Slut Shame: Why Do We Still Attack Women for Having Sex?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

http://www.alternet.org/story/150473/slut_shame_why_do_we_still_attack_women_for_having_sex?page=entire

AlterNet / By Rachel Kramer Bussel
Slut Shame: Why Do We Still Attack Women for Having Sex?
In 2011, it’s still considered perfectly acceptable to attack women based on their supposed sluttiness.

On January 26, Loren Feldman wrote an open letter to media personality Julia Allison’s father, alleging to her expertise at oral sex and her promiscuity. The post, which has since been removed, is a prime example of the ease with which the accusation of being a slut is still hurled at women as a way to shame and degrade them.

Allison has plenty of company. To name a few, sex bloggers Kendra Halliday, aka The Beautiful Kind, who lost her job when a technical glitch outed her real name, and Lena Chen, who found herself paired with the Gawker headline "Worst Overshare Anywhere Ever" after posting a photo of herself after her boyfriend had ejaculated on her face. The Today Show’s Kathie Lee Gifford inspired a Change.org petition after she told Jersey Shore reality star Snooki that she should "value herself more. Don’t give yourself away to just any jerk, okay?" Slut-shaming can happen to anyone⎯well, any woman. Maybe you’ve written about your sex life, or maybe you’ve just been bold enough to express the fact that you don’t want to have kids. Maybe you wore a revealing outfit on a red carpet (see January Jones’ Golden Globes dress) or Tweeted a cleavage photo (Meghan McCain).

Lilit Macus, editor of Crushable.com, wrote an essay for the New York Post about why she didn’t want to have children and was told, basically, that she’s a big ol' slut too. "In the past, most of the comments directed at me had been about selfishness or not doing my ‘duty’ as a woman by having kids, and I think this is because I grew up in a conservative part of the country where most of my peers married and had kids young," says Marcus. "But the responses to the Post article claimed I was a loose woman or that my desire not to have kids meant that I was sleeping around." The assumption that women "owe" our bodies for procreation and that if we use them for pleasure instead (or in addition), we are somehow going against nature is part of the backdrop that encourages this type of thinking. (...)

This issue is tied to our deepest notions about what it means to be a woman, and whether our sexual choices are ours to make freely or not. The through line from Feldman to Walsh is that women who are sexual, or are perceived to be sexual, are somehow going against what’s "right" or "natural." It’s also clearly not just men who are doing the shaming. As Andrea Grimes confesses in "I Was a ‘Pro-Life Republican… Until I Fell in Love," her public bashing of other women wasn’t really about abortion, but lording her virginity over her peers. She writes, "I absolutely loved slut-shaming. Because I was saving myself for marriage–well, oral sex doesn’t really count anyway, does it?–-I knew that I would always be right and virtuous and I would never be a murderer like those sluts. The issue couldn’t possibly be up for real debate, to my mind: either you were a baby-killer slut, or you behaved like a proper Christian woman and only let him get to third base." Clearly, who is a slut is in the mind of the beholder (see Emily White’s excellent Fast Girls for exploration of high school slut-shaming in action) and, more importantly, their decision to use the word is almost always in a way aimed to be insulting, demeaning and denigrating to the woman’s personhood. "Slut" is meant as a way to put women back in their place (with legs firmly closed), and make them ashamed of their perceived promiscuity, as well as make others join in on this shaming. (more at link)

I like the "word-reclaiming" idea she talks about elsewhere in the article.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. K&R from a proudly unrehabilitated sexual woman

Tansy Gold

[Xipe Totec]

2. You Men - by Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz 1651-1695

Silly, you men-so very adept
at wrongly faulting womankind,
not seeing you're alone to blame
for faults you plant in woman's mind.

After you've won by urgent plea
the right to tarnish her good name,
you still expect her to behave—
you, that coaxed her into shame.

You batter her resistance down
and then, all righteousness, proclaim
that feminine frivolity,
not your persistence, is to blame.

When it comes to bravely posturing,
your witlessness must take the prize:
you're the child that makes a bogeyman,
and then recoils in fear and cries.

Presumptuous beyond belief,
you'd have the woman you pursue
be Thais when you're courting her,
Lucretia once she falls to you.

For plain default of common sense,
could any action be so queer
as oneself to cloud the mirror,
then complain that it's not clear?

Whether you're favored or disdained,
nothing can leave you satisfied.
You whimper if you're turned away,
you sneer if you've been gratified.

With you, no woman can hope to score;
whichever way, she's bound to lose;
spurning you, she's ungrateful—
succumbing, you call her lewd.

Your folly is always the same:
you apply a single rule
to the one you accuse of looseness
and the one you brand as cruel.

What happy mean could there be
for the woman who catches your eye,
if, unresponsive, she offends,
yet whose complaisance you decry?

Still, whether it's torment or anger—
and both ways you've yourselves to blame—
God bless the woman who won't have you,
no matter how loud you complain.

It's your persistent entreaties
that change her from timid to bold.
Having made her thereby naughty,
you would have her good as gold.

So where does the greater guilt lie
for a passion that should not be:
with the man who pleads out of baseness
or the woman debased by his plea?

Or which is more to be blamed—
though both will have cause for chagrin:
the woman who sins for money
or the man who pays money to sin?

So why are you men all so stunned
at the thought you're all guilty alike?
Either like them for what you've made them
or make of them what you can like.

If you'd give up pursuing them,
you'd discover, without a doubt,
you've a stronger case to make
against those who seek you out.

I well know what powerful arms
you wield in pressing for evil:
your arrogance is allied
with the world, the flesh, and the devil!

http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/24888-Sor-Juana-Ines-de-la-Cruz-You-Men

[Withywindle]

13. I like this poem, but...

After you've won by urgent plea
the right to tarnish her good name,
you still expect her to behave—
you, that coaxed her into shame.



I think, nearly 400 years after this VERY progressive-for-its-time poem--which is still all too much about the male seducer/female seducee pattern--we should ALSO stop shaming the women who don't need any seducing to go after what we want...when what we want is sex.

[Xipe Totec]

17. Consider her position as a nun in the Spanish society of the XVII th century

What limited options she had, how much she did with them.

