The New York Times takes a good look at the American slut. And even though it always sounds hokey when adults attempt quote teenagers and explain teenage behavior, I actually like the article, for the most part. They start out by examining the supposed reclaimation of the word “slut”:
Like “queer” and “pimp” before it, the word slut seems to be moving away from its meaning as a slur. Or is it?
“It’s definitely a term of familiarity with teens,” said Karell Roxas, a senior editor at Gurl.com, a Web site that addresses issues that affect teenagers. “They’ll say ‘Hi, slut!’ the way my generation would say ‘Hi, chick!’ or ‘Hi, dawg!’ ”
Even among adults, the word is used to demonstrate voraciousness: “coffee slut,” “TV slut.”
“Today, ‘slut,’ even ‘ho’ — girls use it in a fun way, a positive way,” said Atoosa Rubenstein, the editor in chief of Seventeen magazine, adding that a phrase such as “you little slut” has become a way for girlfriends to bust each other’s chops.
I’ll admit it, I have used the “you little slut” line, along with the head-shake and the faux-disapproving tone. Although, when joking, I usually rely on more joke-y terms, like ho-bag.
The problem, though, is that while the slut-reclaiming may look cute and fun on the surface, it remains a barbed slur, especially for young women. And the cultural messages we send girls continue to be horribly mixed:
“All of our pop icons look like porn stars,” Ms. Rubenstein said. “However they’re all virgins, quote unquote,” she said, referring to Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears. “That’s a very complex message to send to girls.”
For junior high and high school girls, said Leora Tanenbaum, the author of “Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation,” being labeled a slut is still painful and humiliating, despite pop culture’s semi-embrace of the term. Ms. Roxas of Gurl.com said teenagers often inquire about it.
They ask, Ms. Roxas said, questions like: “I’ve acquired the reputation of being a slut, how do I get around it?” or “If I have a boyfriend and I perform a certain action, does that make me a slut?” (Ms. Levy said that even the girl who competed to dress “the skankiest” made it clear that having sex with someone who is not a boyfriend is unacceptable behavior.)
It does give girls an impossible model: They’re supposed to appear sexually provocative, but they aren’t supposed to actually enjoy sex or be sexual subjects. Even the article points this out: it’s more acceptable for women to dance on tables, wear short skirts and flirt, but should she actually be promiscuous (can someone actually define that word for me?) and have sex with someone other than her committed partner, she goes from being play-slut to real-slut — and real-slut is still a no-no.
And while adult women get over the slut-as-an-insult issue (I haven’t heard that word used as an epithet since freshman year of college), we still haven’t gotten past the sexual double standard. And neither have men:
“When I think of the word slut,” wrote Don Reisinger, a student doing accounting and law work in Albany, in an e-mail message, “I think of a woman who has been around the block more times than my dad’s Chevy. I might date a slut, but I certainly wouldn’t marry one.”
How original of you.
For that reason, perhaps, women sometimes feel pressured to downplay their sexual experience. “Women still have a script for their future that involves marriage, that involves children,” said Dr. Susan Freeman, an assistant professor of women’s studies at Minnesota State University, Mankato. “It governs a lot of choices they make, how sexually active they can be, what risks they are willing to take in terms of alienating a possible marriage partner.”
There seems to be a mysterious line between being experienced and being a slut, and no one can put a number on it. According to a government report released last year (“Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures”), men age 30 to 44 have had a median of six to eight sexual partners in their lifetimes. The women’s median was about four.
Many women steer clear of the numbers conversation entirely, but as was pointed out several times in interviews, it would be more unusual for them to be virgins.
The fact is, Ms. Levy said, “I think there are a lot of women who want to have a lot of sex because they enjoy it.”
I’ve known women who lie about their “numbers,” or who decide not to sleep with someone simply because they don’t want their numbers to go up. The whole thing is silly. And shaming women out of enjoying sex is a centuries-old trick that needs to die. Soon.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:53 am - Edit
Damn you and your Greece-induced prolificness! I was working up a post on this one!
July 13th, 2006 at 10:19 am - Edit
Um, maybe I’m missing the point, but if you date a “slut” with no intention of a long-term relationship, doesn’t that make you a “slut”, or at least a “slut”-enabler?
It’s just astonishing to me that you could be so blase about such a blatant double-standard. I guess it’s easier when the double-standard benefits you.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am - Edit
According to a government report released last year (“Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures”), men age 30 to 44 have had a median of six to eight sexual partners in their lifetimes. The women’s median was about four.
