Sympathy for the Slut

Remove all ads!

We're

I think the reason why *some* men prefer virgins is simply insecurity. Not being quite sure if they cut it in bed, and by being with a woman who has no previous experience, they pretty much eliminate the risk of her understanding that they're bad, if they really are.

As for women, as well as men, I think 2 applies. Our values have in some ways not aged well, and in a medieval society with no birth control or way to control diseases, it was just a very bad thing to have anyone sleeping around. However, men were in absolute power, so of course what happened was that the entire responsibility was put upon women.

Unfortunately our values and ideas of right and wrong haven't evolved quite as fast as our society, and I guess this is a good example of that.

Edit: Actually, xaelifer, I think the one unacceptable thing in your post is this:

Apart from that, it's all your opinions, I agree with some, I disagree with most of them. But this is wrong, because of that one word, "female". To think that our society is overly obsessed with sexuality is no mistake, but when you actually blame women for this, you're way out of bounds.

[This message has been edited by idoru (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

Well, to answer the question of why women snub those who are known to be promiscuous I'll refer to many disscussion I have had with varied groups of fellow gals. The general consensus is that overall women fear that when a man loses respect for one woman, he loses respect for all. Too many times I have seen this proven to be true. And, as often as men jibe about liking loose girls(granted, these are generalizations, not every individual is represented here), the guy will treat her as an object, not a person, and certainly not with respect. Now why? A combination of society, religion, and the general insecurity of people in general is what I believe. These things are hard to prove one way or the other, since the human factor is involved here.
But, to put a bit of my personal life out for view as proof. When my now ex husband took a mistress, everyone whispered that I must have been doing something wrong to *make* him do so. but, after the divorce papers were filed (by him), I did get involved with someone else as well, and slut was the nicest thing I was called. So the double standard is there, and in full force in my case. I was blamed for infidelity, he was not, even though he strayed first. And he wonders why I'm bitter.

 

First of all as usual Shralp you crack me up. But that doesn't mean I don't agree with you.

Second. A slut---really is someone who not only takes sex litely, meaning they will have it with anyone, anywhere, anytime, but is also someone who usually holds little regard for herself or her partners. Mostly a repeat of what Shralp had said.

Most women I know don't mind if a woman flaunts her sexuality, and of course neither do men. But it is usually the WAY the woman goes about flaunting her sexuality and the reason behind her doing so. It is either simply for attention---to get people to notice her or be attracted to her where they would otherwise not be. Or it is because she wasn't taught any better or had been sexually mistreated in the past.

Sexuality is wonderful, when demonstrated and used with respect and understanding.

For instance---when women go around letting their boobs and butt hang out of their outfits where not only children and other people do not want to see---usually accompanied by an absured amount of make-up---all in the name of getting noticed. The first person who notices is the first person into her bed and so on. No matter whether she is attracted to him or not and whether she cares about him or not. And whom usually thinks that her body is the way to get herself thru society---every aspect of society even. These type of women are slutty.

On the other hand---when a women wears an outfit that accentuates her boobs, her butt, her thights, her neck, ect... A peak of cleavage even. Enough make-up to highlight her looks that she already has. Is at least somewhat picky about whom she takes to bed (i.e. is attracted to them, enjoys having them around as a friend, a lover or both, and treats them with a certain amount of respect) As well as treats herself with a certain amount of respect--who understand that brains are sexy too and important and that their bodies are not a weapon or a tool---is known as a WOMAN!

You see it is not about the sexuality---it is how it is used. And mark my words----even most men are wise enough to stay away from a slut---they usually come with emotional and sometimes sexual bagage.

 

Well put. I agree.

 

Well, now that that's settled.

SOMEONE BRING ME A SLUT!

 

You could ask Shadow to give you Mellissas number. She's probably too young for you though.

 

Hah... Correction: Melissa is a wannabe-slut. And I don't want to talk about her.

Go Satiana

 

No, no, no, idoru - I'm not blaming anyone - or, at least, I haven't yet...