She who corresponded with Newton on physics, and wrote some of the most passionate love poems of her time.

She makes the case that women want sex too, so love them and be glad, or spurn them and be offended, but don't love them and then blame them.

More on Sor Juana:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sor-Juana-Festival-Fan-Page/325200562018

[Withywindle]

19. Believe me, I know who Sor Juana was.

I've read and loved her poems for years and read extensively about her life. I can only imagine what odds she had to overcome in her society.


I would think that she would probably want, 400 years down the line, for that particular poem to be no longer relevant to the way sexuality is perceived. At the time, even calling out the seducer (always assumed to be male) as just as guilty as his "victim" (always assumed to be female) would have been radical, and I love her for doing it.

But the point in this thread is, it shouldn't be about a sexual paradigm where one gender is presumed to be the seducer and the other to be the seducee.

It's about WILLINGLY, KNOWINGLY sexually active women still being treated as trash, when there is absolutely no reason to do so except that they've had sex, like sex, and like to talk about sex.

[Xipe Totec]

25. But that's exactly how her poem reads to me

Men blaming women for being just like men (i. e., having sexual desires).

To me it says:

Make up your mind; do you want a sex partner, or don't you?

If you want sex, here I am, now shut up.

If you don't want sex, don't ask, go away.

It's not about seducer/seducee; it's about initiator/respondent

I have been fortunate. I have loved, and have been loved. Very seldom have I been the initiator. Often I've been the respondent. Never have I been anything other than pleased and grateful.

Then again, those who are in my position, seldom if ever talk about it :evilgrin:

[meow2u3]

49. She was definitely born about 400 years too soon

She should have been born in 1951, not 1651! Or more so, she sounds like me, if I were 400 years old. :)

These sexist double standards have to end once and for all. If men won't stop calling women sluts for enjoying sex, men ought to be shamed and ostracized, instead of being praised and exalted, when they sleep around, too. They did the exact same thing and should be judged by the exact same standard.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Personally, I prefer a single standard of self-control, but that's my opinion.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I call it the legacy of Eve...

She led Adam astray, or so the story tells it.

And women bought it.

It is a real shame.

Recommended.

[TahitiNut]

7. Yup. And the serpent who led her astray was only 6" long, not ...

... the 8" or 9" that he led her to believe.


:dunce:

[midnight]

74. O god that is too funny..... In all the years of the snake story never heard it put better...

[TahitiNut]

78. .

:evilgrin:

[blueamy66]

109. like

and I'm stealing!!

[TahitiNut]

114. thanks

It's a product of my "fertile imagination" ... where "fertile" is a result of too much bullshit, of course.

:dunce:

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. k&r

[provis99]

5. I wonder though;

Who more often calls women sluts: men, or other women?
I can't figure out men calling a women a slut, when she gets that way by having sex with men. What do they want, no sex from women?

[leftstreet]

6. I rarely hear other guys use that term

Women tend to though

weird

[TahitiNut]

8. Precisely.

Go figure. :shrug:

[blueamy66]

45. No, men use the "C" word

I've heard it in bar talk.

Disgusting.

[vssmith]

60. Bill Maher recently used the "T" word

[Beacool]

90. Just as reprehensible.

Or are we supposed to ignore it just because it was directed at a conservative woman?

;(

[unc70]

77. Use of "C" word, like the "D", is more like "AH". Not really about sex

How words are used and their exact meanings vary greatly depending when, where, and by whom. I think the great majority of the uses of "C" are with a similar meaning to that of "D" of "AH" in the same context.

"(S)he is such a ????." using "C", "D", or "AH" are all strongly negative, but rarely imply anything about sexual activity, but a lot about their behavior in general. Not really the same as "slut".

"B" is different, almost never related to sexual activity, and is about someone always complaining, bitching about things, difficult to be around in social or other settings. "B" (meaning complain) is a different, unrelated word to "B" (female dog), although they are now spelled and usually pronounced the same, and is related linguistically to words like bicker.

A third meaning (or word) "B" as a whore, a degraded submissive, etc. was used early on by pimps for "their" women, then becoming more general street slang, and being used for subs of either sex ("make him/her your 'B'"). With this meaning, there is probably some influence from things like "treated her like a dog", etc.

No matter the meaning, calling a woman any of these names in most bars would not be a good idea. A good way to get yourself a severe beating, particularly if heard by her boyfriend, relative, friend, or even a complete stranger. Most men quickly learn the danger, though alcohol makes some forget.

Women routinely say things in bars and elsewhere that said by a man would likely be dangerous, and rarely are the women aware how different the rules. After saying something stupid yourself, the next easiest way to get your --- beat in a bar is for a woman somehow associated with you to say something stupid, and it happens more often than one might think. Some women seem accidentally or deliberately to encourage a fight among the men; I try to avoid such women.

BTW Women are much more judgmental of other women than are men, more likely to stir up trouble with "couples", more likely to initiate "stealing" of boyfriends or mates. Why? Because that behavior by a man has serious risks of a response by the other man or men, but has relatively little benefit for him with this woman or any others. And while their mothers told young women not to have sex because "men talked", few men actually talked (we mostly don't talk, don't share) and the ones who did we knew were mostly lying about it. A guy sexually active with his girlfriend knew it would be stopped if it became known, and again had big consequences. The same seemed true for only a minority of young women. At least when I was growing up during the dark ages.

[blueamy66]

108. Well, I have never used the "C" word.

I cannot stand it and would never call anyone that name.

And let me tell you.....I regularly call men out at bars who are talking shit. It's amazing how quickly they apologize and stop the talk. I'm 6" tall and blonde and for some reason, must be intimidating. Or the men just know that they are being assholes and shut the hell up.

I'm too old and too experienced to worry about what someone might think of my behavior. If you're gonna talk trash about ANYBODY, do it somewhere private and not where someone else might hear you.

[Beacool]

89. I HATE that word!!!!

I think that it's one of the worst things to call a woman.

x(

[janet118]

95. There is something more repulsive about that word than the others

It implies that you are a "thing" - a body part without any humanity. There is an ugliness about it that has no match for anything you can call a man.