So who are the men sleeping with? Much older women? Each other?
I mean, the only way this distribution would work, assuming the men are only sleeping with women their age and younger, is to have a very small number of women with huge numbers of partners (by pigeon hole theorum, they have to have the same average - so for the men to have a higher median means the women’s distribution must be highly skewed)
July 13th, 2006 at 10:28 am - Edit
Or the men are lying. Plenty of guys exaggerate.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am - Edit
Yep, Christopher. I have a friend whose ex-boyfriend (she finally dumped his sorry ass after putting up with him for far too long) once told her that he thought she had slept with him too soon (they had sex after the third date). When she told me that, I said, “Um, wasn’t he there too?” The fact that he couldn’t see the obvious double standard was pretty mind-boggling, especially considering that he considers himself all liberal and progressive and shit, to the point of even being a member of the board of our local pro-choice organization. Asshole.
Has anyone seen that documentary called “Slut” that appeared on IFC or Sundance (can’t remember which). It was interesting, because there were women who told stories about being called a slut at a fairly young age, and they were still very upset by it decades later.
I’ve been called a slut, and it hurts like hell. I’ve also tried to reclaim the word slut as a positive, but it didn’t really work out for me.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:37 am - Edit
I cringe a little when I hear people use slut in a familiar jokey way, someone called me a “design slut” the other day and it didn’t feel right. Even if some women are reclaimint it, it’s still very much used as an insult by a lot of men I encounter. I think in a lot of ways it’s replaced “bitch.” My (gay) friend called my dog a “little slut” because she barked at him when he came into my living room. She’s spayed and doesn’t have sex as far as I know. Go figure.
You know the way I’ve heard slut used that made me the most confused and sad? Single girls who get pregnant. Never mind if this was their first and only boyfriend. Never mind that it was a long term relationship. Never mind that the guy was obviously a participant. Now that there is evidence, a pregnancy, “ugh what a slut.” I’ve heard it used many times in that context.
The double standard has always appalled me. Guys can brag about being with 10, 20 women or more and they’re a “total stud” but women have sex with two or three partners and they’re such a huge slut. Ridiculous.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:45 am - Edit
So who are the men sleeping with? Much older women? Each other?
I think that due to the same social restrictions described in the article, men tend to exaggerate their numbers while women tend to minimize theirs. So the truth is somewhere in the middle.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:50 am - Edit
The stud/slut dichotomy is stupid, stupid, stupid, and always has been, and always will be. Not only does it make a girl who dares to have sex with more than one guy ever feel guilty, it makes a boy who hasn’t had sex yet feel massively inadequate. And given that good girls shouldn’t and cool boys should–well, there’s a pretty obvious disconnect there.
This is all a given, of course–the double standard is insane, and sex, especially in American society, is such a schizophrenic activity (The Most Important Thing Ever! The Road to Evil! You Must! You Mustn’t!) that almost any other set-up would make more sense. Reclaiming “slut” would be swell for women, but eliminating the whole idea of anyones sexual history being a meaningful marker of personal morality would be better.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am - Edit
If she’s too high-speed for him, he doesn’t deserve her. My wife started kissing me because she was trying to make another woman jealous. It was long after midnight — so when I called the next morning and we had dinner and sex, it was technically the same day. That was ten years ago yesterday. Score one for sexually confident women.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:23 am - Edit
“Pimp” was a slur?
July 13th, 2006 at 11:38 am - Edit
I’ve never heard coffee-slut; more often I hear [blank]-whore, not even whore. It has a weirdly appealing sort of ring to it, at least to me, so I often almost say it even though I don’t really like the idea (example: I’m such a bad music whore). The only time I’ve heard slut used like that is in the website, Bookslut.com.
Oy. People are so weird about women being “promiscuous.” I tried to explain to a guy my distaste for the word slut, and he first explained that he uses it for guys (no go, it’s still nastily judgmental, and besides when he uses it for guys it’s the modified man-slut), and then said that some people just are. There’s no logic there, just a strange knee-jerk reaction.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:42 am - Edit
Why is marriage-down-the-line any different from job-down-the-line or running-for-political-office-down-the-line, etc. as a basis for adjusting one’s choices in the short term. If you want an honest, lifetime relationship (so you don’t have to lie about the numbers) you might make different choices now with an eye to it. Just like if you want a good job you might study hard now, or avoid getting arrested, or taking drugs, or whatever. The equation is the same for all - put off short term pleasurable experiences for the long term goal. Is it unfair that companies get to drug test if they want to ween their candidates down? Yes, in the same way that it is unfair that men don’t want to marry “sluts.” But this is by no means a unique example of a stadard one must some day meet and thus limits your current choices.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:53 am - Edit
I was labelled a slut when I got my first kiss at the age of thirteen. Still living in the town I grew up in, it’s a reputation that I haven’t been able to kick almost thirteen years later. The best part is that anyone labelled “slut” also gets the hangers-ons of untrustworthiness and liar. Unclean, too, if you’re lucky.