Your capsized quote of mine:
"Let me inform you that the more brainless, loveless, purposeless female sexuality there is..."

means this: "The more women (men also, but aren't we mostly speaking of women here?) who find themselves given to lust through means of unsure, and sometimes harmful, prevention of natural birth and afterwards abortion or adoption, the more there's going to be hitting the fan. I wasn't 'blaming' women in general - I feel that it's a girl's fault if she goes prancing 'round the maypole rutting like a dog in heat and gets a few lives ruined for her own ridiculous lusty satisfaction. 'Female' I used as an adjective because we're talking about women, which are the opposite of men. Most of the time. I had a gym teacher once...oh, nevermind...

If I were to blame anyone for the obsession of sex in our wondrous America, it would have to be the ingenious marketers, who, although they're genderless, manage to satisfy their greed by satisfying young lust. Or striking the flame of young lust, tantalizing it, and taking the money for nothing - leaving the lust to wreak havoc upon the land (like the Undead in Warcraft 3 woooohoooo!).

Sex Appeal marketing is targetted at young, gullible, randy teenage males - which transforms young, gullible, randy teenage females into practical sex appeal advertisements, because the market, or at least the method of economy, defines how most people live their lives here in America, believe it or not.

Upon seeing some voluptuous young model drinking Pepsi or Britney Spears half naked a-singin' "Hit me baby one more time!", young gullible people think, what should I do? Wow - look how fun it is to wave my butt when I walk! Oohooo I'd really like to wear that with lots of guys watching! I better be anorexic. No, bulemic. Yeah. Look I'm Britney. Aren't I cool. Look at the midriff of society. So sexy and cool and unaware of everything else.

Fortunately for the responses to this reply, I'm NOT blaming this on the gullible teens. The best time to teach an intelligent dog to roll over is when it's young, and mentally undeveloped. Or unexperienced, I should say. I'm blaming this on those so greedy and careless that they would tamper with the health of a world by getting all the girls hyped up about sensual appeal and NOTHING else, like stuff that would possibly help the condition of the world instead of...corrupt teen minds for money. There's my blame. (inhaaaaaaaaaaale) So who's against me?

 

List of indecipherable phrases:

Satisfying young lust would mean having sex with them. Only the most able of genderless marketers is able to sleep with a majority of a given demographic.

Lust wreaks havoc on the land? Is someone growing blow-up dolls on a farm here? And I think you mean "stoking the flame."

As opposed to all of those totally aware midriffs?

Sometimes you're dead on with your poetic license. But mostly you need an editor.

 

"Sexuality is wonderful, when demonstrated and used with respect and understanding."

Very true. Unfortunately, even when a promiscuous woman acts in that manner, she is often not treated in kind by others. For example, I have two female friends from a few years back. Both are very intelligent, respectful and decent, hard working people. Both were also quite promiscuous. They were young, attractive women (in different ways). And they often dressed in a manner that both accentuated and displayed their attractiveness.

The first, lets call her 'Mary', was open and honest about her sexual behaviour. While she did not flaunt it, it was generally known, and she did not hide it. Though of course, Mary did not like to be cast as a 'slut' in any derogatory sense. The second, 'Jane', was not so open and honest about it. She didn't necessarily deny her relationships, but denied being referred to as 'promiscuous', let along anyone inferring that she might be 'lose' or 'easy'.

While Jane and Mary were casual friends, Jane was often quick to consider Mary a slut, while defending her own behaviours. A large number of other women among this group of friends also (quietly) considered Mary a slut. But not so much Jane. However, the guys in the group had a slightly different take on it. Most had absolutely no problem whatsoever with Mary's sexual behaviour, and it did not hinder their respect for her at all. Jane's behviour, however, was not held in such high regard by the guys. No, this was not a result of 'unequal' favours handed out

From our (the guy's) perspective, the difference was in how Mary and Jane displayed their sexuality. While Mary was honest about it, Jane was much less so. If you became involved with Mary, you knew what to expect, and she made sure of it. Jane was not so forth coming. Many guys had to 'discover' her promiscuous behaviour. The difference was that if you became involved with Mary, you knew it was casual, with no strings attached. Many people had become involved with Jane, thinking it was not casual (and Jane initially treating it as not casual) only to have Jane suddenly reverse her position (ie, this once 'serious' relationship is now 'casual'). As a result, more guys were 'hurt' or at least insulted by Jane's behaviour than by Mary's. Now this was all well-known, and yet, most of the girl's in the group held Jane in higher regard than Mary, whom they considered a 'slut'. I'm still perplexed as to why. It would seem that, while Mary was open, honest and respectful, Jane was the opposite. And yet it was Jane the women respected above Mary.