My friend and I tried to think of a word that would demean a man in the same way. We couldn't do it.

[blondeatlast]

85. I have heard from men who enjoyed time with the women they called "sluts."

Frigid if she doesn't, slut if she does.

we can't win.

[socialist_n_TN]

124. Don't put us all in the same boat.........

As I said in an earlier post, I've used the word slut before, but I've NEVER used it as a perjorative. ALL of my longer term sexual partners were women and they were all at LEAST as sexually experienced as I was. I use it as a term of endearment.

Now I HAVE gotten on to other guys before who've enjoyed a woman's sexual favors and then turned around and called them a "freak" after the fact. It actually pisses me off when this happens and I WILL give my opinion on it.

[Liquorice]

9. The type of man who devalues

women and sees them only as sex objects calls women sluts. Women are "sluts" to be used in their minds. The slut is worthless beyond her sexuality, and her sexuality is theirs to use and throw aside because she is just a wothless slut.

[TorchTheWitch]

24. and the ones that won't have sex with them are called bitches

Bitches are equally as worthless as sluts. Hence, men who look at women purely as sexual objects for their personal enjoyment find all women to be worthless.

Women may be more vocal about slut shaming because of the belief that if it were not for those worthless sluts men would see them (the worthwhile women) as being worthwhile. Women have learned through centuries of patriarchy that how they are treated by men is at least partially the fault of women (patriarchy is designed that way to absolve men and allow them to continue to devalue all women). To women, the worthless women are the sluts, but the non-sluts are actually worthwhile people, and it it wasn't for those worthless sluts, men would be able to appreciate the non-slutty worthwhile women. It's the pervasive patriarchy of centuries that makes men believe all women are worthless and blame that on women, and makes women believe that it is the fault of the worthless sluts that men can't or won't see them (the worthwhile women) as worthwhile... just as patriarchy had intended so that men are never the ones to blame and the patriarchy can continue unrecognized.

[Liquorice]

28. Oh yes, the "stuck up bitch" who won't sleep with them.

Men who hate women may even hate the bitch worse than the slut because they believe that she thinks she is better than them. At least the slut knows she is worthless. The stuck up bitch hasn't learned this yet.

Thank you for your interesting perspective. I agree.

[bloom]

54. yes

I think it's funny when men act like it's all women's doing - but women are put in a lose-lose situation

there definitely needs to be some consciousness raising all around.

[blondeatlast]

86. Yes, we're either sluts or bitches; imagine if men faced that kind of judgment about their sexual

enjoyment.

[av8rdave]

125. What I find ironic about this is...

that most women I know (including the so-called "sluts") are far more selective about who they will sleep with than many men I know.

I do believe a double standard still exists.

[Withywindle]

12. I think women slut-shame other women far more than men do.

Just my personal observation/anecdotal evidence, feel free to dismiss. :shrug:


I think it comes from a certain old-school notion of women and sex (which is internalized misogyny, IMO) that taught women from childhood, very agressively, that "good" women only want sex when they're "in love"--and that sex is a commodity that should be hoarded hard and saved to use as currency for "the good stuff" (i.e., commitment, marriage) For example, the whole phrase "give yourself"....I mean, WTF? Like your partner isn't "giving him/herself" too? Only ONE of the partners in a sexual encounter is "giving" something? That's just lousy sex, or maybe rape, if it's true.

So when you boil it down to crude economics, women invested in that belief will harshly judge women who enjoy sex for its own sake and don't necessarily equate it with long-term relationships, because in that scarcity mentality, more sexually outgoing women are "scabs" devaluing the price of their "labor."

Now, in the media, the sexualization of young girls continues and gets worse and earlier all the time. But here's the thing: the idea that a provocatively-dressed young girl is seen as an "object," a "thing," is so pervasive that even some women start to believe that she really IS that. How else to explain the phenomenon of "feminists" dismissing everything strippers and sex workers say just because they ARE strippers and sex workers? How else to explain the backlash FROM WOMEN against female sex bloggers?

It's because we are taught that a female-bodied person can have EITHER a well-used brain or a well-used pussy, but not both. If the latter gets used too much, then obviously the former is irrelevant.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. i agree with you

[Withywindle]

22. Thanks!

:hi:


I made one edit, and it was this: "That's just lousy sex, or maybe rape, if it's true." Because I recognized too late that a lot of women who "give up" sex they don't really want to have, and then feel used later, were actually raped. Which is another evil result of the notion that sex is something that of course ALL men try to get, and ALL (good) women will resist until they feel the "terms" are good.

Rapists get excused for "doing what comes naturally" and rape victims testifying are subjected to vicious grilling for even the slightest evidence that they might have been a "slut"; what did she wear, where did she go, what did she do with previous partners, what music did she like, what did she write about on her blog....and well, if there's a slightest hint that she might be a "slut" than obviously the poor accused rapist can't be blamed. Because women who transgress (very constrained) social boundaries and openly enjoy some sex with some people (her choice) by default have consented to everything, always, forever.

And too many people's response is to try to tell the victims or potential victims (which is most of us) what they should or shouldn't wear, where they should or shouldn't go, what they should or shouldn't write or post or think about.

[dana_b]

57. regarding

"provocatively-dressed young girl is seen as an "object," a "thing," is so pervasive that even some women start to believe that she really IS that. How else to explain the phenomenon of "feminists" dismissing everything strippers and sex workers say just because they ARE strippers and sex workers? How else to explain the backlash FROM WOMEN against female sex bloggers?"

I don't believe that all feminists necessarily dismiss those women (the strippers/sex workers)because they believe that they are actual "things". Perhaps they dismiss them because the strippers/sex workers perpetuate the belief by the nature of their businesses that women are things to be used by men.

However real feminists do need to be more receptive and open to what the strippers/sex workers are saying. Women need to start listening to each other and stop pushing each other away.