Pathetic that no matter what or who you are, you will retain a label given to you in Jr. High thanks to the evils of small-town cronyism and gossip.
I think I need to move.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am - Edit
Mr., that presumes that there is something wrong with having a lot of sex — and only for women. Not only do I not agree with that, I want to interfere with others applying that rule.
If the characteristic we’re telling people to forgo is innocuous, the same exclusionary behavior sounds silly: “I don’t want you for this job because you played too much baseball when you were younger.” “I don’t think my family could accept you because you were such a monopoly player in your college days!” Silly, right? Treating having a lot of sex as more like doing drugs and less like playing games is to take a position on the morality of sex that I decisively reject.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am - Edit
I’ve always loved the reclamation, repurposing and otherwise undoing of words that were once insults While I agree with your post, that there is (always has been) a strange set of standards for women’s appearance vs. behavior in terms, acting sexual vs. actually being sexual, seeing people use words that were once used to hurt in a casual manner makes me happy. It shows to me, at least, that the situation was only temporary - words change, people’s opinions change, things get better.
The word that bothers me the most? No one ever believes it, but it’s ‘wench’. ‘Young lady’ also sends shivers up my spine, but I’ve never wanted to punch someone out quite like the guy who teased me with ‘wench’.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:01 pm - Edit
I grew up in a town where kids who joined the school when they were in fifth grade were still “not from here” at high school graduation. I don’t live there now, and have not since I have been able to earn a living somewhere else. I got bullied and beat up, sometimes aided and abetted by the school administration; and I realized that I would never break with the past if I stayed there.
I know your support network is important, but that town may be strangling you. You are who you’ve made yourself, not who your one-horse town remembers. You may need to move.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:05 pm - Edit
My mother called me a slut more than once. Of course, she was in a loveless marriage and hadn’t had sex in years at the times: oddly, now that she’s divorced and having sex, I’m not a slut anymore.
I said all of that to say that a slut is just a woman that the speaker perceives as having a better/more exciting sex life than he/she does. I take it as a compliment. (But then, I’m not one of those women looking to get married or spawn.)
July 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm - Edit
” I’ve never wanted to punch someone out quite like the guy who teased me with ‘wench’.”
I’ve had a woman call me a ‘teasing wench’ (I had met her five minutes earlier, and had barely spoken to her in that time). Definitely one of my more disturbing experiences.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm - Edit
Well, one thing that occurs to me is that the reclamation process is slightly different then, say, the process for “Nerd” or “Queer”.
It seems like “slut” is still used primarily as an insult, but that it’s becoming divorced from it’s original meaning and becoming less harsh.
It’s more like the term “bastard”.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:23 pm - Edit
How about “libertine” or “man-whore”?
Lauren, if you’re still a slut for kissing at 13, you do need to move. At least so you can be a slut in a bigger town. It’s much more fun.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:26 pm - Edit
“Wench” creeps me out because it’s so…anachronistic. It harkens back to femme covert. It’s like, “You’re not going to try to put a scold’s bridle on her, are you?”
July 13th, 2006 at 12:27 pm - Edit
That holds together, but the real question is whether a company thatdiscriminates in that was is worth working for, and if a man that discriminates in that way is worth marrying.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:28 pm - Edit
Really? That’s it? Am I hanging out with unusual people? Is the media misleading me? Are these numbers on the rise?
July 13th, 2006 at 12:31 pm - Edit
Nobody date Don Reisinger from Albany!
July 13th, 2006 at 12:40 pm - Edit
Does anybody actually use the term “wench” in a non-parodic context?
July 13th, 2006 at 12:41 pm - Edit
This one is not going away any time soon. I would NEVER tell a man my numbers. Never never never, no exceptions. If it’s even half of his, he’s gone.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:05 pm - Edit
Yeah, I have questions about those numbers. The median for women is four partners–really? Only four people? What’s happening there? Are women going years and years and years without sex, or are there lots of women who have series of long term relationships that last years?
