Let the word “slut” die like in the whole

Intentious Controversial News Slut Slutwalk Women Derogatory Abuse Word Respect Disrespectful

This article is addressed primarily at men and why they should NEVER use the word slut.

I watched the slutwalk protests with considerable amusement at how they were missing the point in their rush to run out and announce, “I am offended!” Nevertheless, I agree in principle with them on one front:

The word slut is a terrible word that should die in a hole.

I don’t say that as a politically correct motherhood statement. I say it because it is a toxin to the people who use it, because it is a trap and prison to the unwary, much more than many other crass words that are merely offensive. Ironically not because it’s sexist, but because it is a metal box made out of an outmoded paradigm. Once you are locked in the box, you need to escape from it to continue.

My working definition is that a “slut” is a nymphomaniac with “lower standards” when it comes to sexual partners (the word “standards” being relative to the person who uses the slur). The word “slut” is entirely based on hearsay and the prejudice of others. If you love women, never use this word… because it will stop you from connecting to the women you want to be with. Calling a girl a “slut” is an absolutely absurd standard because it relies entirely on hearsay.

It means one of five things:

  1. She is getting more sex than I am (based on a selfish ego)
  2. She has had better sexual partners than me (based on a selfish ego)
  3. I don’t want to be with her because she’s been with someone else, hence she is “sloppy seconds”, or “dirty” or “used”. This is hypocrisy incarnate, because, unless you are a virgin in all ways, the person making this claim is being hypocritical
  4. She may have a STD (this easily nullified by saying , “I’ve been tested. How about you?” The risk can be reduced further by using condoms).
  5. Your friends don’t like her so they say nasty things about her. In this case you are putting the approval of your friends over finding out for yourself if an attractive woman is worth your time or not.

Number 5 culminates into the even stupider idea- “Oh she’s a slut so she’s good for a root, but NOT girlfriend material because my friends will give me a hard time”
If you want to avoid dating a woman, screen her based on her being irritating to you. NOT on whether your friends approve of her or not. Especially since many people shamefully call a woman a “slut” as a form of derision as a way to assign blame for their shortcomings, e.g. “he’s not with me because he’s with that slut” or “she didn’t want to be with me because she’s a slut.”

The damning thing is the unreliability of hearsay. If you have unprotected sex with a woman who has not been described as a “slut”, she may have an STD anyway, because she only had to have sex once with a person with an STD to qualify. Compare that to a woman who has more sexual partners but uses condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of contracting STDs. As the movie “Easy A” makes out, you have no idea if a woman you are with really is one or the other.

So, if a woman is attractive, but your mates call her a “slut”, what should you do?

First listen to counsel of your friends. Heed their warnings when they say,”she may give you trouble because…” because they may have reasons you do not know about. Be mindful of their motivations as to why they would describe her that way: are they a jilted lover, do they have mutual enemies, are they just repeating gossip. Then say to them, “thank you for the warning, I will keep that in mind in my dealings with her.” Remember that it is ignorant to accept anyone’s limiting beliefs and prejudice as your own on face value. Those limits are artificial, intellectually constricting and, in many cases, entirely unnecessary.

From this point you decide whether she is attractive enough to deal with or not. If so, make the time to go an meet her. Have a meal together and work out, from there, whether she is worth your time or not. INTERVIEW her. Base your reservations on your INTERACTION with her, not on the prejudice of your peers. When you conduct the interview, be mindful of the criticism of your friends, and test whether there is any truth in those criticisms. In this way you maturely come to your own decision, rather than bleating in tune with a herd out of ignorance.

Origins of why the word came to be:

There is strong evidence in evolutionary biology that this is part of a mate guarding ritual by females:
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/the-sin-of-showing-skin-20111205-1oeuy.html

So when a man starts using that word, he starts buying into that stupid game. This is buying into the outmoded paradigm that a woman’s entire value is determined by the price she commands at marriage, a price that is lowered, apparently, when “sluts” are “giving the milk away for free.” If one plays the game of fools, the fool will drag you down and beat you at their own game. So, refuse to play. Refuse to use the word “slut”.