[Lorien]

80. Um, a feminist is anyone who believe that women deserve human rights

NOT someone who pits themselves against other women. That's Rush Limbaugh's definition. I'm a feminist and I have a friend who is a stripper. I also used to live with a call girl. Both women are adults and are therefore free to make their own choices. I worried about the escort's safety, but I never judged her negatively for being a sex worker.

[apocalypsehow]

66. I think this post should be its own OP: I haven't thought along these lines before, and I learned

something from it. Really informative and, I think, spot-on.

[Yavin4]

70. +1

Excellent post.

[Matariki]

96. That was a main premise in Warren Farrell's book

Why Men Are the Way They Are. I thought it was a bit over simplified, but he did make some valid points - the point your post makes being one of them.

[tammywammy]

116. Good point n/t

[ceile]

130. +1 n/t

[grahamhgreen]

10. K&R.

[The Doctor.]

11. We're in a deeply conflicted society.

Society has enshrined 'female victimhood' in it's legal system. If a woman makes a claim against a man, it is taken as gospel.

This is the worst thing that could ever have happened to equal rights.

Sure, there are many men who contribute to the 'victimhood' status of women. On behalf of all good men, I would happily bludgeon the male miscreants within a millimeter of their lives for their transgressions. Unfortunately, due to the villiany of the few, good men everywhere are at the mercy of wretched and selfish women.

I believe there is a great deal of backlash, for more reasons than this, against women who are really doing nothing worse than any man.

It is utterly tragic that each 'side' (of which there should be none) is vilified for whatever reason.

I cannot think of a single reason that anyone should be attacked for exploring personal sensuality either individually or with any other consenting adult(s).

No one, male, female, or other should have to answer to any societal scrutiny for their personal and intimate choices where other human adults are concerned.


I'm angry about many things, obviously. In this case, I'm angry about assholes who think women haven't the right to explore their sensual universe among many others.

[Quantess]

23. uh...yeah...women DO get raped, occasionally.

Sorry if that is breaking news alert to you, "Doctor".

[davidthegnome]

26. He wasn't saying otherwise

Rather, he's suggesting that some women perhaps make false claims which hurts everyone. I won't argue for or against that logic and you may take that as you will.

It's really not fair to misrepresent what he said as claiming women don't get raped. They do, we all know they do - and the majority of us (men) would gladly crush those guilty of raping women. He didn't say otherwise... actually... he said this:

"On behalf of all good men, I would happily bludgeon the male miscreants within a millimeter of their lives for their transgressions."

I understand that this may be a sensitive subject for you, but it's still not fair to misrepresent what he had to say.

[Quantess]

31. Hello, and no it is not a sensitive subject for me in any way.

I am so thankful that I have never been raped or sexually abused.
Thanks for the new information.

[Quantess]

33. I suppose I'm wondering why you feel entitled to speak for women.

[davidthegnome]

37. How am I doing that?

I'm confused - is my mere participation in this thread doing so?

I'm not trying to speak for women, or men. Occasionally, I think some of us have way too much zeal and take the gender war way too seriously, but that's just a personal quirk of mine really. I've seen conversations like this reach ridiculous levels of hostility based simply and ultimately on the fact that one is male and one is female.

I consider myself a human being first, just as I try to see all others. I'm certainly not trying to represent anyone or speak for any individual or group in this case, I wouldn't want that much responsibility.

Normally I hesitate to get involved in a thread like this one in any way - as I tend to feel somewhat nervous and out of place when I do so. I try to carefully consider my words and encourage what I think is calm and fair, maybe that's interfering where I shouldn't be.. just, in general, I like to try to discourage anger and hostility. Regardless of that, I tend to inspire it quite frequently. Perhaps I should just talk less.

[Quantess]

38. Oh, that's great. Apology accepted.

Yes, it is good to talk about things, like rape.
Rape is something you never gave a flying fig of importance in your life, ever.

[Hugabear]

61. Are you talking about that particular person, or all men in general?

I'm curious how you know that the person you're responding to "never gave a flying fig of importance, ever" about rape. Do you personally know the person you're responding to? Or are you just assuming that, because he's a male?

[davidthegnome]

65. Initially I was going to ignore this... however...

as you edited it to include a personal attack..

You haven't the slightest clue about my life or what I consider important. You really made this comment to the wrong person, I give it a great deal of importance in my life because I was once a victim - beyond that I will not go into detail here. But how dare you tell me what I consider important in my life and what I don't - especially after YOU accused ME of trying to speak for others.

[The Doctor.]

92. I mentioned that some women make misrepresentations...

And here you are, presumably a woman, doing exactly that in order to suggest that I am some kind of 'villian'.

You obviously know nothing about me. You created some false image of me in your mind in order to justify an attack. There is nothing in my post that even remotely suggests that women aren't raped.

This may come as 'breaking news' to you, but I personally put three assholes who raped a friend of mine in the hospital.

You can go ahead and level false accusations against me, but, unfortunately, it does little to change my quite thorough understanding of the dynamic of hatred you've chosen to evoke.

I'd much rather you made the effort to understand what I've said, because it's not about women 'being evil', they aren't, it's about how the system allows some women to make victims of innocent men. I have never, ever in my life harmed any female in any way. Unfortunately, the system allowed women in my life to do great harm to me and our children.


If you are the sort of woman who cannot deal with reasonable men, who, like me, are perfectly willing to talk things out and reach understandings, then I fully expect you to find a sympathetic mod who will delete this.

I hope you're more reasonable than to do so, I hope that you have the courage to have an earnest discussion, but it's not something I'm used to. There are plenty of thoughtful, reasonable women on DU. I'd very much like to count you among them.

[The Doctor.]

103. Not deleted yet? Perhaps there's hope....

Perhaps the vast majority of people on DU, men and women alike, are willing to actually engage in constructive discourse.

It'd be nice, Quantess, to have a discussion about the still horrific disparities we see in this 'civilization'. I'm sure you could point to a few... or more.


Am I wrong?

[Liquorice]

30. Yes, men everywhere are at the "mercy of wretched and selfish women." Men

are clearly cowering in fear of these wretched women who are going around all over the place falsely accusing them of all kinds of terrible things. Poor men.

[davidthegnome]

32. Yeah, that was over the top

I'm with you on that one.