I don’t quite believe it. Most of the sexually active women I know have had way more than four sex partners.
I agree wtih one of the previous posters–a slut is just someone who’s having more sex than the person doing the namecalling.
I just consider a “slut” to be a woman who’s honest about her own sexual desires and refuses to pretend to be a virgin so people will accept her.
Long live the sluts! Slut Power!
July 13th, 2006 at 1:25 pm - Edit
Why is marriage-down-the-line any different from job-down-the-line or running-for-political-office-down-the-line, etc. as a basis for adjusting one’s choices in the short term.
I’d guess that very few people do this. Nobody makes choices based on what they one day might want to do someday maybe; they make choices based on the kind of person they are now. (People tend to regret being too conservative in their decisions, not the other way around.)
Some risks are more dangerous than others. It’d be a tragedy to have a child you don’t really want just because you think that one day you might regret not having kids, but the consequences of a decision to, say, smoke pot are minimal when it comes to a future job (or political office). And the “risk” of one day losing the only person you’ve ever loved because he doesn’t care enough about you to overlook your sexual history–well, that’s less a risk than an escape.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:31 pm - Edit
It seems to me that there is a somewhat floating definition to the word “slut” anyhow. Given the choice - and the choice is never 100% up to me anyhow - I would probably choose to be with a so-called slut. You can typically dispense with a whole pile of BS when your partner knows what she likes, when she likes it, and how often she likes it. If there is trust and communication in the relationship, a sexually confident woman is an equal partner in keeping the love life interesting - which is a wonderful thing.
I think we’d all be alot happier if the whole double standard would just die already. It’s probably just a hold-over from the days of multiple wives anyhow.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:34 pm - Edit
Thomas - I’m am absolutely comparing women having lots of sex to people doing drugs. Both have no bearing on the success or failure of pursing a future activity as long as they are held in proper check. If a woman stops having lots of sex with others or comes to an agreement with her husband that they can have sex with others she can certainly have a successful marriage. And if someone who uses drugs doesn’t go to work high, doesn’t binge at night and screw themselves up for work the next day, etc. they can certainly have a successful career. But in both cases, the opportunity to take the next step is limited, not by what happens in regards to the behavior once the step is taken, but as a prequalifier as to whether the next step can be taken. I wouldn’t call that a moral rejection but rather a character assessment - and a baseless one at that.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:36 pm - Edit
So if we’re doing away with double standards can men now hit women in retaliation for being slapped? Just askin’.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:41 pm - Edit
Maybe I’m exceptional in some way, but nearly all of my female friends/acquaintances have had way, way more sexual partners than I have. Which doesn’t make me think they’re sluts - believe it or not, even in my less-feminist days, I rejected that term - but rather makes me want to figure out what they’ve been doing right.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:09 pm - Edit
Linnaeus, here’s how I see it: it’s just easier for women to get laid, in general. They don’t have to do the asking (and in fact are often penalized for doing so by being called slut by the very guy who eagerly agreed to sex). So shyness and/or social awkwardness can be less of a factor.
Of course, it also means you have to wait for someone to ask you, and it may not be the person you do want. But, again, asking turns you into a slut.
I never discuss numbers with men. It’s not their business.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:47 pm - Edit
So if we’re doing away with double standards can men now hit women in retaliation for being slapped? Just askin’.
Well now you’re just being insipid. Come up with some new ones.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:49 pm - Edit
I call my dog a belly-rub slut … but she is really, I mean really, she’ll let anyone do it.
Then again come to think of it, I am too so….
July 13th, 2006 at 2:58 pm - Edit
Agreed on all counts. Especially on the last point; my rule is to not discuss previous sexual partners at all unless it’s relevant to the present, e.g., “my boy/girlfriend used to do this and I really liked it, can we try that?”
July 13th, 2006 at 3:07 pm - Edit
Insipid yes. But double standards are double standards. Champion the removal of them all or don’t expect to be taken seriously.
That’s the problem with the feminist blog culture. You want to be treated as equals only when it is to your advantage and call people insipid if they point our that they work in your favor too. If some guy slaps me he gets his ass kicked and everyone around knows he deserves it. Some gal slaps me and if I touch her they lock me up. Maybe I can just 70% kick her ass since that’s the pay ratio you’ve all gotten yourselves too so far?
