Search this blog

Sunday, 13 August 2017

Slut-shaming is stupid

We live in a culture where sex is still seen as this massive deal, especially where women are concerned. I consider myself a liberal person; I believe as long as you’re not hurting anyone it’s nobody’s business. Relatively speaking. I find the word ‘slut’ as disgusting as some people find the word ‘nigger.’ I try not to use the words slut; whore, hoe, slag or sket to describe people. Although I am not a feminist, I do think it’s sexist and sex-negative and is used by people who are threatened by a woman who is sexually free. It can also be used to bully young girls, such as cases where a girl performs a sexual act with one guy and then that video is spread around and gives the poor kid a bad reputation. (But no one says shit to the guy).


I know males and females who are promiscuous, non-promiscuous, have had many one-night stands, haven’t had sex yet, prefer to do it with a partner...etc. So I disagree with the notion that men are ‘more’ promiscuous and women are ‘more’ reserved, and look at it based on individuals. If a person, male or female, enjoys sex and has sex with multiple partners, how is that any different from them having a lot of sex with one person? They’re still having a lot of sex; they’re just not in a relationship. Not everyone wants to be in a relationship or get married. Not everyone likes relationships. Our society places so much emphasis on needing a relationship to be happy, but I don't think you need to be romantically involved with someone to be happy and it's actually dangerous to pin happiness all on one person. I can say this because I'm very co-dependent and get very attached to people. Not in an over-the-top way, but enough to be aware when I'm doing it. Furthermore, you can be just as happy by having lots of close friends as opposed to a romantic partner.

And when you’re with that person who you really love or you’re with the person you’re going to marry, what does it matter how many sexual partners they’ve had before? As long as they’re clean of STDs who cares? They’re with you. The past doesn’t matter. They could have been with three people or thirty people, it doesn’t matter. They’re with YOU now and they’re going to commit to YOU and stay with YOU because they want YOU. I don’t believe in this idea of equating sex with a person’s value. If you choose to remain chaste then cool, but it doesn’t make you a better person and doesn’t give you the right to be all high-and-mighty about it. Believe me, I used to think I was better for waiting till I was in a relationship and that relationship turned out to be unhealthy.

On the other side, I am aware virgin-shaming is a thing, which I find even more ridiculous than slut shaming. How is being a virgin funny? Who cares? Ok, I’m going to be really hypocritical here. Yes, I do find a guy more attractive if he’s had sex with a few people because it implies he knows what he’s doing. BUT, when you like someone you like them for them and you don’t care about their sexual history because you want them. Heck, I’ve liked less-experienced guys. You like a person for who they are and how they make you feel (I should hope). How many people they’ve banged shouldn’t be anything more than general curiosity, but is not something to judge someone by. A person could be a heroin addict, a murderer, emotionally manipulative, high-maintenance, negative, and not have had many or any sexual partners.

Honestly, I think we're all too preoccupied with each other’s genitalia. It’s not our fault; Britain up until recent decades was a very sexually repressed society, especially for women. Women were either madonnas or whores. (Funnily enough, it's mostly women that slut-shame other women; probably because they're jealous of how sexually free they can be). REAL women are a mix of both. Lady in the streets, freak in the sheets...ahem. Sex is a personal choice. Having a lot of sex does not make you any less of a woman, and waiting till you’re with someone you love does not make you any less of a man. A person’s measure of value is based on how they treat others, not by how much or little sex they have. 
Well said Ms Green :)

Also see: Virginity and Pre-Marital sex 

38 comments:

  1. The absolute numbers might not not be important. But the difference is.

    If person A had lots of sex with many partners and person B only little sex with few partners than I don't think it work out in most cases.

    _„They’re with YOU now and they’re going to commit to YOU and stay with YOU because they want YOU.“_ — Do they? And will they stay committed. Or will they start cheating on you because lack experience and skill?

    That is the question to be asked if there is a large difference in experience. If both are on the same level then the question does not apply.

    _„Yes, I do find a guy more attractive if he’s had sex with a few people because it implies he knows what he’s doing.“_ — Spot on. You want someone with a similar experience level.

    _„Heck, I’ve liked less-experienced guys.“_ — «liked» — past tense. You are not with them any more. Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure? Having sex with fewer partners doesn't necessarily equate to less 'skill' or 'experience.' You could be having good sex with one person and bad sex with ten people. Just because someone is promiscuous doesn't necessarily mean they'll start cheating when they're in a relationship. Maybe when they're single they just have fun, but when they're in a relationship they take it seriously.

      When I said I've liked less experienced guys I meant it as passing crushes, and meant it to say that when you like someone you like the person and don't care so much about their sexual history other than general curiosity.

      Delete
  2. As long as women are money-shaming and job-shaming and height-shaming and social status-shaming men and all of the other "double standards", they're also going to slut-shame other women.

    Telling people not to slut-shame is like telling people to never mention when a guy can't keep a job or isn't good at playing a sport etc.

    Quite frankly, I think it's really sad how much women care too much about what other people think to the point of trying to police language.

    When was the last time you ever heard of men asking people to stop saying any little thing that they didn't like?

    It's just ironic to me how much women love to gossip, read a ton of tabloid celebrity "news" and root through other people's belongings yet then demand that no one ever judge them and "mind their own business".

    It's also ironic to me how much women want to judge men for every little thing they do yet want special treatment and not to be judged for their own actions. Very sexist and hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "(Funnily enough, it's mostly women that slut-shame other women; probably because they're jealous of how sexually free they can be)."

    Sorry but that's not even close. The real reason why women slut-shame has nothing to do with "jealousy of sexual freedom" but lack of respect and competition. When one woman is "loose" and puts out, it makes all of the other women around her feel forced to also put out in order to compete for the men around.

    The madonna and the whore thing is just a biological fact of male's brains - that's just how they see women and it's why a good relationship between mothers and sons are so important. I know that the madonna/whore dichotomy makes a lot of women have a lot of poopy feelings but it's not going to change how men feel about women's sexual behaviors; Just like we're not going to be able to convince women to start dating short, homeless men just because it makes men feel poopy when they get passed up for not being tall or rich enough for women.

    I think it's wrong that people try to advocate against slut-shaming just to protect the feelings of slutty women. Personally, I think those women need to grow up and learn how to live with the consequences of their choices and stop asking everyone else to change their opinions just to make them feel better. If a woman doesn't like being called a "slut" then that's her problem, not society's. Just like if a man doesn't like being called a "bum" then that's his problem, not society's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think madonna vs whore is more of a socialised thing as real women aren't either 'virginal ladies' or 'promiscuous sluts', most people are somewhere in between. Maybe this is also a generational thing; I haven't been with many guys but I feel like guys around my age care less about that and actually prefer a girl that has some sexual experience.

      I'm against slut-shaming because I think it's sexist and creates sex-negativity rather than sex positivity. Also I don't get why having a lot of sex is seen as a bad thing - what about men that have a lot of sex? What about men that DON'T have a lot of sex because they're waiting for the right woman? Why are they seen as 'less of a man'? I know I was being a bit hypocritical when I mentioned this in my post but end of the day it's about personality and how a person treats you.

      My main point is that people should just do what they want as long as they take precautions and don't harm others.

      I don't get job-shaming; so what if a woman is making more money then a man? Again, I think this is generational. I'd never call someone a bum; sometimes people end up jobless or homeless because of difficult situations not laziness as many assume.

      Yeah I've heard girls say stuff about men like they need to be '6ft and over' and be super ripped and spend tons of money on them and it's like come on. I care about less superficial stuff like personality, good values rather than money or height. Actually I don't really care about money; I want to be successful myself and not have to depend on a guy for money so it's never even something that's crossed my mind.

      Delete
    2. It's not a socialized thing, it's a psychological thing and the person who first identified it was a man himself, Sigmund Freud. Feminists hate him and they try to say that everything he said was wrong but in reality he was a genius and still studied in colleges today.

      The only reason why there are so many women who are "in between" today is because of the sexual revolution and the way Feminism has gotten society to pressure women into being sexual earlier and more than they often want to be. That's the real reason behind most slut-shaming. When one woman is giving sex to men, the other women then feel pressured to also give sex even if they're not ready - it's sort of like when a business lowers it's prices and then the other businesses around have to do the same in order to stay in competition.

      Furthermore, since so many women are falling in between, it has led to a lot of woman either never getting married or ending up divorced. The women who are falling in between are hurt the worst because they're not really "whores" and they don't really like being so loose and casual with sex but feel they must "adapt"; and the odds aren't in their favor when competing with the women who actually did choose to abstain and be more discreet.