[The Doctor.]

102. No, it wasn't.

I understand the diplomacy you're at. That's fine.

What I stated was a simple, demonstrable fact.

I never, ever would have believed that human beings were so willing to shed all reason until the one who committed herself to me went and hooked up with a Right-Wing son of a millionaire for nothing more than the promise of money and freedom from responsibility. Perhaps I was, despite my training, completely naïve.

She lives in a trailer park now. It's difficult to feel sympathy for her after all the perjury and mountains of lies she heaped on me to justify what she did. I'll never, ever trust another female again. Not because of 'them', but because of myself.

I really cannot trust myself, ever again, to fall for all the promises they can make. I know damn well, by the way, that this is ultimately not a gender issue, but a character one. I'm more susceptible to Pavlov's techniques than I could have thought. I suppose there are plenty of injured, both men and women, who have a long road of healing before them.

I just hate the mechanisms, in every case, that facilitate the injustice.

Please tell me that's not hard to understand.

[The Doctor.]

94. I beg your pardon?

Yes, it is everywhere.

I have a friend who was slung in jail and charged with assault after his girlfriend literally beat herself up and called the cops.

How do I know he didn't do it?

He wasn't even fucking there.

Cops didn't care that he had an alibi, they beat the hell out of him. In court, he plead to a lesser charge even though he could prove he wasn't there all night. I told him not to, but his appointed lawyer said he should. He listened to the lawyer, and now a guy who's never lifted a finger against any human being ever looks like a 'beater'.

So please, don't even try to lecture me. I know the reality. I've seen it too many times. It is this;

"Women's 'Victimhood Status' is enshrined in the system to the detriment of both men and women." Some women, not all, use this against otherwise innocent men. That's a fact.

I'm not saying that men can't be evil. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a grotesque balance between assholes in any gender. All I've said is that women who are assholes have a special vehicle in the system to wreak harm. That's not to say that men don't have other vehicles to do so... but that ship has another echelon.

The bottom line here is this; You seem to believe that what I've said just doesn't happen. Are you really saying that, or are you just trying to say it's more rare than, perhaps, it is?

[chervilant]

126. hmm...

You seem like an educated man. I recommend "The Mermaid and the Minotaur" by Dorothy Dinnerstein. Although a challenging read, her book offers a cogent description of the psychic wounds we inflict on ourselves by assigning gender to emotions, thus restricting both genders from the full range of human emotions.

I've done advocacy for survivors of relationship violence for better than twenty-five years now. I do not use gender specific terminology for the very reason you've angrily asserted hereinabove.

I wonder if you self-identify as a survivor of relationship violence. At the very least, you experienced a stark betrayal of the trust and commitment you should have gotten from your partner.

[davidthegnome]

34. Too much zeal

Is not really a good thing, IMO.

I used to frequent a forum that revolved around the issue of the gender war (real or imagined). So I understand where you're coming from, but I think you go too far. Women are as much at the mercy of wretched and selfish men as men are at the mercy of wretched and selfish women. We all have an equal ability to be wretched and selfish. I have seen a great deal of both - and a great deal of the opposite from both genders regardless of their particular affiliation in regards to the gender war.

Some of the things I see said on either side really make me wince.

When Rush Limbaugh came up with the ridiculous word "feminazi" I was shocked to see (and hear) fellow democrats (all men) using it soon after. "Female victimhood" as you put it, certainly isn't enshrined among the majority of the population. I don't think judges or juries unfairly favor women in all these cases - I think they can unfairly favor either gender in any case. There is as much bias on your side of this issue as there is on the other, please keep that in mind and don't get too caught up in thinking women are out to get you.

I'm not trying to be condescending or insulting. To some extent I know where you're coming from, but I think perhaps you get too worked up about it which I know can lead to a lot of needless anger, which really isn't good for you.

[The Doctor.]

100. Not 'zeal', just pain. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

Understand, I am poignantly aware of what kind of assholes men can be. I have personally experienced, and my children have personally experienced the backlash against just such assholes. We've experienced it in the family court system. Why? Because other men were assholes, men who are not are treated as such.

Understand that I did not for a second suggest that men are not equally capable of nastiness. My point was that the justice system, specifically the family court system, gives particularly nasty women a convenient vehicle to abuse otherwise good men and fathers. Sometimes to such a degree that it is harmful to the children that system is meant to protect. If I was not a long-time first-hand witness to it, I'm sure I'd be skeptical too.

There is a mountain of facts that testify to this.

[treestar]

40. It is not "taken as gospel"

That's just absurd.

[The Doctor.]

88. Tell a man who's been shot that bullets don't hurt...

You have an easier time of that than to convince me of what I've seen and heard for almost 15 years.

I'm stating facts I can prove, and family court here doesn't give a damn when women lie through their teeth, but they sure pick apart every damn thing a man has to say.

I blame men for this mostly. If you bothered to read the post you responded to, you'd understand that. There is a general suspicion of men in every domestic instance. It is a fact; Women are treated like victims by society. This is not good for anyone.

Simply calling me a 'liar' does not change that.

Again; you'll have an easier time convincing me that water isn't wet.

[treestar]

107. I don't agree. It's the accuser, male or female, who is taken

very seriously in family court, since, if something horrendous does happen, the judge will feel responsible. So they want the restraining order in place so they can feel they did all they could.

Men just don't make the accusations as often, because they don't want to be seen as weak. Heck I've seen men with a complete right to child support from the ex who won't pursue it because it's not manly, apparently. The child has a right to support from mom if child lives with Dad, but Dad is too proud.

[The Doctor.]

118. I don't doubt that is often the case, however;

There are many, many examples of gender bias in the system. It does not equal out. Women are treated as victims.

Example; My ex's boyfriend tried to start fights with me in front of my children when I went to pick them up. She used the children as leverage against me, and blocked my access to them as a way to punish me for needing her to make the 60 mile round trip to pick them up ONCE. I had been doing all of the driving despite not being ordered.

I finally became fed up and filed to get an equitable driving arrangement away from the boyfriend's house.