[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 10, 2002).]

 

Uh, among my circle of guy friends, we would certainly not have held Mary in higher regard. Jane, at least, had enough shame to try to keep quiet how many trips she'd taken on the bone pony.

 

Shralp, I didn't say that Mary 'flaunted' her sexual behaviour. She was just honest about it. If someone outside of this group of friends got involved with Mary, she would be forthright about her past, and her intentions, with that person. Jane was not forthright, and often misled people she was involved with, resulting in people getting hurt.

 

"the ingenious marketers, who, although they're genderless, manage to satisfy their greed by satisfying young lust."

I didn't mean sleeping with them, I meant satisfying young lust through advertisements and products which careen through lust's benefits. I said 'genderless' because it takes a soul to have a gender, I think.

"Or striking the flame of young lust, tantalizing it, and taking the money for nothing - leaving the lust to wreak havoc upon the land"

What I'm saying is that the marketers tantalize with sex appeal, and that gets all the girls in the mood and so they go out and rut like dogs in heat, thus the Four Horsemen take over the world and run it like...mmm...like...how horsemen run things...

"Look at the midriff of society. So sexy and cool and unaware of everything else."

Oh, certainly you'd agree that any statement like that, however obvious, is necessary against assumptions?

 

I dont see what all the fuss is about in general... i couldnt care less if someone was a slut, easy, tight, boring, frosty (or any other word that you might use)... its not exactly important, they might be nice people when you get to know them...

The same goes for sexual partner... I couldn't care less if my partner was a virgin or not, although saying all of this, I don't really care about much.
.
..
...
..
.
pr0n

 

Just when I thought this topic was getting boring with all the begging of the question -- and just when, from this and other topics, I was beginning to think shralp's pedantic other brother had commandeered his computer...

Shralp cracks me up, and Gnolyn raises an interesting point. I bet Xaelifer has never felt so understood.

But shame on *you*, shralp: "Jane, at least, had enough shame to try to keep quiet how many trips she'd taken on the bone pony." For what, exactly, should Jane be ashamed? You at least have the wit to pity rather than blame people who use sex as a drug -- not that we have enough information to know that such was the case. *Shame*, shralp? Shame from which the bone ponies themselves are exempted?

Tell me, whom do you despise more -- the drug addict or the drug dealer? When sex is the drug that people use to assuage their insecurity, they need a partner -- so is *he* a dupe? Or an opportunist? Or just irrelevant to our campaign against female sexuality.

Gnolyn laid it out beautifully, I thought. I bet that most of this pious cant about self-respect and transcendental sex is nothing more than fear of uppity women. After all, who is anyone to say that our Mary isn't having this marvelous and sacred sharing experience founded on mutual respect... every night of her life? Why shouldn't she? She's happy, Jane isn't.

 

I believe Satiana has the point of female perspective here, but I shall give you a few opinions.

Womewn are, to an extent, being pressurized to have sex earlier than guys. How many times you see a 20-year old girl dating a 16-year old guy? But if the ages are reversed it isn't that odd. I can honestly say that I have been pitied in the past for being a 14-year old virgin. If girls learn while growing up from the media that girls are only then attractive to guys when they wear miniskirts and bare their middrift from age twelve, but also at the same time to be ashamed of the fact that yes, they too get horny to be crude (Sorry, Tal!)their self-image becomes, well, twisted.
I believe that flaunting one's sexuality in the dressing-like-a-hooker type of way is a sign of low self-esteem. If one has to reassure themselves of their worth with the amount of males staring at their butt while they walk past, there has to be someething wrong with them.

Also, among the teenage´population, if a girl doesn't look like Britney Spears clone, most guys see them as unworthy of their attentions. (I know I am being extreme here...) I have seen this happen again and again...

I know I don't make that muxh sense but I am not exactly at my best, seeing as my head is killing me.

Ara
(I hate my brain)

 

Well said Sniper, fully agree with that. Both should be equal. Also, as a male, I dislike the girls that are "easy". It is far better IMO to give yourself fully to one person. The thought that she has loved someone else intimately first is not easy on emotions. Of course, this does work both ways. Dislike the men that run around with a lot of women too.