      It is a generational thing because it started with the Boomers' Sexual Revolution:
      Between 1943 and 1999, the age of first intercourse dropped from 19 (young adults) to 15 (young teenagers) for females.
      Between 1969 and 1993, the percentage of of female teenagers and young adults having oral sex skyrocketed from 42% to 71%.
      (http://progressbeyondfeminism.blogspot.com/2017/06/self-sexual-objectification.html)

      Many women and girls have sex because they feel pressured to, not because they want to and certainly not because they want to "as much as their male counterparts do".

      Guys your age don't care about that stuff and do prefer girls with more sexual experience because that's the stage of life they're in right now. That's what I was trying to tell you about that situation with that guy from the earlier post. When males are under the age of 25 especially but even under 30 they are looking for "whores". This is again, why legalized prostitution is so important. They want girls who are sexually experienced and that they can take out all of their "fantasies" out on etc.

      However, when they start hitting their 30s, they start to become more repulsed by these type of women and tend to look for women with more long-term mating qualities like pretty, smart, funny, interesting, caring, good person, etc. They never associate these things with the "whores" in their past, at least not for mating and motherhood.

      That's why it's not society, it's biological and physiological. It's a natural part of their growing and maturing. Since Feminism doesn't like this concept though, much like gender roles in general, they not only don't tell women these things but they proactively try to keep women from knowing these things. They don't care if it forever hurts women's chances of getting married and/or becoming a mother etc. Feminism is very anti-marriage and anti-motherhood (unless they're single or lesbian mothers).

      I think the argument itself of "slut-shaming" is sexist and hypocritical.

      A) Sexist: It makes women victims who can't handle the choices for their own actions. It's censorship to protect women's feelings which is saying that women are emotionally weaker than men and can't handle basic words that offend them - based on their own choices in life.

      B) The people who make this argument almost never make the same argument for men of "bum-shaming" for men who don't want to get jobs and work.

      C) Hypocritical: It's asking people "not to judge" while the author is judging those who use the term without any background information, etc.

      Delete
    3. I feel like people should like people for their personality not for how much/little sex they've had. Just because a person has had a lot of sexual partners doesn't mean they're not a kind/caring person. I have male and female friends who have had many sexual partners and casual sex and it doesn't mean they're not nice people or bad at relationships. Also not everyone wants to get married.

      There's also the other side; more women started having sex in the Boomer revolution because they felt empowered and able to express their sexuality more. Hence why I disagree with madonna vs whore, I don't think it's healthy to put people in boxes like that and say 'you're either this or that.' I certainly don't want to be viewed as either one or the other. Frankly I think it's a rigid and stupid concept. It's like saying men are either 'nice guys or players' or 'gentlemen or womanizers.' Too much polarity...

      I'm not sure about Freud. He had a lot of good ideas but some of the stuff he said was crazy. (Studied him in A Level Psychology). Plus it's true he was very sexist towards women. But not only that, his stuff like the Oedipus Complex and ideas on child sexuality (child is bisexual until the age of 5) and the way he would mis-treat his patients especially the female ones.

      I think you're a bit more conservative than me on this which is fine. I just don't see sexuality as something that should be rigidly placed and define people, but something that should be expressed in a way that makes you feel healthy and comfortable.

      Delete
    4. Also why do you keep saying that women feel threatened by promiscuous women and that makes her feel forced to compete for a man? That to me just sounds like insecurity, like let's say there's a group of five women and one of them is promiscuous; I don't see how that makes the other four feel like they need to be that way as well unless they're just super insecure and bothered by other people's actions. I guess I don't really care that much, bottom line.

      Delete
    5. Additionally, if a man wants to be with a virgin, once he sleeps with her she won't be one anymore. But if a man wants sex, he needs a girl to put out, so can't really say he 'prefers a virgin' then complains about how a girl isn't putting out. It's a paradoxical situation and also an impossible double-standard. Hence why 'madonna vs whore' or 'virgin vs whore' makes no sense. Every single woman that has sex isn't necessarily going to be a 'whore', but they're not going to be a virgin/madonna either because they've already had sex.

      Delete
    6. Yes, but why don’t you make the same point about “people should like people for their personality not for how much/little money they have” etc? Why do you want men to change their preferences yet you don’t ask women to change their preferences to keep things equal? Why should men be told that they don’t get to discern between which women they want to sleep with but women aren’t told that they shouldn’t judge the men they sleep with by their job or social status or how much money they make or how tall they are etc? Why the focus on forcing men to give up their preferences in women, but not forcing women to give up their own preferences in men? THAT’S sexist.

      No one is saying that just because “a person has had a lot of sexual partners doesn't mean they're not a kind/caring person” and that has nothing to do with the basis of slut-shaming. The point is that these are two different types of women and therefore they are seen and responded to in two different ways. And if people never want to get married, then it really doesn’t matter how many partners they have in life, as they’ll end up alone no matter what – since that’s what they want.

      “more women started having sex in the Boomer revolution because they felt empowered and able to express their sexuality more.” Actually, they started having sex more because of Feminism pushing propaganda to them that it was empowering to express their sexuality more and convincing them that they had been sexually repressed – whether it was true or not, that’s what Feminists told women and they encouraged them to have casual sex with men “a la carte”. This led to the highest rate of women engaging in such a variety of sexual acts including threesomes and orgies and “swinging” (married couples swapping partners with other couples) etc. It was a short-lived phase though, as most women who tried it, didn’t like it or hated it and deeply regretted their actions during this “phase”. Most of these women today try to never talk about it or forget that it ever happened. It’s not a positive memory for them. (They basically whored themselves out in the name of “sexual freedom” and they didn’t like the results.)

      You can disagree with the “madonna vs whore” concept, but it’s disagreeing with fact. Regardless of how you personally feel about it, you should know it, because it is how the vast majority of straight men develop and mature. Every female should learn this to better understand men. (And they do teach this at Oxford and Cambridge, as well as most top universities.) When guys are young and need a release, they seek whores to fulfill that need and then when they grow up and mature (and become men), they seek a woman like their mother that they can settle down and make a family with. (Just like when girls are younger, they tend to be the most attracted to gay males than at any other point in their life because they’re not really ready for men yet; However as they get older and mature, they start to reject that and seek men who are more masculine and different than themselves and more like their fathers.) It’s not as gross as it sounds, it’s part of parenting.

      Delete
    7. And as far as the Oedipus complex, Freud was right and he was wrong. He was right about the fact that we do replace our parents (daughters replace their mothers; sons replace their fathers and daughters’ husbands replace the fathers while sons’ wives replace their mothers) but he was wrong when he made it such a direct, literal connection (daughters replacing mom and staying with dad and sons replacing dad and staying with mom). He saw that Shakespeare play which is where he got this concept (which was correct), but then he took it too literally and not more symbolically (which was incorrect). Furthermore, as humans we tend to be grossed out at the idea of being romantically involved with the people we grew up with (usually our family) yet certain incidents and science now tells us that there is a “genetic sexual attraction”, at least between siblings that we find - especially when they do not grow up together. It has happened where a sibling or both are adopted and end up falling in love with each other before knowing they are related. So maybe Freud was picking up on some of that as well. Sometimes people can be wrong, and still be kind of right about things. (The guy who invented the dye for the color purple did it by accident, his tubes spilled but it worked out.)

      Your parents teach you how you should be treated by a future spouse by watching how they treat each other. Also, you may not like it – and many women don’t – but it’s a very important concept to know because it tells you how men will treat you and why they treat you that way. When men are just looking to satiate their need for a sexual release, they look for the “whore” that they don’t care about as a person inside. They only care about the release they can give them and they are less likely to be chivalrous towards them and they are more like to treat them the same way they treat other men. When men are looking to find a lifelong mate and/or future mother of their children, they look for the non-whore or “Madonna” or “mother”. They tend to go out of their way more to accommodate them and much more likely to be chivalrous towards them and treat them better than the way they treat other people. This is closely related to men’s mothers. If a man had a “whore” for a mother, he tends to treat all women badly, but if he has a “non-whore” for a mother, he tends to treat women like his mother very good.

      In some ways it is very polarized but you are seeing it much more black and white than it actually is, though. It’s not exactly a virgin vs. whore thing, it’s more of a whore vs. non-whore thing. It’s more nuanced than that. Yes, most men would be elated to actually get a virgin wife, but a woman who has had a couple of sexual partners in committed relationships over her life, isn’t automatically a “whore” to them just because she’s not a virgin anymore.

      It’s not at all like saying men are either 'nice guys or players' or 'gentlemen or womanizers.' (What made you think that?) This is how men discern between women, this isn’t about what kind of men they are themselves. Women are more complex than men are and this includes the way that they see the opposite sex (and people in general). Men are more basic and they others more in terms of likely to hurt them and likely to help them/not hurt them. Women are more complex so they see others in much more complicated terms, depending on a variety of factors, especially their feelings and environment at the time.