The judge, a woman, with nothing more in front of her than my complaint and gender, admonished me for not appreciating the time I spent driving my children around.

Forget for the moment that I spend the exact same amount of time with them whether I pick them up at five or drop them off at five.

I was the bad-guy for wanting a fair arrangement.

Try to imagine, if you will, if the situation were exactly reversed. Care to take a stab at how the judge would have treated me?

It's a fact, and I've seen it WAY too many times, only in one direction, to take seriously the suggestion that there is equal treatment of men and women in family court. Dozens of examples where I could prove the mother was not acting in the best interests of the children, and no one listened. My one son is PERMANENTLY FUCKING SCARRED because all of my concerns were dismissed while every lie his mother told was taken as gospel.

And I am definitely not the only one.

I appreciate your reason, but like I said; I'll believe 2+2=7, Water isn't wet, and the Sun revolves around the Earth long before I believe the system is not biased against men.

[JackDragna]

14. ATTENTION WOMEN: Past sexual experience is fine by me!

Call me at 867-5309. Jenny Jenny.

[Zoeisright]

16. Because misogyny is deeply rooted in the human psyche.

And so very many people are unbelievably stupid.

[Mimosa]

18. Women are dirty and horny and we attract men?

In the 1990s I heard my little nephew (10 years old, upper middle class) call a woman's breasts on TV 'nasty parts'. I then understood the Republican game. In my whole 30 years of life I had never heard a females breasts called nasty.

[Norrin Radd]

44. The Brits call them "dirty pillows."

[Withywindle]

87. So did Carrie's mother.

We all know how that turned out.

[blogslut]

20. I like the word-reclaiming idea too

:hi:

[Quantess]

21. If I'm with a man I like,

I really, really like it!
And I'm not apologizing about it.

[freshwest]

27. K & R

[Mimosa]

29. Reclaiming 'slut' is like people reclaimng the N word: it will harm us. n/t

[Quantess]

35. if it's about sex, who cares?! Sex is something people do.

[Liquorice]

36. I agree. It's just the same. nt

[upi402]

39. I don't, don't know anyone who does

that's not a religious fanatic. But those turn out to be the biggest freaks usually.

[treestar]

41. And "desperate" if we take the initiative

All sorts of negative adjectives are applied if we attempt to take any control in this area.

[no_hypocrisy]

42. It's a quaint American/Puritan tradition . . . . . .

[FLPanhandle]

43. Part of it is male ego

Basically, many men don't like the idea of their girlfriend/wife/partner having been with lot of other men. Why? Probably ego. The guy doesn't want to feel like they are just one of many vs. someone who met a high standard that few have managed.

Therefore, being with a women who has slept with lots of guys isn't anything special. Sort of like winning a race against 1st graders. You won, but so what, anyone could have.

A woman who has been very selective and only a few men have met her standards is considered more valuable, special, etc.

Just a guess.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. I put it down to more societal expectations.........

Men in sexual relationships, per society, are SUPPOSED to be the "teachers" or the more experienced partner. Anything that changes that motif leads to anxiety for men. A woman who's more experienced can't be "taught", ergo they must be shunned. Since we're a patrichial society in general (not condoning, just observing), you can't have men feeling anxious about female empowerment.

I think that your explanation has some merit too, I just think that it's more the expectation factor than this.

Edited to add a thought.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Yes. Partly this.

Also there's an embraced element of the patriarchy that treats women as not fully adult.

To the guy who sleeps around: "Don't like paying child support? Keep it in your pants, dumbass!"
To the woman who sleeps around: "I told you that this was going to happen. We worry about you."

Catch the distinction? A man is fully accountable for the mistakes he makes. Those mistakes are good for a laugh. A woman who makes mistakes creates distress for her circle of friends and family because they feel that they share the responsibility for the woman's safety/wellbeing.

[Liquorice]

83. Women are seen as fully adult in our society. To suggest otherwise is insane. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. And yet you don't address the point.

Simple question: do you consider "Women and children first" a patronizing concept?

[Liquorice]

119. Do you consider the concept "boys will be boys" a patronizing concept? nt

[Rozlee]

93. I think it's plain gender jealousy.

How many guys can go into a bar a dozen times and walk out with a sex partner almost each time? It's "too easy" for women, I've always been told. We "can get it anywhere, anytime," so the mantra goes. You're right in one respect: we women do tend to be a great deal more discriminating in our choice of sex partners. I mean, seriously, Ted Bundy was charming and handsome and a serial killer. But, that's only for casual stranger pick-ups, which I'm definitely not advocating for either sex. Not that I'd cast judgment or consider it immoral of anyone to do it, just that, like a serial killer, you never know if you're picking up someone that's married to a psycho, plain married, a psycho themselves, trying to sell you Amway, or worst of all, a teabagger.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. Your last sentence is a good example of the OP's example from the female POV

It's the "you shouldn't just give it away" advice.

[FLPanhandle]

110. I don't think it's jealousy as much as how many men group women into two classes

One group is great to met and have sex with easily (sluts). Great to have around but considered low worth.

The other group is the ones who were highly selective and have high worth. The ones historically men wanted to long term partner with.

Over time the line has blurred. No one now expects a wife to be a virgin, and the sluts aren't prostitutes anymore. However, the women who have sex indiscriminately are probably still consider less desirable for long term partnership.

[Rozlee]

121. I dunno. I don't see anyone casting asperations on man-sluts.

Not that I'd want to have a long term relationship with a male virgin. But, I'm also curious about the level of sluttiness as defined by the OP or if there is any scale to it. I know that I wouldn't like to be with a man that had 5 or more sex partners a week, every week, year after year. A woman who did that would be considered a slut extraordinaire. A man who did would be asked to write a how-to book. But, I'd honestly like to see some number crunching. What's the tipping point in the OP where one goes from being "fun" to being a slut or man-slut? Is it totally subjective? In the 80s, I was a cocktail waitress at a gentlemen's club, who wore barely there clothing while working, and I was viewed as a slut. The dancers were definitely viewed as sluts. Sluts can be women who have an active sex life or are perceived to. But, man-sluts aren't judged by the same standards and never have been. My children had to hang their heads in shame that their mother worked at a strip joint. I doubt many men would have had to.