July 13th, 2006 at 3:25 pm - Edit
I’ve noticed the usage of the word “slut” in everyday language more in “plastics” than any other subsection of the female sex. Maybe, I am mistaken, but I certainly have noticed it a lot among them.
Even with the increasing blurrying of the inflection, it is still a negative term in youth and society. This is a vulgar term that I hope never becomes okay to use in everyday society.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:35 pm - Edit
I almost went through the ROOF when my daughter told me her ‘friend’ called her a slut, and told everyone else she was a slut. My daughter was TEN YEARS OLD. TEN. And the ultimate irony is that the girl doing the calling was from a family where her alcoholic, pill popping mom was on her 5th non-husband and none of her siblings had the same father. I’ve never been so glad to move away from a place in my life. Now I’ve got her weaned off those people, and she’s found friends who at least seem to be above crap like that.
GAH. And Mr from Minnesota? You do realize that if the most salient thing you can bring to a discussion of double standards is bemoaning a lack of reciprocal violence, that sort of says a lot about your character? Just checking.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:37 pm - Edit
Some gal slaps me and if I touch her they lock me up. Maybe I can just 70% kick her ass since that’s the pay ratio you’ve all gotten yourselves too so far?
You’re insipid because you’re throwing out tired old shit that isn’t even true. When the cops are involved in domestic disputes, both men AND women get arrested if they’ve committed physical violence against someone.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:45 pm - Edit
I’m with Blitzgal. Mr. is being insipid. Domestic violence is unacceptable,no matter who is responsible for the violence. I fail to see how women being condemend for being open and empowered about their sexuality is in any way similiar to a woman physically abusing someone.
And no, Mr. you would not necessarily be justified in kicking someone’s ass because they hit you, the best response to violence is non-violence unless you are in grave danger and will possibly come to more harm unless you defend yourself physically, no matter if your attacker is male or female.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:50 pm - Edit
Actually, he’s bemoaning the fact that he can’t respond with disproportionate violence.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:54 pm - Edit
No, you can’t. Sorry if you feel that oppresses you somehow. As far as the law is concerned, nobody can hit anybody in retaliation for being hit themselves.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm - Edit
Mr., if someone hits you and you are in reasonable fear of bodily injury, you should respond accordingly: either by retreating or by using necessary force to subdue the threat. That’s true regardless of the identity of the assailant. If you’re not in fear of injury, then you should not respond with force. That’s also true regardless of the assailant. If you are slapped by a stranger, file a police report. If you are slapped by an intimate partner, leave. If you can’t leave immediately, start laying the groundwork for an escape as soon as possible.
Neither double standard nor rocket science.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm - Edit
I fail to see where ever hitting anyone is okay outside of a contact sporting match. But rock on with your bad self, playa. We’re really impressed with this attempt at a gotcha.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:55 pm - Edit
Self defense. If you are in a position where you cannot escape and reasonably fear for your physical safety, and using force can disable the attacker, either entirely or long enough to permit escape, self defense is generally recognized as a right in Anglo-American jurisprudence and ethical philosophy, though possibly not universally so.
Also, BDSM where meaningful consent exists.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:20 pm - Edit
Mr. says:
If some guy slaps me he gets his ass kicked and everyone around knows he deserves it.
Former prosecutor here. You kick some guy’s ass in retaliation for slapping you, you’re going to prison. Period.
So no, there isn’t a double standard. Violence is never appropriate except in self-defense.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:24 pm - Edit
Yeah, but his friends would think it was cool! Why can’t they think it’s equally cool for him to beat up his girlfriend if she slaps him?
July 13th, 2006 at 5:26 pm - Edit
When I was in high school, I used to use “slut” in a common high-schooler way — as a label for girls who wore tight clothes or showed a lot of skin. Didn’t occur to me at the time that I had no idea whether they were sleeping around or not or that, if they were, it would be their own right and none of my business to know, discuss or condemn.
I saw the light one night when I got mad at my dad for allowing my brother to say mean things about gay people and he asked me, “Aren’t you two always talking about ‘this slut’ and ‘that slut’?”
Whoops.
He was right about the slut thing, wrong about the insults-to-gay-people thing. And after that incident we both began to think straight. It’s so nice to have one’s mind opened.
Now I use “slut” rarely. When I do, it’s never to insult someone. It’s usually to describe a person who has a lot of sexual partners and is completely open about it, usually using the “slut” label on him- or herself. It goes without saying that I use it for all genders. And again, never in a negative way.