      Delete
    8. It’s not true that Freud was “very sexist towards women” nor did he “mistreat his patients – especially the female ones”. That’s a Feminist myth. Just because he made some theories and findings that some women don’t like, doesn’t make him a sexist. He said things that made people uncomfortable because he believed it was better to say it and be proven wrong, than to not say anything and potentially think something that is actually false. He believed knowledge is power. And he was not any kind of “womanizer” or “chauvinist” and he was actually only ever in love with ONE woman – whom he loved so much, that he would write her letters every day and sometimes even multiple times a day. He was surprisingly romantic and sentimental.

      And he had more than just “good” ideas, he had brilliant ideas that have stood the test of time and are now taught in major universities. Sure, he wasn’t **perfect** and made some mistakes along the way (as all people do), but he is basically the father of psychoanalysis and has helped many people over many generations get a better understanding of the self and others. (Leonardo Da Vinci had some “crazy” ideas too, like walking on water with “boat shoes”. Galileo and Copernicus were also considered “crazy” before they were recognized for their accomplishments. That’s the thing about geniuses, they often seem crazy to everyone else because they’re so ahead of their time etc.) He was one of the first and few people to see dreams as having any real substance to them, believing them to be our repressed and censored thoughts, worries and fantasies etc. finding their way to the “surface”. He also believed that it wasn’t just our dreams that were affected by these things, but our everyday lives, too. I’m sure you’ve heard of the term “Freudian slip”, which is one of the best examples of our repressed and censored thoughts, worries and fantasies etc. finding their way to the surface in our daily lives and not just our dreams. Clearly most businesses on Earth believe and agree with his work, as the vast majority of advertisements are made in a specific way to appeal to our inner desires and fears etc. – especially sex appeal. He was also one of the first and main people to link our past experiences (especially traumatic ones) in our childhood with our adult lives. He’s also the one who basically discovered “PTSD” in soldiers who returned from war – which no one really debates today. He discovered the Id (unconscious desires and worries), the Super Ego (conscious morality) and the Ego (present/realistic mediator/navigator between the Id and Super Ego). He believed that we couldn’t rid ourselves of the things within us that we didn’t like but we could learn to control them (such as fighting an addiction to drugs – which he did do).

      Delete
    9. How much did you study about Freud? Because there is no proof that he was a sexist and since you keep saying that you care so much about “sexual positivity” and being able to talk freely about those kinds of things, that would make me think that you would LOVE Freud. He challenged taboos and conventions about sex and he wanted people to be able to talk about these things more openly, even though it made many people uncomfortable. In his time, sex was heavily tied to religion so the subject was very repressed by society. One of his main tenants was that repression/suppression leads to more problems – not solutions; “Say everything that is on your mind, don’t censor, don’t repress.”. He was a big proponent of “talking therapy” (venting) and getting out your feelings instead of bottling them in. He was very progressive for his time – being more embraced by the “liberal/progressives” more so than the “conservative/traditional” type. Going back to “sex positivity”, he was also one of the first and main people to *not* limit sex to just the act of it, acknowledging and embracing the “eroticism” and “seduction” around it. (Women tend to be more sensual than sexual and Freud was the first one to really open the door to that in the Western World.) He believed our sexual identity, sexual fantasies and sexual orientation weren’t as “black and white” (normal or perverse) as society made them out to be and that they were more individualistic than we thought. And the liberals in his time by the way, the ones who rejected religion and traditional values, were the ones who embraced Freud and his ideas the most.

      Freud was not a staunch, serious guy; He was a bit “quirky” for his time and he basically inspired people to be different from others and not so “politically correct”. Even though he asked people to look inwards and talk about their feelings etc., he also wanted people to face those things and use this openness to correct these problems; Not make them worse. (He didn’t say, talk about your addiction so you can indulge in it; but talk about it so you can conquer it, instead of letting it conquer you.)

      It’s not like men are so fond of the “madonna vs. whore” thing either; They just tend to accept more inconvenient truths of life than women do and don’t automatically go to the “sexist” card as much as women do.

      I am a bit more conservative than you on this in one way, yet more liberal in the sense that, I’m more of the position that men deserve respect too and shouldn’t be asked to give up their personal preferences if women aren’t asked to do the same, as it’s sexist. I don’t think it’s right to tell other people what they should and shouldn’t look for in a relationship, especially when you’re asking them to go against their biology. To me, it’s the same thing as trying to tell homosexuals that they need to be attracted to the opposite sex. Why is it ok for you to decide what other people should want for themselves in relationships? I just don’t agree with that. I think it’s proper to let people know the potential benefits/consequences of their thoughts/actions/desires/choices/etc. but I think it’s improper to tell grown adults who they’re allowed to like and what they’re allowed to look for in relationships.

      I don’t see what healthy and comfortable sexuality has to do with slut-shaming and men’s preferences in men. If you like sleeping with a ton of men then why should the term, “slut”, bother you?

      Delete
    10. I keep saying that because it is statistically true and the #1 reason why so many women were led to do regrettable sex actions during the Sexual Revolution - which many of them now try to forget and do not positively reminisce on. Most women ARE insecure and easily threatened, why do you think they complain about slut-shaming and body-shaming and bossy-shaming and period-shaming etc.? Why do you think women are more easily swayed by advertisements and commercials than men? On average, women care way too much about what other people think and tend to be “followers” more than leaders. Before modern society, when 1 woman in the tribe was promiscuous, a lot of times the other women would get together and kill her when the men were gone. So yes, instinctually most women are very threatened when another woman is “lowering the prices” with sex. Many women today do engage in sexual activity simply because they feel pressured to “get with the times” and match their “looser” peers. While 50 years ago, women were expected not to “put out”, today it has become the reverse where women are expected to “put out” so it was just trading 1 for the other - and this one hurts more women more often.

      What you’re saying isn’t a paradox because women aren’t expected to be both. It’s a matter of men separating which women are approached for sport sex and which women are approached for dating. Sort of like when women separate which men are approached for personal gain (i.e. buy a drink or experience a “bad-boy” etc.) and which men are approached for actual mating potential. Again, the only double-standard here is asking people not to slut shame yet not asking them not to job shame or wealth shame etc.

      The 'madonna vs whore' or 'virgin vs whore' makes perfect sense and is actually pretty simple once you open your mind to understanding it. I know it’s rough in the beginning because it stirs up a lot of unpleasant emotions but if you can get past that, it’ll go a long way towards understanding men better and having better relations with them in general.

      Delete
    11. Oh god, my computer decided to be a cunt so I have to re-write what I was going to post in response. Take two:

      I think I mentioned in a different post that I agree liking people for superficial reasons like a woman only wanting a man for his money is stupid in my books. And yes it is sexist. I'm not saying people should be 'forced' to change their preferences, merely why I disagree with people wanting someone because they're a virgin or wealthy as opposed to being kind or funny or smart etc.

      Not trying to bring up my insecurities but sometimes I worry about ending up alone :( I guess that's normal though? I'd love to get married but some people genuinely just don't believe in marriage because end of the day it is just signing a contract, and some people may be happy just being in a relationship with their partner and raising kids together and not feeling the need to 'put a ring on it.' And yeah of course if some people don't want to get married or be in a relationship and prefer to be alone then that's their business.

      I think 'madonna vs whore' is more symbolic/psychological. I mean I'm probably considered a 'madonna' as I'm not a 'whore' but there are other aspects to it as well. Madonna vs whore was more used in the Victorian ages to describe two types of women - ladylike and non-ladylike, and being sexual with only one man was seen as ladylike, but other things were too. I curse a lot, am very blunt and outlandish, dress liberaly, talk a lot and loudly - these things are seen as traditionally 'unladylike.' I know we're talking about sex here but just want to bring up the wholeness of the madonna-whore concept, and look at the bigger picture of 'ladylike' women vs 'non-ladylike' women. Like traditionally a woman who talked too much or thought a lot was seen as unladylike. (Hm, reminds me of one of our favourite films - remember in Beauty and the Beast when Gaston says to Belle 'it's not right for a woman to read.' That scene always makes me laugh.)
      But as a woman, I don't want to be seen by men as a 'madonna or whore', I want to be seen for my brains, character, affection, sensitivity etc. I think when a person likes a person they look at the whole person as opposed to reducing them down to these labels.