[The Doctor.]

105. No, you're not 'guessing'...

You're spot-on. But there is the converse;

It also has to do with a sense of 'exclusivity'. For a man to believe he is the 'cock of the walk' or the 'top cat', it helps to know that she has played the field some... just as it works for men.

That way, when they tell you how 'special' you are, you buy it.

Here's a suggestion; care more about how your partner acts and feels than what they say, and you'll have a chance at something real.

[FLPanhandle]

111. True.

I don't think men want a virgin anymore like in the olden days. They do want to know they at least measured up to some degree. However, I think someone who has been extremely active will be valued less for long term partnership.

Not sure what to make of your suggestion. Is that directed at me? Odd since I'm describing males in general.

[Dash87]

46. Because men still feel like they own women like a piece of property.

This happens on a societal level. Therefore, they want to own their bodies and sexuality as well.

(Why would you post a picture of yourself after your boyfriend... well... wtf? That's totally gross.)

[PeaceNikki]

47. K&R

:loveya:, ya crazy ferriner.

[otohara]

48. Men Who Call Women Sluts

don't deserve sex!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

50. The word "tart" sounds better.

I'm an old reformed tart. "Reformed" means I am now happily monogamous.

[timo]

51. not me

I love sluts!!!

[socialist_n_TN]

52. I never have used the word as a pejorative...........

Even when I was a teenager my definition of "slut" was a woman who treated sex like most men do. And that wasn't a bad thing.

And yes, every woman I've married or even had a long term relationship with was VERY sexually experienced. I liked it that way.

[ladywnch]

53. it's very simple. all women are evil. just look to the bible.

eve- the original slut. Women are evil personified. Men are poor innocent victims of women's wiles. It is why women must be dominated by men.....to keep our evil ways in check. Being female is to be shamed and ridiculed. Men pursue women to save them through sexual congress. The virtue of men is the only thing that will save womanhood from ourselves which is why we willing submit to their leadership and authority. Women and their weak moral code will be the downfall of civilization.....

okay, I've got to go and throw up now and take a LONG shower.


:puke: :puke:

[bloom]

56. men didn't have much power

in the mother goddess matriarchies - where men may not have know who their offspring were - and may not have know how biology worked anyway.

Once the monotheistic, male god was instituted - there had to be an end to polyandry. Men could run around - but not women.

Eve represents the mother goddess - the snake has been a symbol for wisdom for a long time (our culture has forgotten).

To denigrate women and the snake was/is to denigrate knowledge about nature, life, about our connection to the planet.

What has been uplifted is an imaginary reality - with imaginary creative acts (life from a rib - ha!)


What we need is a return to a love of this life (not a heavenly dream), a love and respect for those who create and nurture life. And the realization that this planet is finite, after all - there is only room for so many of us at a time - so figuring out contraception and contra-consumption needs to be a priority. Sex for pleasure and not for procreation makes all the sense in the world under these conditions.

[Nye Bevan]

59. I don't think it's just women. Tiger Woods got plenty of condemnation here

for *his* promiscuity.

[Missy Vixen]

62. If he had an agreement with his wife, that's one thing

From all external appearances, he did not. He exposed his wife to every STD known to mankind because he refused to use a condom as well. The marriage vows meant the same restrictions for his behavior as they did for hers.

Any man who thinks that women are not condemned for admitting they have and enjoy sex is not even attempting to understand.

[RevStPatrick]

63. I was raised on a steady diet of "sluts"

I've never thought of them that way, and certainly never called them that. Some of the "sluts" who were older than me taught me a hell of a lot, and I passed some of that info on to the younger "sluts," and hopefully they shared it all with whomever came after me.

Actually, most of my many female friends would probably be considered "sluts," and they are to a woman vital, interesting, and warm human beings. I'm still friends with some of the "sluts" from my past after almost 30 years, and I wouldn't want it any other way...

[BrklynLiberal]

64. The double standard still exists....

[Matariki]

67. Perhaps we could help by dropping the term "slut shame"?

[Skidmore]

68. Sexual mores have not caught up with the technology of paternity.

And there is still the propensity to see women as chattels in much of the world.

[Joey Liberal]

69. It's not fair to women. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

71. Perhaps men are simply projecting upon women, their own insecurity and shame.

[chaska]

72. I don't know, but if people do things instinctively there's often...

very good reason for it.

[felix_numinous]

73. Religious conservatives

live in a world with saints and sinners, which does not allow for balanced sexuality, or a balanced society. Their views are destabilizing our country, creating internal unrest--and by dehumanizing members of our society --they are endangering us.

[Liquorice]

82. It's not just religious conservatives who call women sluts. nt

[blondeatlast]

99. Zealots of all kinds of stripe do. It's more the zealotry than the philosophy

that drives the zealotry.

[ZombieHorde]

75. r

[KG]

76. personally, i don't find the word (or concept) 'slut' to be a pejorative

[defendandprotect]

79. Certainly agree with the premise of the article .... EXCEPT where it might be taken

as a recommendation for young women to allow themselves to be exploited by

males for oral sex and/or to see promiscuity as a goal!!

We have to admit a lot of that pushing of young females into a more sexualized

identity -- at the very earliest ages - is going on.


Might also tend to give young males the idea that they are OWED something by

young women -- like taking for granted that they will perform oral sex for them.


Young women should also fight this "key hole" concept of sex -- know themselves

first and what they actually want in a sexual relationship. And what they don't

want!

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Lotta people in this society are still way too uptight about sex and sexuality.

But it's changing IMHO.

[Initech]

84. Those who can't get laid take it out in those who can.

[w8liftinglady]

91. My co-workers made fun of me as I drove to my partner's house

They knew................................

[PatentlyDemocratic]

97. Promiscuity is irresponsible regardless of gender

It risks disease (even with condoms) and demonstrates a lack of respect for one's body. I'm not religious or conservative. I haven't been burned by anyone like this, and I'm in a very happy marriage.