I don’t consider this an intentional act of reclamation. It’s using the word for its definition and not its connotation. I do hope my using the word this way will result, at least to some people, in its negative slant being erased.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:30 pm - Edit
Champion the removal of them all or don’t expect to be taken seriously.
So you, what, support all double standards?
This is the problem with absolute, black-or-white worldviews: They’re ridiculous.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:30 pm - Edit
Okay, fine. Self-defense.
You lawyer people.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:01 pm - Edit
“You’re going to Prison. Period.”
Yes clearly you are an ex-prosecutor cuz you don’t know fuckall about how the world works. Men settle thigns between themselves far more often without John Q law involved. KIt’s a badge of shame to need saving by an outside force to a man and thus it changes the rules of engagement. Getting into it with your fists has happens all the time and no-one goes to jail dumbass.
That same dynamic doesn’t exist for women and imen in conflict, and t’s just another example of how things can’t be equalized. And by the way, ignorance because you studied the law is no defense of being clueless.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:25 pm - Edit
So is Mr from Minnesota a patriarchy-slut?
July 13th, 2006 at 6:28 pm - Edit
I’d say he’s maybe a saying-dumb-things-slut. Or a typo-slut.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:48 pm - Edit
Other than the answers given, it just looks petulant. Have you been slapped when you haven’t done anything to earn it? Think of a defensive slap as an opportunity to learn. Generally, the physical hurt of a slap is less than the emotional hurt of whatever the dude said/did to the woman who slapped him.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:31 pm - Edit
I think Mr. is saying that he’s a perp who has gotten away with something. Bully for him. The point is that the law and the feminist position do not advocate a double standard — it seems that the double standard is embraced by the yahoos HE hangs out with.
I wrote a post about the phenomenon of “gentlemen” resolving disputes among themselves over at my place a while back:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/04/people_always_t_1.html
July 13th, 2006 at 7:46 pm - Edit
but should she actually be promiscuous (can someone actually define that word for me?)
According to WHO, having more than two sexual partners in any twelve month period.
The things you pick up in archiving…
July 13th, 2006 at 8:07 pm - Edit
Yes, the “Law of the Jungle” ™. The same dynamic does not exist between men and women because we are not, in general, equally equipped for settling disputes this way. Fortunately we came up with this thing call “civilization” that provides us with blanket protections to our property and person, as well as talky-talky ways of settling differences. The feeling of having less testicles because you chose to take legal recourse against some slap-happy bimbo is a regrettable side-effect of “civilization”; I’m sure the male gender will survive it though.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:12 pm - Edit
I’m sorry to say that I disagree with you here, Knifeghost. Regardless of the hurt feelings involved, a woman is not entitled to slap a man in the face. Also… what’s with the term “defensive slap” in this context anyhow? Is the woman in question getting ready to fight off the hypothetical man. If not, there is nothing defensive about it.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:20 pm - Edit
That’s right. And by the way women who slap men in the face can and do get prosecuted too.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:38 pm - Edit
To blog-whore a little, I wrote about this topic awhile back here.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:49 pm - Edit
And anyone who bemoans the fact that “might makes right” is not as commonly accepted as a strong ethical framework is a moron.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:52 pm - Edit
Mr from Minnesota Says:
Is it unfair that companies get to drug test if they want to ween their candidates down?
Companies don’t do it to “ween down” candidates but to measure your current behavior as you enter into a contract–and they apply the same standrad to everyone. They don’t care (and they can’t tell) if you were stoned every day at 18 as long as you’re clean now.
Yes, in the same way that it is unfair that men don’t want to marry “sluts.”
The “unfair” part is those men who want to have all sorts of sex with all sorts of sluts and then don’t want to marry said “sluts.” Not only are the men holding the women to a standard they aren’t willing to follow themselves, by their own standards they are “ruining” women for other men as well. And they think that is perfectly fine. That’s the problem.
As far as the slapping thing, it would solve the whole problem if you just stop resorting to violence to solve interpersonal conflicts. We call it “growing up.”
July 13th, 2006 at 9:04 pm - Edit
So, um, am I the only person who thinks that pummeling somebody into a thin red paste is maybe an over-reaction if all the other person did was slap you?
I mean, somehow it doesn’t seem like a single open handed strike designed to shock is really the same as several close-fisted strikes designed to render a person incapable of functioning.