      Didn't say I didn't like Freud, just said I wasn't sure about him. We touched on him in A level but I think some parts of me went 'he's awesome and innovative' and other parts went 'can you prove these theories?' That's where some psychologists (not just feminists) get skeptical about Freud; his theories weren't easy to test or prove which reduced their credibility. Also I don't think we looked deeply into the sexual aspects, it was more people thought 'god this guy says men are all in love with their mothers' and missed the point of it (myself included).
      Cheers for clarifying him though, I'd love to read up more on him and probably would agree with some stuff. Very true that he was the first to bring up free association and dream analysis and analysis of the psyche and defence mechanisms and all that.

      'It's not at all like saying guys are nice guys/players'
      What I meant is madonna vs whore is polarising women in the same way as saying guys are either gentlemen or womanizers. Like saying people are either this or that.

      Delete
    12. Also why do you say 'most men would be elated to get a virgin wife?' You can't generalise as to what 'most men' want. Some men may prefer a non-virgin so she's sexually experienced, or may not want the pressure of being her first in case something goes wrong and they don't stay together. Having preferences is fine, but not every man is going to 'prefer' a virgin or even care. Plus I'm sure guys would rather marry a woman who wasn't a serial killer or a drug addict than someone who was a non-virgin. When I was younger I used to think men liked virgins, and there is an egotistical element of 'being her first' and all that, but I think again if a man truly likes a woman then whether she is or not doesn't really matter.

      (I think my first sexual experience as you read has affected my perceptions on this too as well as the so-called 'importance' of first time sex).

      Agree that end of the day if a person enjoys doing something they shouldn't give a shit what others think. Everyone is judgemental. If a woman has a lot of casual sex and gets called a 'slut' she shouldn't really care. But it's because of the negative connotations that the word 'slut' has. The word 'whore' actually means prostitute and being a prostitute isn't a bad thing to me - it's the world's oldest profession; a way for women to make money and satisfy men. (Or men to satisfy women, but male prostitutes are less common as we know). I don't really see what's 'immoral' about prostitution; if a girl chooses to use her sexuality to make money then to me that's not a bad/good thing in fact I can see the practicality in it. (Noted we both agreed prostitution should be legalised).

      Also some men who have a lot of sexual partners get called 'man whores' by other men which again I think is ridiculous - honestly I don't get why people care so much. I wouldn't really care if my boyfriend had had a lot of partners, beyond curiosity there's nothing else. Likewise I wouldn't reject a guy I really liked who was nice to me who said he'd never been with a woman. I'd be surprised just because it's not common around my age, but I wouldn't think he was lame or whatever.

      'Most people' probably prefer someone who's in between, who's had sex with some people but not everyone in town. That's because they will know what they're doing but also not 'everyone has had them.'

      In my case (which is a bit stupid and just me being insecure), I'd feel jealous at them being with all those others girls because it's like 'you're not mine' and 'I want you all to myself.' I know that's not how it is at all, and inevitably no matter how many people you were with before, you're with the person you are with now and you only want and care for them so who they were with before shouldn't really matter. It’s more of a subconscious thing. But ultimately my view is: like the person for who they are not how many/little people they’ve slept with, slut-shaming AND job-shaming are bad and a sexist double standard, and a woman enjoying a lot of sex with many men isn’t ‘dirty’ just like a man who is waiting for the right woman isn’t a ‘loser’. What people do is up to them, it’s their choice.

      Delete
    13. Also want to point out; what if a woman aged between 17 and 33 has say nine boyfriends, all of whom she has sex with (and only has sex with boyfriends not one-night-stands or FWB or anything) and then she gets married to the ninth guy. She's had eight sexual partners before him, all boyfriends. Would she be considered a slut even though she's had sex with several men? Or does it not matter because they were all boyfriends?

      What about someone else who slept with four men aged 18 to 22, and all were casual/FWB, none serious relationships, and then she gets married at 22 to her first serious boyfriend. Was she a slut for sleeping with men who she wasn't in a relationship with?

      I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these hypothetical scenarios. Point I'm trying to make is if a woman is sexually active but not necessarily with a partner why is that wrong? Or are we referring to 'sluts' as people who have MANY partners, say 20+, and they're all random guys, some of whom may have girlfriends?

      Some guys would consider the first woman to be 'unclean' or whatever. I remember on Twitter seeing stuff like 'if a girl's slept with 4 guys she's not a slut but she's not for me.' Again, if that's his preference then that's fine, people can have preferences, and I for one would not like to be with a guy who views women like that. Not everyone is lucky enough to meet their significant other in their teens and then stay with them forever. I think deep down most people would love that (I certainly would) but usually you have several relationships, maybe a few flings or casual things then meet your life partner. Of course it's different for everyone and this is me generalizing.

      For what it's worth, I would prefer not to be with a guy who has sex with a different woman every week - not because I think he's a 'man-whore', fair enough what he does is his business, but I would worry he might not take relationships seriously and may be chatting up other women behind my back. I would also feel jealous of him being with all those other women like 'they've all had my man.' Does that make me hypocritical? Or just honest and accepting of the fact that we all have preferences and everyone has a right to do what they want, but we don't all have to like 'everyone' and have the right to have preferences?

      I hope that makes sense.

      Delete
    14. And furthermore (I know I'm going on but you don't mind it anyway hehe) why should people be defined by relationships? Labelling a person 'slut' is basically defining them by the amount of sex they have. If 'slut' became a neutral word as opposed to a pejorative then it wouldn't matter. I don't agree with 'loose sex' being encouraged like you mentioned it was in the sexual revolution, but I don't agree with it being discouraged. This is a lame example, but it's like my opinion of Trump. I don't like or dislike him, I think people are allowed to like him, and most people who dislike him do because everyone else does. So with regards to the term 'slut', I don't see having a lot of sex as good or bad, it just is what it is. I'm not into casual sex - I had a one night stand once and didn't really enjoy it. But some people are and don't get emotionally attached to people or need an emotional connection. (Dunno if I've mentioned this but this is why a common trait of psychopaths is sexual promiscuity - they just care about the pleasure and don't feel any emotion.)

      Like you've said you were virgin shamed in high school; I think that's just as bad and frankly pretty pathetic. I just don't see why people 'shame' each other for what they do with their genitals. Let's say I masturbate daily. I'm still engaging in frequent sexual activity, it's just not with another person. Or I have many serious relationships (like outlined in one of the above examples). Point is, why does it matter either way? It's different if 'slut' was being used neutrally, like say a 'bachelor' or a 'wife.'

      But it's not, it has negative connotations. I just don't see why it should, just like I don't see why 'virgin' has connotations like 'pure' 'virtuous' or 'boring' 'frigid' 'loser' 'baby.' There could be a million reasons why someone is a virgin; they're waiting for the right person, they haven't had the opportunity to do it, they're scared/afraid of intimacy, they have a low sex drive/are asexual and aren't bothered, they want to wait till they're married, they're 13 years old and it's not common for people to be sexually active at that age...whatever. Like when my ex (from 'that' post) kept asking why I didn't want to do it within a few weeks he asked if it was because I didn't want to look 'slutty' and it was nothing to do with that, I just didn't feel emotionally ready yet and I felt like he was very distant and we didn't really go out much and it felt like he was just pushing me into it rather than me wanting it of my own volition. Of course I did want it, but it was like a 'I want it but not like this' situation.

      Delete
    15. We evoke meanings onto words, and when it comes to sexuality I feel like this 'gap' of virgins vs whores needs to close. I don't think waiting till you're married makes you a somehow better person, it's just a personal choice. I don't think I'm better for waiting to be emotionally ready and in a significant relationship. First time sex isn't great anyway even if you're with someone caring; it hurts and feels anti-climatic. When I was at York Uni briefly I had a housemate who lost her virginity during fresher's week and apparently she'd been upset (I was too drunk but there were a bunch of girls comforting her) and afterwards she said she felt fine and didn't regret it and I kept asking her if she was sure just because, well that's how I am but also because first time sex IS an emotional thing more so for women (as we know) and I just hoped she was alright. But I don't think that made her 'bad' or 'dirty' in the slightest, I just wanted to be sure she was ok and didn't feel emotionally hurt by it. It's awful when girls sleep with guys for the first time and then the guy just discards them, so for that reason even though it was a crappy relationship I'm glad I at least did it for the first time with a partner so I felt more emotionally at ease.

      Delete
    16. I’m sorry that happened to you. I hate when that happens because the re-write never has the same flow and detail as the first written response. If you think of anything you missed the 2nd time around, feel free to add it in another comment.

      Yes, I remember you saying that you think each gender is superficial in their preferences for each other, I’ve just never seen a post from you (on your blog) about how women shouldn’t discriminate against sleeping with a guy just because he’s homeless and/or doesn’t have a job, and how sexist it is for women to do that and that women shouldn’t care about that kind of stuff – especially because men don’t discriminate against women for not having a job.

      Also, why do you consider being “kind or funny or smart” to be less superficial than “trustworthy or hardworking or compatible”?

