Like I said, that's a Cosmo parody I'm thinking. So it most likely is.
In the midst of it all is that BS dichotomy between strong and fun, with being fun equated with being well....that way? Do I have to bring out the Mion rant again? Can do.
edited 1st Oct '13 11:04:31 PM by magnum12
Part of a complete WalkyverseCould we maybe not use the word "slut"?
I want Kat's glasses!I wouldn't use it normally, but in the specific context of mentioning s***-shaming, it seemed appropriate. Edit: Oh wait, you were specifically addressing magnum 12 who edited their post afterwards.
edited 2nd Oct '13 1:34:39 AM by Medinoc
They Called Me Mad!! I decided to show them all; but when I looked on my works, oh mighty, I despaired: for it made me realize they were right.
There's nothing wrong with using the word "slut" as long as you remember that it's a gender-neutral term. I.E. men who have sex very easily aren't male-sluts, they're just sluts, same as women who have sex very easily. Keep in mind, I didn't say "lots of sex" or "lots of sex with multiple people" or even "dresses provocatively." I said "have sex easily." If you meet lots of people who you deem to be high-quality after a good length of interaction with them, by all means, have sex with all of them as long as you use protection. But if you just see someone who's half-way decent and immediately have sex with them, that's being a slut whether you're a man or a woman. I don't think anyone should be doing that.
Part of a complete Walkyverse...why not? If it makes them happy and they take proper precautions I don't see why they should be shamed for it. Some people don't need emotional connections in their sex and that's okay.
GIMME COOKIES!Let's just say that there is difference between "Having casual sex and one-night stands" and "SEX. NOW."
Basically it's the difference between Rayne Summers (Least I could do) at his best, and Barney Stenson (How I met your mother) at his worst.
Court DragonUgh. LICD.
I have a message from another time...
@Mandemo That too. @Wack'd Because among other things: You don't know who will become a stalker. Who'll become overly attached to you. Who'll drug you or steal from you after or during the sex. You don't know who will poke holes in condoms. Who'll lie about using protection. Who uses a piss-poor quality protection that fails easily. Who'll lie and say you raped them. Who will be cheating on someone and then the person they're cheating on will blame you in any number of physical ways. And who, if all protection fails, will make the same choices regarding the child that you'd want. Part of being safe during sex is knowing how the other person or people involved will act.
edited 2nd Oct '13 9:39:58 AM by daveshan
Part of a complete WalkyverseYes, but that doesn't mean if a person isn't exceptional you shouldn't go home with them. Saying people have to be cautious is different from saying people have to be choosy, and either way you're still choosing to stigmatize people who have those things happen to them rather than the people doing those things. Faulting people for having sex less indiscriminately than you would doesn't help anyone. And besides, not everyone is immediately identifiable as an awful person. You could establish a great rapport with someone who does, eventually, poke a hole in your condom or stalk you. These are not things you can smoke out during a couple of hours of bar conversation.
I just don't think sex is something that you should have with someone that easily. I used to and fortunately I made it out clean, but I got lucky. And it's a lot more likely that someone you don't know is going to do something bad to you than someone you've determined that you need to avoid.
I think the important thing being missed in this conversation is the difference between good advice about one's sexual conduct, and judgement of people who don't follow that advice. "Be judicious about who you sleep with" is good advice. People who aren't so judicious aren't bad people for it.
edited 2nd Oct '13 11:09:05 AM by Pfhorrest
Part of a complete WalkyverseThere's really no other way to take the word "slut", though.
edited 2nd Oct '13 11:25:10 AM by TobiasDrake
Court DragonI thought that there was some attempt to reclaim the word's meaning going on.
I have a message from another time...
Part of a complete WalkyverseWell, yeah, in the same way there are attempts to do that with a lot of hurtful language. Doesn't suddenly make it okay to start tossing it around, especially if you're just gonna use it in the same way that requires it to be "reclaimed" to begin with.
edited 2nd Oct '13 11:29:42 AM by Wackd
GIMME COOKIES!Counter part for slut are "creep" and "virgin". So while there is no exact same rules, there are similar degatories used. And these are used by women mainly.
Part of a complete WalkyverseCare to cite a source for that?
edited 2nd Oct '13 12:07:10 PM by Wackd
Be evilReally? We're really going to get into demanding citations on social justice issues now? In an attempt to steer clear of that incoming shitstorm, I still say that while both Liberty and Sam are wrong in their own ways and handling this pretty poorly, Liberty is handling this worse. Or at least has been. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with being prudish and not wanting sex. Its when you combine that with forbidding your SO from watching porn that you go from beyond prudish into controlling. But I'm for now just waiting and watching. Will there be some change in all this where Liberty and Sam come to some sort of understanding and make changes for one another? All we can do is wait an se- ahahahahahahaha no sorry I couldn't do it. Of course we're going to stay on the current path where Sam is treated as some sort of horrible deviant for wanting sex, and Liberty as a feminine ideal for rejecting/preventing sex as much as possible. There is a possibility that this plotline could steer away from the implication that a woman can be either slutty or prudish (not some theoretical and abhorrent middle ground of moderation), but the likelihood of any of that changing is so hilariously low.
Through the eyes I have known you.
Part of a complete Walkyverseif you are going to claim that a derogatory word is primarily used by those it is used to degrade, then yes, I am going to demand sources.
I think Mandemo meant "creep" and "virgin" are used (as derogatory epithets for men) mostly by women, not that "slut" is used mostly by women. Virgin is to prude (someone derogatorily undersexual) as creep is to slut (someone derogatorily oversexual). Of course virgin is a weird one because it is also used toward woman as someone laudably undersexual. I'm not sure what the male analogue of that would be (gentleman?). And I'm not sure if there are analogous terms for someone laudably oversexual of either gender.
edited 2nd Oct '13 2:40:46 PM by Pfhorrest
Part of a complete WalkyverseAh. K.
Double Standard, viewed through a mirror. Ironically, while society strongly encourages men to have sex constantly and women to never have sex ever, the logical conclusion - that these men must be having sex with other men if women are supposed to be avoiding it - is also societally shunned. This creates hostility and resentment between men - who've been taught women are supposed to drop their pants and bend over at the sight of their manliness - and women - who've been taught that they are never allowed to do that no matter what they desire.
edited 2nd Oct '13 3:25:28 PM by TobiasDrake
GIMME COOKIES!There is, of course, also "Women give consent, men seek consent" attitude...
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.