I guess I’m just a pussy.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:18 pm - Edit
Let me illuminate your understanding: It is considered DESPICABLE in civilized culture to physically attack any person or small animal who presents no threat to you in terms of their size and relative weakness. A Woman is viewed with great antipathy if she strikes or otherwise whales on a child. A child is punished if he or she strangles a kitten, or pokes out it’s eyes. Like TORTURE, to use one’s greater physical power to hurt a being weaker than yourself says a LOT more about YOU than it does the person or animal that you victimize.
The very fact that you would LIKE to beat a woman up is the reason you are not comfortable reading this blog. You do not belong here, because, as far as I can tell, you are not civilized. You have failed to absorb the teachings of your culture regarding use of physical strength. Are you aching to whale on the disabled too? Kids? Kittens?
Being a man is about using your strength to protect and nurture the women, children, and animals that you invite into your life. It is not about training them with displays of violence to serve you.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:31 pm - Edit
Ah, Mr. Minn had to ruin all the fun by basically fantasizing about getting away with beating women. And I was gonna let him know that I find almost nothing funnier than asswipes who should be thanking the good lord above if anyone pity fucks them sitting around declaring what makes women unsuitable for their affections. Obviously, a decent level of self-esteem is problematic for the desperate and stupid young lady who vies for his affections.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:40 pm - Edit
I disagree. Slut is more pervasive a word than that. Do you think a guy who’s had scores or hundreds of sexual partners doesn’t call women sluts? I doubt it.
I think people who use the term slut to describe a woman are only revealing their own feelings of sexual incompetence and inadequacy through the form of judgment on another.
The thing that I hate most about the politics of sex in a relationship is the power our histories have to disown, or at least cast doubt upon, our capacity to love at a high, authentic quality in the eyes of a partner. Not saying that it necessarily happens, but seeds of doubt often come with talking about our histories which might be thought of as slutty or immature. No need for it, says I.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:06 pm - Edit
I was a little confused when reading his topical posts myself. He seems to have missed the point right off the bat, as well as the point of Thomas’s reply. In fact there are a number of strange statements and syntax errors in his posts, the last one aside, which ordinarily would lead me not to expect any productivity in engaging him, but I suppose it’s just too easy of a punching bag for you all.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:19 pm - Edit
The whole “slut” phenomenon basically leads to second-guessing oneself when one has slept with someone one likes.
When there’s no contact afterwards, it’s all too easy to imagine, and probably rightly, that he thinks that one is a slut.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:54 pm - Edit
Ah, patriarchy. Internalized and self-executing. Even if he doesn’t reject you for being a club that would have his member, you may think he has.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:14 am - Edit
Why, yes, the patriarchy has trained me well. How did you guess?
July 14th, 2006 at 1:56 am - Edit
Sorry! I wrote it really quickly, so I’m sure I missed a lot… you’re obviously welcome to post on it again… Perhaps something about how feminists want all the laws changed so that we can have a different sexual partner every night, abort his babies and then slap him around a little? I’m more M from Minn can give you some suggestions.
July 14th, 2006 at 6:26 am - Edit
[...] fa”/”curva”
“the taming of the slur” (@ feministe) - o discutie despre c [...]
July 14th, 2006 at 10:14 am - Edit
I think the fact that Mr. immediately jumps to the idea of being able to gleefully pummel women says something about how often he gets slapped. Might want to change your approach, Mr.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:21 pm - Edit
I agree with Matt (#67), this statement just isn’t true. I was a virgin when I got married and was called a slut by my ex-boyfriend’s new female friends. They called me a slut because I was marrying a guy that he used to be friends with after breaking up with him. A slut is any woman who dares do something for herself in a relationship at the expense of a man.
Have sex with more than one partner? She’s less of a virgin and therefore has less ‘value’ as a conquest to any man she sleeps with. (ie it’s not as impressive to his friends, which is all that really matters) Has sex eagerly? Again, less value as a conquest because she wanted to have sex, he didn’t have to trick her into it. Leaves him? It means he’s not man enough to keep her interested, or in-line. Sluts are women who fail to make a man look cool to his peers, which is among the greatest sins a woman can commit.
July 14th, 2006 at 1:26 pm - Edit
The biggest problem with trying to ‘reclaim’ the word slut is that the word has never had a positive definition. Mind you, originally the word had nothing to do with sex; it described a slovenly young woman, usually poverty sticken/low class. In fact, that’s the Brits still tend to use it that way.