      It just seems like a lot of your posts and comments either inadvertently ignore men’s feelings/needs/desires etc. and/or assume that men are basically very similar to women with just a few minor differences. It doesn’t seem like you totally understand just **how** different men and women really are, and in what numerous ways.

      If you want men to not hold to their standards of what they want from women where sexual history is concerned – which they do associate with trustworthiness, self-respect and value etc. – then you are asking them to change their preferences. (Just like women associate a man’s job/occupation with being hardworking, having self-respect and stability etc.)

      It’s normal for women to worry about ending up alone (most women do in general) and not wanting to be alone but it’s not as normal for men, as men tend to be more loners than women and don’t worry/care as much about ending up alone. That’s why men are less likely to go with the “bandwagon” than women, as they care a lot less about what other people think and approve of etc. Men “go with the flow” more than women and women “go with the trends” more than men.

      But I think you may have missed my overall point here. If you want to end up alone then it doesn’t matter what anyone else would like/want from you in marriage or relationships etc. because you never plan on staying with them. However, if you don’t want to end up being alone, then at some point you are going to have to learn to make compromises and sacrifices with the person you spend your life with (just as they will do the same with/for you). So, if you want to marry a man who doesn’t accept women with a certain amount of partners, you’ll either have to match that standard or give something of equal value to make up for that instead – otherwise it’ll most likely not work out well. Just like in the reverse: you’ll probably be likely to let certain things go that you don’t necessarily like, if the guy is “exceptional” or giving other great things in return that make up for you letting those things go. Relationships and compatibility involve quite a bit of give-and-take etc. (Similar to roommates, who have to find compromises since they are living together and sharing lots of things.)

      Marriage is definitely a lot more than just a contract, literally and symbolically. Literally it gives the couple a ton of rights that they would otherwise not have and symbolically, it’s the world of a difference – especially to women. Both of these (literally and symbolically) separate you from literally every other person your spouse has ever dated before you. Furthermore, when 2 people can’t even commit to each other in marriage *without* kids, they’re even less likely to stay together while raising kids. The most common reason for people not getting married is so that they always have the option of the “clean, quick and easy break” and/or “leave the door open for something better to come along”, because deep down they don’t actually believe they’ll always be together and/or they’re not really with the partner they want to be “stuck with”.

      Delete
    17. I want to make this clear, as simplistic and “basic” as the “madonna vs. whore” dichotomy sounds, it’s actually a lot more nuanced than it seems. For example, some men might consider you a “madonna” but other men might consider you a “whore” (and same with me and every other girl out there). The line between the two isn’t universal for all men. Some men might care a little more about the quality of your past relationships (one-night stands vs. committed relationships) whereas some men might care more about the quantity of your past relationships (how many partners you’ve had).

      As I mentioned earlier, about you not always taking men into consideration, I see that you feel the need to make these points about expectations and classifications of a “lady” vs. non-lady, yet you mention absolutely nothing about the expectations and classifications of a “gentleman” vs. non-gentleman. Sophisticated societies did expect women to be ladies AND men to be gentlemen. Men were expected not to be so crude and vulgar in public either, or it was seen as “ungentlemanly”. Being expected to dress “properly” and to behave in a manner that kept their feelings and urges under control were expectations of both, ladies AND gentlemen in society.

      It was also not considered “gentlemanly” to stay a bachelor and never marry a woman and settle down, so men had expectations with sex and relationships too. Society back then just took into account inherent biological differences more than modern society today. They gave women more leeway when it came to emotional stuff than men (since women are inherently more emotional than men) and gave men more leeway when it came to sex stuff than men (since men are inherently more sexual than women).

      What makes you think that men’s Madonna-Whore dichotomy is robbing you of being seen for your “brains, character, affection, sensitivity etc.”? Just because men see you as one or the other doesn’t mean they don’t see your other traits. The “whore/non-whore” thing is more about men choosing you for sport sex or trying to date you to see if you’re marriage-material. (So when women are young, the whores get all the attention but as they get older (along with their male counterparts), the non-whores start to get all of the attention.)

      Legitimate criticisms of Freud do include some of his theories being too small-scale or personalized etc. But claims of him being a “sexist” are completely illegitimate and unfounded, and are the arguments that Feminists usually go to because they just don’t like what he had to say and want to discredit him as a person rather than discrediting his theories. And as I said before, just because he was a genius doesn’t mean he was perfect. Some of his theories are widely accepted and practiced now, but they often get ignored by those who don’t like the sexual stuff Freud talked about. It’s ironic because it’s exactly what Freud warned about: People letting their feelings about inconvenient facts get in the way and create censorship and rejection, rather than open-mindedness, curiosity and understanding.

      Thanks for clarifying on the nice guys/players thing. Yes, it is like saying that, and if more women thought that way then they’d be WAY better off, and be able to protect themselves better. Players will play you, they don’t care about your feelings and they don’t care about your well-being; They’re just using you to “bust a nut”, as you put it. Nice guys, on the other hand, aren’t as likely to take you for granted, do care more about your feelings and well-being, and are far more likely to treat you like a decent human being. Furthermore, “players” tend to seek out more “whores” than “nice guys”, who tend to see out more “non-whores”.

      Delete
    18. And many “nice guys” do wish that more women would acknowledge the differences between “players” and “nice guys” - they talk about that quite often. It’s become a cliché that “nice guys finish last”, as women tend to choose too many “bad boys/players” that they know will only hurt them in the end (especially in modern times, since women have been encouraged to abandon their standards and enjoy men “a la carte”).

      The reason why I say “most men would be elated to get a virgin wife” is because it’s true. It’s not really so much “generalizing” as it is stating a fact. Even though modern women aren’t as chaste and virtuous as previous women, it’s actually only increased the value of a virgin today. As a young male told me once, “Do you know how rare it is to find a real virgin nowadays? Finding a virgin nowadays is like finding $1 million just laying there on the floor. It’s like winning the lottery.”

      And if you really think that I have it so wrong and I shouldn’t generalize because I don’t know what I’m talking about, then can you explain to me why more women lie about being virgins and having less partners then they’ve actually had; Rather than women lying about *not* being virgins or having more partners then they’ve actually had? If most men really wanted more experienced girls, then more women would be lying and saying they’re “more” experienced than they actually are. However, in reality, more women say they’re virgins when they’re actually not or they give a lower number of sexual partners than they’ve actually had. The reason? Because they’re trying to pull men IN by pretending to be what they know men want.

      Furthermore, my generalizations come from LOTS of studies and research; They do not come from watching a TV show or my personal feelings of what I want to believe or what I want to be true. So why are you telling me that I can’t generalize? Why would you tell me that I can’t generalize as to what most men want, but you can? Where are you getting your generalizations from?

      Guys and boys will almost never say anything to upset the females around them, especially because it hurts their chances of getting to “bust a nut” (as you put it) at some point and they don’t like having to deal with the emotional responses that most women give when they hear things they don’t like. Fathers and husbands tend to be the most reliable sources (for women) about men because they’re less likely to face repercussions from being completely honest about things that make most women uncomfortable. (This includes men’s appreciation of virgins.) Even though many women try to downplay the value of their virginity, men don’t kid themselves about it as much (even young guys). Men don’t “brag” about being the 5th guy to sleep with the local slut, but they do take a certain pride about getting to be a female’s 1st. They also don’t respect being the 5th dude you allowed inside of your body, but they do respect being the 1st dude you gave that honor to.

      Virgin-men and men looking to fulfill nontraditional sexual/erotic fantasies may be more likely to prefer a non-virgin because they tend to be sexually “looser” and more open-minded sexually but the idea that guys “don’t want the pressure of being her 1st in case something goes wrong and they don't stay together” is so rare, that most people would find this laughable. (Like if this were in a movie, it would be a comedic line to make people laugh at the absurdity of it.) Guys who “collect virginities” as “notches on the belt” don’t ever worry about “something going wrong” and them “not staying together”; In fact, they pretty much go into those situations expecting things not to work out and lead to marriage. What you described is a very female way to look at virginity and sex. (You may notice that you attached a ton of emotion to that scenario? Most men don’t do that.)

      Delete
    19. When it comes to men who are just looking to “bust a nut” (as you put it), then they don’t care as much about how many partners you’ve had. What would that matter when they have no plans of sticking around or committing to you? You won’t be representing them as their woman or partner in life in that scenario; you’re just a quick release for their sexual tension and nothing more. So of course they don’t care about your sexual history at that point – outside of knowing how far you’re willing to let them go with your body. (Because the way men see it, if you let another guy do X with you, then why wouldn't you let him do it too - unless you're saying he's "lesser" than the other guy that you did let do that to you? Now you would be impugning his masculinity by denying him the same "benefits" that you gave other men. AND this also speaks to why women care so much about slut-shaming. For example: once 1 woman is giving men blow-jobs to men, now the men are going to want blow-jobs from the other women which then forces a lot of the other women into doing that activity - even if they don't want to because he'll reject them for the women who are willing to do that for him. So for many non-slutty women, "sluts" create "negative expectations" that they don't want to have to adhere to.)