 

well i am new to these forums but i am not a newbie and now that that is out of the way here goes. i was reading some of these posts and i am somewhat apalled and shocked. first of all to one arguement made about male insecurity. yo know what your right we are pretty damn insecure ( and i don't speak for all of us but... ) the biggest fear a guy can have is losing a girl he's really begining to care about. to those bombing marriage practices it has nothing to do with female submision or the dominance of the male role in societies around the world (that is a throw back to pre recorded history by the way) it does have to do with providing a stable loving and carring home for children. thats what marriage has always been about to protect the children. and yes it also protects against other things like disease and things morrally wrong. (although morals and religion differ) the practice of marriage is not an integral part of religion but it is often tied because they go hand and hand. to those who would say that religion is a bad thing you only say that either because you are not part of the religion or because it has somehow been forced on you in a harmful way which is a consequence of human imperfection not an inherent flaw in religion as a whole the ideal is still pure. as to "sluts" a man will if he is young and foolish often use these unfortunate females for pleasure but no man would ever want a trully promiscuous girl (noting the difference between this and the wearing of sexually enticing or explicit clothing). the reason is that believe it or not men want faithfulness and manogomy just as much as most women claim to and some one who is not sexually trustworthy would make him feel insecure. sex is a good thing i enjoy it imensly. its even ok for men and women to be open and frank about their sexuality but being unfaithful is the worst thing possible one because if there are children involved its not fair to them and two the emotional bond created in physical love is a very powerful thing it feels great untill broken and then it hurts worse than god knows... so someone who is either corrupt or emotionally distraught (which are the two things that tend to cause "sluttiness" either a morrally lacking person or someone who is basing their self worth off of sex) (ussually the second ) fors these one way bonds and then brakes them hurting the person that they have been "easy" with. (also let me clarify that i refer not only to girls but to men as well). finally there is a bit of a double standard and i don't condone that but we are getting better the circle in which the big "cool" (aka idiotic uneducated jerk) guy runs around banging people is growing smaller and if a man bound by marriage or even by a love relationship is caught being unfaithful they are persecuted no end. i for one am a relatively young male who claims no wisdom through age but i have a beautiful loving fiance who is perfect in my eyes and the thought of another woman in any capasity other than a fellow human being is sickening to me and the only thing that has ever trully scared me in my life to this point is losing her and the easiest method of losing some one is to unfaithfulness in a relationship but because i love her and trust her implicitly i do not worry and marriage reduces those fears further.one last thing other than the britney spears statement i agree with arabwel completely! i am done my ramblings.

a good day to you worthy reader and cheers!

[Welcome but, aaargh, make paragraphs! Such huge chunks of text are a pain to look on, let alone read.] -Tal

[This message has been edited by Lord Brett (edited July 11, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Taluntain (edited July 11, 2002).]

 

Well then,

I can't help but wonder if Mary is truely happy, and what it is that Jane is thinking by continuing her sexual tyraids.

It has been my experience that those who have random sex with "no strings" attached end up feeling lonely and self loathing in the end. Unless of course everyman she is with not only fills some kind of void, but makes her feel good about herself as well.

What eventually happens is that those who are exeptionally experienced do to their many sexual exploits are unwanted by those who chose to be less so. And those who have chosen to be less so end up with someone who like them were picky about their partners.

The funny thing is, is that for those guys who are exeptionally experienced get a break most of the time and end up eventually with a female who chose to only have sex with those they cared about and were in a relationship with.

So now, both the exeptionally experienced men and the not so exeptionally expereienced men, end up with a woman who is the opposite then as I said and was more picky. And the women who chose to be exeptionally experienced are looked on as soiled and unwanted, espeacially once their attractiveness starts to faid.

It's really quite the vicous circle. But, like I said this is in my experience and may not be seen the same in others eyes.

 

I have to say it again and you can believe me: the boys don't really care about the looks of a woman. She doesn't has to wear make-up she doesn't has to look like Britney Spears. You can believe me because i'm old and really ugly, never wearing make-up. My friend is 11 years younger than i am and he is handsome as hell.
The men don't really SEE us they just see want they want to see.
Maybe they want to have sex with Britney, but who wants to marry her??? Think about her cooking for you or think about her without her make-up.
Maybe men in other countries aren't the same. Try german men.
Sorry Britney, your my favorite example.