I just view it as a very personal, intimate act that should be done with some measure of trust. In my experience, promiscuous people tend to be superficial and are poor at developing any type of relationship. I'm more sad for them than anything else.

[blondeatlast]

98. Equal opportunity finger-waggers are still judgmental jerks.

What other consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business--the 'sluts" I've known of both genders and all preferences are responsible, intelligent, mature, secure people. I tend to be reserved about my sexuality to some degree--but I'm newly single because my husband cheated and I'm not going to live like a nun, that's for damned sure. I enjoy sex and intimacy.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. +1,000,000

[Runework]

106. How is 'promiscuity' a lack of 'respect' for one's body?

lol I find that a doubly metaphysical statement

Perhaps not having sex indicates a lack of respect for one's body?

[blondeatlast]

113. Good point. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

122. oddly porn industry workers have the lowest rate of hiv/aids in the us

and just because you view something as an intimate act, doesnt make it a moral imperative for me

[Liquorice]

123. I seriously doubt that. Working in porn is high risk for HIV and other STD's. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Worrying about or judging the sex lives of other consenting adults that you're not involved with

is an extremely presumptuous thing to do.

[lunatica]

112. Yet the porn industry is flourishng

[RagAss]

115. Who gives a shit. Why put a spotlight on this?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

120. i think women who are smeared by the slut label care

i dunno, most people invested in reducing misogyny should care

[unc70]

117. Not for having sex in private, but for taking it public and "scaring the horses"

Abstract of this post:

The women in the original article and in the rest of this thread were attacked not so much for having sex, not because they enjoyed sex, not for sex with multiple partners, and not even because their actions threatened some man or men in general in any way. They were attacked because they had made their private sex lives so public that it had become impossible for everyone else to continue ignoring them, no matter how hard everyone tried to avoid having to see what they did not want to see.

It is a bit like the admonition, "Don't let me see you doing that again." Much different from a direct "Don't do that again." There must be advantages to society as a whole and to its individual members for the assumption that the father of any child born to a married woman is legally that of her husband, no matter who the biological father might be.

We see much the same with birds supposedly mates for life and where both the male and female must work together for the young to hatch and survive to adulthood. Females of these species are observed leaving the nest while their Thmate is away, then presenting themselves as available to and the mating with some other male. The "unfaithful" female then returns to the nest as if nothing happened, and she and her "mate for life" incubate, feed, and protect their chicks, one or more of whom carry the genes of the rogue male from the "fling" and not those of the "faithful" male who works to raise the offspring.

Early in high school when guys were asking variations of "would she, or wouldn't she?", I reluctantly concluded that "Almost all women are willing to have sex, just not with me." Somewhat later I was happy to add, "But more than enough would with me, and I with them."

This discussion began by asking why do we attack women who are sexually active, and why not men who are. I suggest that most attacks are not against women for their sexual activity, but attack those women that are the least adept dealing with complex situations, the least capable of being discrete in their sexual and other relationships, and among the least desirable for a LTR by the most desirable males. Their ready availability for a quick fling increases their chances of mating with a highly-desirable male, but without the advantages that he would bring to a LTR.

Many have asked why so many men continue to act like such jerks wrt women, treating them as sexual objects not worthy of respect? Moar likely because it works, at least with many women. Why will so many women almost throw themselves at the "bad boys", even many of those one might think the least likely to respond, seemingly unable to resist, to be abused,

The rest of this post are some observations regarding what we say vs what we do regarding all aspect of our sexuality. Not well organized.

===========

Reading the linked article, it seems most of the criticism of these women was not about their private sex lives, but because they had dragged what had been private now into full public view. I, like many, believe that "what consenting adults do in private" is none of my business unless I am one of those adults. Of course, that means no children involved, and great care to limit what they might see or hear.

When someone starts posting online pictures and detailed descriptions of their sex lives, deliberately bring them into full public view, then they should expect to receive criticism, likely concerning their actual sexual conduct and certainly regarding their lack of judgment and common sense. (The woman criticized for not wanting children might be an exception, but I need to read her article which triggered those responses. Her being attacked for being sexually active because she does not want children seems really strange to me. I suspect there is something additional in her article beyond not want children.)

By the time we graduate high school in 1966, over 3/4 of my class sexually active, or at least were no longer virgins. Several of the girls were already married, but none of them were pregnant when they married, and neither they nor anyone else got pregnant before graduation. We were just lucky, but there were several pregnancies in the classes before and after ours; the second-best student in 1965 was pregnant with her second child when she graduate.

With so many sexually active at my school and the neighboring ones I knew, why did some girls get a bad reputation while others maintained almost virginal reputations, even with many of their classmates, while having a lot more sex and with more partners. Almost anyone going steady were having sexual intercourse or would be soon. Other students assumed they were and the parents feared they might be. BTW it was mostly heavy petting sometimes leading to vaginal intercourse; oral sex was less common then than intercourse, maybe half as many BJs, and under 20% of the guys gave oral. Little if any anal.

Apparently it is much different these days. I am amazed to hear that "a BJ isn't real sex, no big deal" or that girls who are waiting until marriage to have vaginal intercourse are having anal instead.

Girls were limited in how sexy they could dress at school by the dress codes, so that was not the main reason. but clothes and makeup were contributing factors. So what is left. Just a couple of things:

Girls who dated much older guys no longer in high school and not enrolled as college students were assumed to be having sex, they had older friends, and were likely to frequent the clubs and bars were alcohol was served. If the guy was not local or was in the armed services and stationed nearby, it would negatively affect her reputation.

Couples who were routinely kissing and groping each other between classes, considered an inappropriate PDA, took a sizable negative on their reputations.

Having a brother, even better one at the same HS or a recent grad, usually had a positive effect on his sisters reputation unless his own reputation was bad.
Although possible that he would actively step in to defend his sister's honor, most of the effect is from the self-censorship by those who might otherwise be eager to spread the latest rumors, seeing almost no risk for doing so.

A student who attracts negative attention, makes low grades, skips class, and does not do homework is much more likely to have their other behavior judged more negatively. The same goes for someone with equivalent behavior in a work environment.

[Blue_Tires]

129. excellent insights....