      However, when it comes to committing to you and becoming partners, especially with marriage and/or a child, most men do care very much about how many partners you’ve had and the context you’ve had them in. Most men do prefer a virgin who hasn’t let other men inside of her already but most men have accepted that in modern times, they won’t get to have a virgin anymore, so they’ve adjusted a lot of their parameters to get the next best thing. Most men do consider a woman to be a “slut” when she’s had 5 sexual partners or more and most men do not want to marry a woman who has been with as many guys.

      I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make here when you say “guys would rather marry a woman who wasn't a serial killer or a drug addict than someone who was a non-virgin”. Obviously….? And girls would rather marry a man who wasn’t a serial rapist or drug addict than someone who was a non-virgin too. That’s just called common sense. What does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?

      Well, when you were younger and you thought men liked virgins and there was an egotistical element to it all, you were right. Even as a child, you were picking up on the obviousness of this topic.

      Unfortunately, it’s very common for women to take their own experiences with men, sex and romance and then run with it and use it to generalize all men or things related to sex and romance. A big part of this is because modern women don’t understand men the way they used to. (Going back to our original sex education conversations.) Ever since Feminism, women have been left in the dark about all of the things about men, sex and romance that either most women in general don’t really like, or that Feminists don’t want you to know because they don’t want women to be successful with men.

      If you agree that it “if a person enjoys doing something they shouldn't give a shit what others think”, then why did you write an entire post asking people to question/change their own opinions/reactions to something, to make those people feel better about their choices (i.e. stop slut-shaming); rather than writing a post telling those doing the actions to stop caring about what others think (i.e. being proud of being sluts)?

      Delete
    20. Whether or not it has negative connotations with the public should have no bearing. Yes, “slut” has negative connotations, just like “bum” does – because most people don’t like it. Just like “bitch” and “asshole” have negative connotations because most people don’t like it. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here about the negative connotations as changing personal feelings and thoughts about the subject? Is your argument that because most women are so insecure and care too much about what other people think, that the rest of society should accommodate them as a result?

      Why do you ask that men give up their preferences and replace them with your own? If sexual “identity” is something that men care about in a partner – just like social “identity” (job/status/wealth) is something that women care about in a partner – then why do you think it wouldn’t or shouldn’t matter to them in their preferences? What makes you think that your preferences will work just as well for them as they do for you? Unless you want all men to have the same preferences as you do, or as women do, or even as each other, then why do you care about what men’s preferences are (that have nothing to do with you) enough to write an entire post on it?

      By the logic you are using, if a woman truly likes a man then whether or not he has a job (or is homeless) doesn’t really matter – except that it does to most women. Just like it does matter to most men if the woman they are with, has let a ton of other men “bust nuts” inside of her or not. It especially matters if he knows those guys, because then he’ll have to encounter those guys knowing they have such intimate carnal knowledge of you; that they know exactly what you look like naked and what you’re like in bed and will have experienced you submitting to them. It’s not something special about you that only he has, it’s something crude about you that all his friends have had first – and it’s not easy for him to ignore all of that just because “he likes you”.

      One more time about differences between men and women: You keep comparing what YOU think about things (as a female) to what men think about things, as though there should be any kind of correlation. You have to remember that most men are not going to think about things the same way most women do. It’s almost like comparing the colors that you can see, to the colors that dogs can see and not understanding why dogs have a different color spectrum than you do. You won’t understand that a dog sees colors differently than you do, until you stop trying to filter what they see through your own eyes. You have to be able to step out of your own feelings, your own thoughts, your own experiences, mindset and perspectives etc. and look at it from an unbiased and objective, blank point of view in order to properly and more fully understand.

      You are right that most men do have more respect for a “whore” who is using sex for money - as she is at least getting some value out of it – than a “slut”, because they do not see “sluts” or “loose women” the same way as “whores”. (It’s mostly women who don’t care about the nuanced differences between the two, or mistakenly think that “sluts” get more respect from men than “whores” do.)

      Delete
    21. As far as prostitution, more women are against it than men - because if it were legalized, then women would lose the advantage they have over men. If men can’t go elsewhere and just pay for sex, then they are more forced to submit to women’s demands to get sex. It’s actually kind of cruel of Western Women not to legalize prostitution and Feminism is heavily involved in not letting women change their minds about it. It’s not really “immoral” objectively, women just say that as an excuse to keep it illegal. The real “immorality” is not legalizing it just to keep a social advantage over men to manipulate them with. (Most women aren’t willing to put their personal emotions about that kind of competition to the side for the sake of the “greater good”. Most women aren’t willing to step it up and be better women to make up for legalized prostitution – which would allow men more freedom and independence.)

      It’s very rare that men call each other “man whores” and that term is usually made in jest (not seriously admonishing them). That being said, some men see it as a negative when past a certain age (usually around 40 – 50) because they think it’s immature and irresponsible – but those men are usually over 40 years old (at least) themselves and talking to/about other men of the same age. When young guys say it to each other (more around 20 years old), it’s usually a joke (sometimes a compliment and sometimes just an observation).

      Going back again to my point about the differences between men and women: what does it matter, what you care about your boyfriend’s sexual history in the context of MEN’s preferences? Unless you’re trying to tell me that you used to be a man and chose to be a woman or something like that, I’m really not sure why you keep comparing your own preferences and opinions (as a female) to most men’s. I thought we already established that this is a **gender difference** and that most women don’t care about their male romantic partners being virgins or not etc. So when you say that your opinion is more in line with most women than most men, what point are you trying to make here? (Sorry, I’m just getting a little confused by this.)

      Most women usually do prefer what you said, “someone who's in between, who's had sex with some people but not everyone in town. That's because they will know what they're doing but also not 'everyone has had them.'” Most straight men, on the other hand, usually prefer women with less partners and especially less partners they mutually know.

      Remember: Men and women are not the same but just with different body parts; That’s a modern myth (thanks to Feminism). In some ways, men and women are so different, that they are worlds apart. It used to be a more common joke that men didn’t really understand women because women are so complex. However, ever since Feminism, women have gotten less sophisticated and savvy when it comes to men. And now, women actually have a harder time understanding men than men do understanding women – mostly because women just keep thinking that men are just like them, with slight differences (which is not the case).

      Delete
    22. I know you have to know about the fact that in older times, a lot of women were diagnosed with “Hysteria”. Lots of people try to belittle this to just being mere “sexism” and/or “misogyny”. While that may have been true in SOME cases, in reality, most of these cases were the simple result of men not understanding how different women really were from them. They legitimately and sincerely thought women were “crazy” because they couldn’t step outside of themselves as men and understand that women were just more emotional, more hyperbolic, and that they perceived things totally different than most men did. Even though we’ve made a ton of progress on men understanding women; We’ve been regressing when it comes to women understanding men. Just as men used to think women were “crazy” when they didn’t understand them, today lots of women think men are “perverts” etc. simply because they don’t understand them. (In our modern, feminized society, we don’t talk about a lot of things in regards to male sexuality because most women don’t like it, don’t want to hear about it and definitely aren’t willing to accept it or accommodate/incorporate it etc.)

      With all that’s been said in our discussions about general differences between men and women etc., they are just “generalizations” (based on pattern and statistics) and are not meant to be taken as “end-all, be-all, absolutes”. For example: Most women are girly-girls and you and I are clearly not. Just because you and I are “exceptions” to most women in that way, this doesn’t change the fact that most women still are girly-girls though. Most women are also more into celebrity culture and gossip than you and I seem to be, yet again, just because you and I are exceptions to that, doesn’t take away from the rule that most women are more gossipy and into celebrity culture than us. (And it doesn’t mean that you and I can’t generalize what most women are like or into, even though we are exceptions to it, either.) Another example is that most people (including me) do not see having personal standards and preferences as being “bad”, “sexist” or a “double standard”; yet you do. So in this case, you’re an “exception” while I fall more into the “rule”.

      In terms of your views about being a little jealous or insecure about a boyfriend’s past affairs, just think of it this way though: As tough as it is for you (and I) to push our feelings about this to the side, it’s even harder for men to put their feelings about this to the side as it’s more genetically inherent to them than it is to us… And it’s not subconscious if it is constantly on your conscience. For you and I, it might be more “subconscious” but for most men, it’s “conscious” and constantly on their mind.

