is as duped as his wife and has commited no crime.

If he says he is married and she sleeps with him anyway she still has not commited a wrong doing. He was married. He chose to break his vows. She didn’t make him. No one ever slipped and accidently fell on the penis of a married man…the married man provided the penis and the intenet.

66

oh yeah that was intent. … yes I should preveiw

67

After rereading what you said yosemitebabe I still come back to the point that if HE cheats on HIS wife how is that the fault of whoever he cheated with?

She and he had the contract, the rest of the world did not sign that contract. If He cheats only one person is breaking a contract.

68

A woman who has countless partners may…uh…lose some grip compared to when she was a virgin, whereas men do not get…um…sqeezed smaller.

A question for the men who say they are not sluts: Are you saying that, in your various relationships, the women were the ones trying to instigate the first sexual encounter, and you were the one saying you wanted to wait? I have known a couple guys like this, but it is pretty rare.

IMO, the reason calling men sluts doesn’t work is because men and women are different, both biologically and from an evolutionary standpoint. Men are designed to spread their seed as far and wide as possible; this is the man’s best strategy for passing on our genes. There is a reason a man can father a child until the day he dies of old age. Every time a woman complains about the “slut” double standard, she is denying this truth.

So the equivalent insult for a man is “prude” or “impotent”. Call a man impotent and you will hurt him as much as you are hurt by being called a slut.

Why is being impotent so much worse for a man? It’s such a horrible double standard! :rolleyes:

69

That’s the crux of the biscuit. Who are you to judge?

70

Cite?

71

That’s what pelvic floor exercises are for.:rolleyes: A woman who has had sex with one man and a woman who has sex with multiple men may have had sex the same number of times. Are you seriously trying to say that a variety of penises makes for loose?

We are way past evolutionary resaons for our behaviour. Many of us are past biblical reasons too.

72

Yeah, but calm kiwi, what if the penii were all MONSTEROUSLY GIGANTIC? I bet that might influence the elasticity a little… wouldn’t it?

:wink:

73

Very true. But shit even a slut ain’t lucky enough to find multiple ginormous penii.

74

Have to disagree. There’s already too many stupid morals and standards floating around as it is. When you think someone else’s morals and standards are stupid, have at them. It makes for a better society over the long term. I mean, you think I’m gonna stand by and let the funnymentalists take over? No way.

75

In my experience, most traditional women who use the term “slut” use it out of jealousy and anger – it’s a label designed purely to hurt the person it’s aimed at, which is why it’s sometimes used on young girls who have had little or no experience. The amount of sexual experience counts for NOTHING. The desire to harm is EVERYTHING.

When traditional men use the term “slut” they use it opportunistically. They may call a woman a slut because they want to believe she is a slut, because they want to fuck her and forget her. They may not be angry or upset with her in any way, they just want her. The whole “slut” mythology works for these men because it forms a socially acceptable rationale for treating some women in a way they find … sexually convenient.

It has also historically been used as a label allowing men and women to ignore the problems of the sexually active, or those people who are PERCEIVED as sexually active. Like, rape victims.

Lately there has been a move to reclaim the term “slut” among those who like sex, much as blacks have reclaimed the term “nigger” among themselves. It’s not a widespread meme yet, so we’ll see if it goes anywhere.

I personally have a very low opinion of people who use the term “slut” in the traditional sense. At the very least, their sense of morality is flawed, at the worst they are evil opportunists actively seeking to harm others for their own benefit.

You who claim to despise sluts – oh, you’d be APPALLED at my opinion of you.

76

Exactly Evil Captor
Slut is a term that is weilded about to wound others. Well guess what! It doesn’t wound those of us who do not feel sex=love and love=sex. Sometimes sex=fun! I know that may be a shock but it is true.

Sex is often part of the attraction of a traditional relationship. Well not everyone wants that traditional relationship. That doesn’t mean they don’t want sex though. So they are a slut because they enjoy sex and don’t want the “Honey it’s your turn to do the dishes” shit.

Well tar me, feather me and call me a slut.

77

I knew it was only a matter of time before a post like this appeared. To some women, yes, marriage is a prize. Others don’t feel that way, and they are entitled to their opinion. And yes, some women want a man who is a virgin, for various reasons. This is what I meant by “Precious things are for those who can prize them,” if you read that far. What do you care?

Okay. Our definitions of what constitutes “low character” are different. So what? This board is about opinions. I offered mine. If you don’t see things my way, the world will go on, and we’ll all be better for it. You do your thing, I’ll do (or in this case, won’t do) mine.

Thanks for the heads up, but I don’t think I’ll be taking any kind of advice from someone who has had sex with married men. If you’re going to presume to tell me what I “need” to do, then your hands better be clean.