I guess you can ‘empower’ the word by changing it to mean something positive, but reclaiming the original meaning doesn’t stop it from being insulting.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:06 pm - Edit
I agree with Starfoxy, it really depends on who you are talking to. For instance, I was called a slut despite my having a grand total of one sexual partner, because I dared to have sex a) before I was married and b)with someone I wasn’t really serious about at all. He was just a friend of mine at the time. Now 6 and half years later we’ve been married for 5 years, so I guess something went right, but I had a lot of people insinuate or outright call me a slut, including my own parents. They were just pissed that I was making my own decisions about sex.
With the sex partners thing, I think you need to take into account that there are a lot more women who are shamed into not having high numbers of sexual partners, who are expected to wait until they are married, who are guarded over like they are hidden treasure as a teenager. In my family, the two of us who are sexually active at this point have both only had one partner and we’ll both admit that a sense of guilt or not wanting to be a slut kept us from experimenting more or having sex earlier. On the other hand, my husband fits within the average mentioned above because he never viewed sex as anything but something fun you do with people you like. His numbers probably would’ve been a lot higher, but he was only 23 when we got married.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm - Edit
Late to the dance, but a couple comments. I use the word as a self-description when talking about my own willingness to have sex with anyone interested in me (which, at this point in my life, is entirely hypothetical outside my marriage), and, as used above, talking about anyone and anything “easy” as in belly-rubs for dogs or shoulder rubs for people.
The other comment is that there’s a link between being a slut and being chattel, in the eyes of many. The British version - “slovenly” - isn’t so far from uncared-for. By being a slut, a woman devalues herself, in this paradigm. She’s not worth anything to her family or her husband if she’s soiled goods. She’s cheap. (I know I’m lecturing the faculty here, but I’m ranting, so bear with, please!) And yes, the idea is that a small sub-set of women are supposed to have a huge number of partners so that men can be studs, and that’s supposed to skew the stats. Apparently, those women are martyrs, sacrificing themselves for their virgin sisters.
I personally agree with the poster who said experienced is better. And cheap and easy are not the same things. I’m easy, but never cheap!
July 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm - Edit
You can’t reclaim slurs. As pointed out above, they never had positive meanings to begin with. Furthermore, the negative usage will remain the dominant usage.
The only people who will understand that you’ve “reclaimed” the word are people who already accept that the slur was wrong to begin with — making the entire exercise pointless.
On the “numbers” issue: yes, men will exaggerate their numbers, in part because there are many women who will reject a man who doesn’t at least pose as more experienced and more confident than she is. Part of the toxicity of gender roles is that they are reciprocal: someone who really MUST be a manly man will insist his partner MUST be a womanly woman, and vice versa.
July 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pm - Edit
FoolishOwl, I think reclaiming the word slut is useful, even if it is only among “friendly” people, so to speak. Because then, when you hear it “for real”, it just sounds more funny than insulting. Like if someone decided to call you a “poopy-head” in a serious way - it would reflect far worse on them then it does on you. The word slut has power only if the double-standard has power. (”Poopy-head” has power among toddlers because poop is a big issue for toddlers.)
BTW, I also find that using “bitch” in a positive or neutral way reduces the hurtful power of that word considerably.
July 16th, 2006 at 7:15 am - Edit
mdyohwbito
qumftgvbluw nqyovzelkwe kwidackw
July 17th, 2006 at 12:51 am - Edit
[...] ;s column Saturday riffed off “The Taming of the Slut,” which Jill wrote about here. For centuries, men divided women into good girls and bad girls. [...]
July 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am - Edit
“So who are the men sleeping with? Much older women? Each other?”
Believe it or not, the last study I read about which looked into this had a conclusion. Sorry I don’t have a cite.
There was a regular survey done *very* conscientiously, in the manner which eliminates reporting dishonesty to the greatest degree: double-blind questionaires, etc. — and which also involved a separate even more detailed study to identify the reporting dishonesty rate when people were asked questions about sex. Reporting dishonesty was not sufficient to explain the numbers.
Then someone had a bright idea to do a separate survey of (female) prostitutes (who were completely unsampled in the regular survey). They had extremely large numbers of sexual partners (obviously).
Sure enough, applying the best estimates for the number of prostitutes in the country, this accounted for all the extra sexual partners the “average” man had over the “average” woman.
:-P
July 17th, 2006 at 6:31 am - Edit
So, um, having responded too fast to finish reading the comment I was responding to — VK, your logic was entirely correct. There are a small number of women with a huge number of partners, just as you concluded there had to be.