      Again, the “whore/non-whore” thing is a lot more nuanced than you seem to be thinking about it. Different men have different “lines” or boundaries as to what is a “whore” and what is not. The more consistent factors are how they think about and treat the women that fall into these categories – regardless of where they personally draw their own lines on each. (If that makes sense.) Realistically, the less amount of partners, the better it is for the vast majority of men. That being said, there is a lot of weight on the context of the situation, so if it was always done in a respectable manner (with a committed boyfriend), then it does take away some of the uneasiness about the amount of partners. So both - quality and quantity – are taken into consideration from the male. (This is also why they respect the “whore” more than “slut”, as there is more quality to that quantity, since it put food on her table.)

      Delete
    23. Your hypothetical scenarios really depend more on what the guy you’re asking to be with thinks about it. Typically, men prefer less sexual partners and for them to have been in more respectable context. Furthermore, there is also the time span: 9 partners over 2 years is definitely worse to most men than 9 partners over 10 years. (Remember, a lot of it has to do with self-respect and self-value. If a woman is constantly giving herself to a ton of random men, then most men don’t believe she values herself very highly and therefore will follow suit.)

      Typically, more men will think the “4 casual partners over 4 years hypothetical” is more slutty than the “9 boyfriends over 16 years hypothetical”. However, some men will care more about the amount of partners and have an easier time with the 4 “bad choices” than 9. So again, that really depends on each individual male.

      Were you looking for my personal thoughts on the scenarios or what I thought about men’s reactions to the scenarios?
      (Personally, I’d feel bad for the women in both of those scenarios, as they obviously have a hard time picking the “right” ones.)

      Similarly, are you asking what I personally consider to be a “slut” or what most men consider to be a “slut”? As you had made the point about a “lady vs. non-lady” and all of the factors involved, it’s similar with a “slut”. It’s not just about her number of partners and the context of them but also usually her attitude and overall disposition towards sex and relationships etc. as well.

      I really have to warn you that studies show that the vast majority of men – not just in America but in England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. – consider most women to be a “slut” and “not marriage material” by 5 sexual partners. So if you “would not like to be with a guy who views women like that”, then you’ve already limited yourself to just 14% of the male population in the Western World. It’s like if a man said he “would not like to be with a woman who views men like that [needing to have a job]” then he’d be limiting himself to very few women in the world (since the vast majority of women will never date a man who doesn’t have a job, especially over the age of 22).

      I’m not really sure why you said “not everyone is lucky enough to meet their significant other in their teens and stay with them forever” as the vast majority of people are too young when they are teens to find a “soul mate” to begin with. Maybe most women would love that since women’s romantic fantasies start pretty young but most men definitely aren’t looking to find their “soul mate” while still in high school.

      Furthermore, you don’t *have to* have sex with every “potential mate” out there. That’s the discretion and good judge of character that most men are looking for in women, when they are actually looking for long-term “potential mates” out there. (whore vs. non-whore)

      Also, when you’re in a committed relationship with someone – especially a marriage – it’s not just “their business” what they do. When you guys are partners, a lot of the “me” and “I” stuff becomes “we” and “ours”. So a lot of “my” business becomes “our business”. If he has sex with different women every week, that’s very much your business for a multitude of reasons – are any of these women going to turn out to be psycho ex-girlfriends? Will they feel slighted by his “player” lifestyle and want some form of revenge? Will they take it out on you for being the one he finally chose to commit to (and not them)? Did he use protection for all of that casual sex? Did he get any STDs from all of that casual sex? Can any of those women show up on your door claiming to be pregnant with his kid? So as you can see, if you two are committed partners then that stuff does become your business and not just his.

      Delete
    24. And why is it that you accept that you wouldn’t want a very promiscuous guy because you “would worry he might not take relationships seriously and may be chatting up other women behind my back” yet not accept that most men don’t want a very promiscuous girl because they “would worry she might not take relationships seriously and may be chatting up other men behind their back”? (Yes, that is very hypocritical, since you asked.) The fact that you wouldn’t apply the term “man-whore” has nothing to do with the substance and context of the scenario. That’s just superficial semantics. Using the word or not doesn’t change the inner thoughts and feelings about the situation.

      It seems to me that if you were more “just honest and accepting of the fact that we all have preferences and everyone has a right to do what they want, but we don’t all have to like ‘everyone’ and have the right to have preferences” then you wouldn’t have written the post about “slut-shaming is stupid” to begin with. The reason I say that, is because your post wasn’t to sluts and telling them to stop caring about what other people think; but rather your post was about how everyone else should give up their own preferences and views of “sluts” in general, because you personally don’t agree or like that they have these preferences – even though you share some of these same preferences yourself.

      Don’t ever worry about “going on” because you’re right, I don’t mind at all. Just know that it might take me a bit longer to respond. If you’re taking the time to write it and discuss it, I want to take the appropriate time to read it and respond.

      I don’t think people are as defined by relationships as you seem to think. Labels are everywhere because they help us navigate life. That doesn’t mean that labels are “end-all, be-all, absolutes” that we can never escape or that “limit” us etc. More often than not, labels are just there for explanatory sake. It’s a lot shorter to say “slut” then to say “sexually loose woman who has numerous, casual sexual affairs with little to no discretion”. So someone says a woman is “a slut”, you might say that’s “too limiting”; yet if someone said that a woman is “sexually loose and has numerous, casual sexual affairs with little to no discretion”, you’d probably just see that more as an explanation or observation and less of a “limiting definition”. Labels only have as much weight as you personally put on them. The amount of weight you personally put on the label “slut” isn’t going to be exactly the same as the amount of weight that all other people put on it; After all, we’re not all the same and we all have different opinions and perspectives etc. The label of “slut”, is more so that we all know what each other is talking about. The positive and/or negative connotations put on by ourselves (or by society) doesn’t always correlate with the denotations – and sometimes changes with changing times and changes in society’s standards and attitudes etc.

      The real question is why does it bother you that we have a word for what a “slut” is; Or why do you want everyone to have the same connotation with it as you do?

      Labelling a person a “slut” is NOT **defining them by the amount of sex they have** and that’s a very extreme way for you to look at it. The reality is that “labelling” or acknowledging them as a “slut” is more about acknowledging or noting the amount of sex/partners they have, which doesn’t have to have anything to do with completely “defining” them. The equivalent is if I told you a story about something that happened with me and a waitress and you started trying to tell me that I was “limiting her as a person by defining her as a ‘waitress’ or making the acknowledgement that she’s a ‘female’”. That’s very extremist and emotional.

      Delete
    25. “If 'slut' became a neutral word as opposed to a pejorative then it wouldn't matter” TO YOU. So basically, are you saying that everyone else should think and speak exactly like you do? Or that everyone has to like everything else exactly as much as you do? That everyone else has to approve and disprove of the same exact things as you?

      And does this mean you are trying to condemn all pejoratives? Because in that case, you may want to go back and delete some of your posts – including the “slut shaming is stupid” one as the entire post is your own personal pejorative…

      If you don’t agree then in all honesty, you’re disagreeing with historical facts. Even Feminists admit that they encouraged “loose sex” to “liberate” women and that is one of the main tenants that defines the “Sexual Revolution” in America. Most academic papers (left-wing, right-wing, independent, pro-Feminists, anti-Feminists and everything in between) also admit this. You’re actually the 1st and only person I’ve **ever** encountered who ever tried to claim that the Sexual Revolution “didn’t” encourage women into having “more” loose sex. So I’d love to know where you got this idea from.

      And I have no idea what your connection with this to Trump is?

      As far as sexual promiscuity being a sign of abnormality, that’s true for women in general but not really for men. It’s quite normal for men to only care about the pleasure and not need emotion but for women, it’s very abnormal and often a sign of a bigger issue (such as a traumatic sexual event in their past like rape or sexual abuse, or as you mentioned, psychopathy or even sociopathy). That’s also why “nymphomaniac” is a term for women who have an excessive sexual desire and not for men; as it’s abnormal for women and not abnormal for men. (Again, going back to those very real and very underrated gender differences.)

      I think you misremembered what I said (it was a long time ago) about being “virgin shamed in high school”. I said that my mother (who is undoubtedly a “slut”, by most or maybe even all men’s perspectives) was the one who virgin-shamed me. I remember specifically telling you that I wasn’t bullied by other girls in school but instead, I was bullied by my mother and “step-mother” (dad’s long-time ex girlfriend) and my half-sisters. And as far as the reason as to WHY my mother “virgin-shamed” me was because she didn’t have my best interests at heart and she was jealous - and yes, it was very pathetic especially since she’s the one who chose to have me and not the other way around (and to your earlier point, she IS a sociopath as well).