There is no truth, only perception; and I beg to differ with your perception of sex. You say in the same post, “sex is not a huge deal.” Well, for being such a small thing, you come across as very vulnerable. This shouldn’t be happening if “sex is not a huge deal,” after all, they’re just men, right? They use us, we might at well beat them to the punch and use them first! We wouldn’t want to be vulnerable, or unhappy, or give anything of ourselves, or expect to be treated decently! No, it’s better to shut up and play the game, be a good little slut like your culture and the patriarchy tell you to do, and never expect anything because you’re not worth anything.

You may think what I said in my original post was misogynistic, or old-fashioned, or just bizarre; but I think what you are implying in your post is much worse. (I trust that you will correct me if I have misread your post. In this case, I hope I have.) I think there’s a better way, a more sacred way, a way that affirms the integrity of the body and the dignity of the spirit–and it has enriched my life and many others’ lives beyond measure. I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms or anywhere else. It’s not my business. But I will say this: For me, sex is more, infinitely more, than just two bodies coming together.

First of all, if sex is “not a huge deal,” then how can someone who has a different idea of sexuality from yours, be “wrong” in any meaningful sense of the term? Either sex is important, or it isn’t. Secondly, you are in no position to “teach” me anything, but since we’re going to play the game, allow me: YOU NEED to examine why you sleep with married men, why you help break up homes, and why you feel the need to act so patronizingly toward anyone who dares even IMPLY that sex can be something more than just sharing body fluids. You allude to the fact that you have low self-esteem.

Don’t you see? I have dealt with so many women like you. It’s always the same nonsense, and I always leave the exchange with the same thought. Why do they care so much? Indeed, why do you care? What’s it matter to you or anyone else if I stay a virgin until I die? That I think I’m worth waiting for? That I believe there are proper ways for women and men to behave in each other’s presence? That marriage means something to a lot of people? If you’re so proud to be with these married men–or at least, not ashamed–just go out and do it. A lot of people today probably wouldn’t give a second glance at what you’re doing anyway. I know I sure wouldn’t. If you can look at yourself in the mirror the next day, good for you. All I ask is that you allow me my perception of the world and leave me alone.

You guess wrongly, my friend, and you speak wide of the mark. I won’t even dignify this with an answer.

78

yosemitebabe:

What if the strictly observant and traditional father of your deli client would be most tearfully upset if he were to learn that your deli client had eaten a ham sandwich?

79

Ah. But you’ve added a new wrinkle: the attempted murderer did actually DO something, he just didn’t quite do the damage (murder) that he’d hope he’d do. That’s not the same as someone trying to murder, but never actually going through with it (like, never getting out the gun, never pulling the trigger). There is dead or wounded victim–just a guy who wanted to do something but didn’t (for whatever reason) do it.

When someone murders, there is a dead victim. When someone plans to murder, (let’s say they buy a gun or they talk to a hit man, but it never goes any further than that), well, is that the same thing as murdering? No. There is no dead body. There is no maimed body. There is a perfectly healthy person who is not dead.

And if the person who wanted to kill (but didn’t follow through) changes their ways and doesn’t want to kill anyone? That’s great, because there is no dead body and there never was any dead body. And if the person who wanted to kill is exposed for trying to kill (but they never went through with it)? Well, that’s good too, because the potential victim is now warned and aware that someone wanted to kill them. Compare that to the potential victim already being dead, and yeah. There’s a significant difference.

And when you add a second party into the mix, someone who is invited to help do something harmful to someone else, and they do it, with the rationale that “someone’s going to help this guy do this harmful thing, so that someone might be me,” well, what does it make that person who agrees to help? Just as bad as the person who came up with the idea. They helped, and they didn’t have to. Just because they didn’t come up with the idea first does not mean that they have to go along with it.

And if he failed, you’d have that warning, and you could dump him before he had the chance to give you something, wouldn’t you?

If he tried to cheat and failed each time, he’d still be a bum, but you’d be disease-free, wouldn’t you?

Why is this somehow an insignificant difference?

Of course. It hurts more when you know both parties.

But does it not hurt at all if he cheats with someone you don’t know?

Is your criteria for hurting someone else dependent on whether you know the person? So you are saying that you’ll help hurt a stranger? That because you don’t know them, their hurt is inconsequential?

Yikes.

Are you discussing this issue in the hopes that others (who might have, up 'till now, held your behavior in a dim view) to change their minds and decide that what you have done is not so bad after all? I am not sure what your motivations are in this discussion. And after all, the title of the OP is why some women revile “sluts.” Are you bothered because some people might “revile” you?

AHunter: Did the child of the tearful parent make a contract with their parent to adhere to that particular faith? Or was it just the hope of the parent that the kid would adhere to their faith?

80

That should be: "There is NO dead or wounded victim–just a guy who wanted to do something but didn’t (for whatever reason) do it. "