      As I’ve said many times before, the reason it matters is because of what it says. You keep looking at the surface of it when you look it at it from others’ point of view but when you looked at it from your own personal point of view, you saw the deeper connections and concepts in it (“I would worry he might not take relationships seriously and may be chatting up other women behind my back”).

      Also, to YOU the terms 'bachelor' or 'wife’ might be used neutrally but that’s not true for everyone else. The most obvious example here is Feminists and how they use “wife” with negative connotations that usually equate with “house slave”. So basically, it seems that you are upset that other people aren’t using the terms the same way – or with the same connotations – that you personally do (in this case, the term “slut”).

      The world isn’t always going to match your feelings and opinions and you might not always agree with “popular” opinions or even unpleasant facts. You don’t have to agree (or disagree) with any of the connotations of “virgin” or “slut” etc. – whether positive or negative. Maybe you should ask yourself why you personally care so much about the way other people perceive “slut” or “virgin” etc.? And why you personally put so much weight on these terms and whether or not other people are actually putting the same amount of weight on these terms as you do?

      Delete
    26. Why do you care so much to change all men’s minds about virgins vs. whores? Why do you care so much about other people’s sex lives, that you want all people to have more similar sex lives to each other and therefore less of a “gap” between “virgins” and “whores”? Why do you care so much about what other people think and want for their own sex lives? Why do you want everyone else to think and feel about sex, romance and relationships, exactly the same way that you do? And why do you think that would “help” other people to abandon their own morals in place of yours?

      As far as how good “first time sex” is or can be, most women say it is better when with someone they really care about and it does hurt less because they’re less tense during it etc.

      In addition, many young women (especially in high school and college) will often lie about their first time when they don’t want to admit that they “screwed” up in some way. I watched my own best friend cry her heart out after she came home from losing her virginity the first time. (We were actually living together at the time and we were close “like sisters” for a few years.) In private to me, she admitted a lot more negative things about that situation and her feelings about it, than she would to other friends who weren’t as close. It is a very personal thing to most females – even ones who might not always admit it.

      It is definitely a sad thing when girls sleep with guys for the first time who don’t really care about them, but that’s why I try to help women by not lying about it or underplaying it etc., as that often only makes it worse. Too often, women will take a bad experience with a guy and then let it lower all of their expectations about men, sex and romance going forward – which is the quickest path to making things worse and letting “bad” choices accumulate. It’s also a big reason why more women should get better at discerning “players/bad boys” vs. the “nice guys”. I would never tell women not to protect themselves by discerning between the two and likewise, I would never tell men not to protect themselves by discerning between “whores/sluts” vs. “non-whores/madonnas”.

      Delete
    27. You gave me a lot to think about here so I basically responded with another post.
      http://www.thezarinamachablog.co.uk/2017/08/slut-shaming-part-2.html

      Quickly addressing the Trump thing: that was just an example (albeit lame) of how you can have neutral views on something. Like some people view being a slut as empowering, some view it as bad, I view it from a neutral standpoint. Some view Trump as a dickhead, others as great, I view him from a neutral standpoint. It was just a unrelated comparison, not really relevant.

      Delete
    28. Ok, I'll read that as soon as I can. Before moving onto that though, there is 1 thing that you mentioned before that I didn't get to address.

      You said something about men wanting a "whore" and "non-whore" in the same person and how that wasn't possible or something to that effect. (Forgive my memory of the exact line and wording.)

      Ironically enough, this was best stated in the hip-hop song, "Yeah!" by Usher, where there is a line that says:

      "we want a lady in the street but a freak in the bed"

      This is the best way to show what it means to them. When they're out in public, they want a "lady" that they can be proud of and won't embarrass them but make them proud instead. However, in private, when they are alone just the 2 of them, they would like a woman who "lets loose" with JUST them - making it more special to them because it's only for them, rather than being for everybody else.

      Delete
    29. I think that's exactly what I said; I remember mentioning that men generally want a 'lady in the street and a freak in the bed.' (I really like that song too). Probably when I said 'that wasn't possible' I probably meant that saying women are either whores or non-whores is too polarised and most are something inbetween - hence the term 'lady in streets freak in the sheets.' If that wasn't made clear then sorry about that. That makes the most sense, like in public because of 'social etiquette' you want people to behave in a certain way, and then in private people can do what they like.

      Delete
    30. Moreover, the purpose of this article (the one that followed is better and more thought out) is not about 'wanting people to have similar sex lives to each other.' I did state in this post that what people do with their bodies is their business. I don't particularly care how much or little sex people have. The point is that I don't think it's fair to look down on a woman just because she enjoys casual sex. A person who chooses to wait until marriage is not 'frowned upon' because people associate that with morality. I associate it with personal choice and preference. I can understand a person wanting to wait for 'the one' as it shows they may view sex as special and sacred and want it to be with one person they love, which is a nice thing. But I don't think it makes you a 'better' person, and I don't think having a lot of casual sex makes you a bad person. Sexist attitudes towards women's sexuality (mainly stemming from Christianity, as Britain was founded on Judeo-Christian values) want to keep women's sexuality 'in a box' and shame women for having lots of sex. Even non-sexual related things like how a woman dresses or what make-up she wears can get her 'slut-shamed' and I don't think that's healthy or fair at all. Nothing to do with making people 'think like me,' although I suppose to a degree when we post an opinion we want people to try and see our point of view.

      Delete
    31. I don't think it was "exactly" but definitely pretty close. (I don't really like that song, I find it very annoying but the line was super relevant to this conversation.) The dynamic that speaks to has nothing to do with women being inbetween a "whore" and "nonwhore" though. A "lady" doesn't mean that she can't get hyper sexual etc. with her husband; Quite on the contrary, a "lady" just ONLY gets that way with her husband or committed boyfriend - as opposed to the "whore" who gets that way with any man, indiscriminately. IE: A man doesn't want you to flirt with his friends too, he only wants you to flirt with him. But yes, it does speak to the 'social etiquette' thing, as "whores" in these terms are usually classless socially.

      Have you ever heard of people doing something like saying "With all due respect" but then immediately saying something completely disrespectful, nullifying the "With all due respect" line? That's the same effect here. You say "what people do with their bodies is their business" but then your entire post is telling them how they should think/feel/react to what people do in their own business. So it's very contradictory.

      You're looking at this from only 1 side and assuming it is the right side but in reality, you're just doing what you're complaining about yet from the opposite side. If you really didn't care what other people did with their bodies like you say in your posts, then you wouldn't post about this subject to begin with. You know what I mean? You may be focusing more on the reaction to what people do with their bodies rather than the action they're taking, but it's still caring a lot about that subject in general.

      Slut-shaming and waiting for marriage has nothing to do with being a better person or bad person (why do you keep going to that?); but it does have to do with being a better candidate for marriage, as far as men are concerned.

      You keep confusing quantity with quality. Slut-shaming has NOTHING to do with shaming women for having lots of sex. If a woman is having sex with her husband every single day, no one is calling her a slut for that. Slut-shaming has to do with sex with a lot of partners.

      The way a woman dresses and does her make-up isn't always related to sex but it often can be. Plenty of women choose clothes that are literally made in a way to help make men sexually excited (i.e. miniskirts) and there are plenty of "seductive" ways of doing your makeup (i.e. red lipstick makes men think of blowjobs). If you dress in a slutty way then you shouldn't be upset that people point that out - especially if no one else picked out your clothes for you. That's like getting mad if your clothes are really tacky and someone points that out. I think it's as fair as can possibly be, because it's only rating you on your CHOICES - something you have complete control over (not something you were born with, etc.).

      Delete
    32. I'm going to stop responding to this thread now and let you (in your own time) take a look at the other longer post I wrote about slut shaming :)

      Delete
    33. Ok. I'll read it as soon as I get sufficient time to do so.

      Delete
  4. I'm not saying you are sexist or hypocritical but I think the argument of slut-shaming itself is often sexist and/or hypocritical.

    I've explained it to you in other posts but it goes to gender differences. You'll have to ask *women* why they prefer men who are sexually experienced etc.

    "My main point is that people should just do what they want as long as they take precautions and don't harm others."

    I agree but this has nothing to do with slut-shaming.

    The "woman making more money then a man" is not generational, it's evolution. Men have always been the providers and they feel a sense of "reward" and "usefulness" by being able to do that. When the woman is the provider instead, it often leads to suicide or drug problems etc. because they feel emasculated, like they're not good enough to provide. It's sort of like when a woman is less attractive than her man, she tends to feel worse about it than he would if she were the more attractive partner. It just goes back to evolution. We started off less dimorphic and became more that way over thousands of years through evolution so it's very ingrained in our DNA.

    ReplyDelete