To conclude…

In summary, it’s not because a man offends a woman that the word “slut” it is bad. The reason the word is anathema is because it lessens the number of people you would associate with based on gossip, which is a poor way to frame social interactions.

In the interests of transparency, not all the material is my own. Part of this rant is attributable to the Seductive Reasoning paradigm, which I have found quite helpful in my relationships with other people. Google if interested.

Amusingly, I’ve had to say the world slut sixteen times to describe this malady. May I have to never say it any more, and may no other men say it either, especially if they love women.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, Gender issues

Author:Richard Lee

Food Critic

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

10 Comments on “Let the word “slut” die like in the whole”

  1. James Hill
    December 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    I would extend this one further and suggest we should do away with all pejoratives, but really is that a sensible or reasonable request to make?

    Female promiscuity (not infidelity) is also correlated with marriage instability later in life. Any more than two sexual partners prior to marriage increases the likelihood of divorce:

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
    Source study here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

    It’s interesting to note that the divorce rate skyrocketed after the sexual revolution.

    Promiscuity is generally frowned upon in conservative societies because it represents a threat to the stability of existing relationships. Admittedly, women seem to be stigmatized more than men for this, and that is an unfair double standard in my mind. But that double standard probably reflects an evolutionary truth: women have evolved to be more choosy about sexual partners because they bear a much greater cost for choosing poorly. A woman invests 9 months of her fertility into each pregnancy and is forced to care for the children that result Men, on the other hand are free to continue breeding and have the option of abandoning an inferior mate. A promiscuous woman– throughout most of history– ran the risk of producing inferior offspring.

    Of course, family planning has done away with most of the consequences of promiscuity, but the behaviours and unconscious thinking persist. A female that engages in regular anonymous, casual sex is bucking the trend for her gender and will likely draw scorn and be excluded by other women even more so than men

    • December 14, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

      I think it will come to a point where, sociologically, marriage is no longer the be-all and end-all of social constructs. It does de-value marriage but, essentially, the glue of many marriages is “obligation” and that leads to complacency. So if marriages based on obligation are unstable because one party stops contributing, we now live in an era of more choice on the matter so it’s a sad but natural consequence.

      If anachronistic and unconscious prejudice exists in the modern age, shouldn’t enlightenment of some form seek to correct it? Our brain is a fantastic thinking machine… but it is 10,000 years out of date. Many of the innate behaviours ingrained into us by evolution and society have not caught up with aeroplanes, mobile phones and the Internet.

      The one point on which I will concede that marriage is important is that children need a stable family unit, and prosper better when both mother and father are on the same team, live together and work together to raise children.

      • James Hill
        December 15, 2011 at 9:21 am #

        The point you concede is a pretty huge one. Children are the lifeblood and the future of society, and any society that degrades the social units used to raise children is doomed to decay. There’s a wealth of evidence linking broken homes and single parent families to later life problems, including poor academic performance, relationship problems, drug use, mental illness and criminal activity. The destruction of the family unit has destroyed entire communities in the US. The illegitimacy rate is as high as 70% for some communities in the US and they are awash in crime and drugs.That isn’t an indictment on single parents, but more a reflection of the reality that raising children is a two person job, and that children need to form stable, loving, long lasting bonds with their parents.

        Casual hookups, threesomes and long term couples afraid of commitment are hallmarks of an adolescent culture. These sorts of behaviours may be innocent experimentation during youth, but when they’re lauded as a lifelong alternative to marriage, it’s a hint that the adults in that society have emotionally regressed. And, like any other hedonistic pursuit, there’s evidence that overindulgence in them leads to serious emotional problems.

  2. December 15, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    “Children are the lifeblood and the future of society, and any society that degrades the social units used to raise children is doomed to decay.” The reason that there are entrenched benefits for marriage is precisely for the raising of children; for this reason opposition still exists to gay marriage. That there are no such benefits conferred to casual or polyamorous relationships, so the conscession is demonstrably much smaller than you suppose.

    Not every coupling is for the purpose of raising children. What you are suggesting is that this “adolescent” culture is detrimental to society. Right now casual relationships are entirely lawful, and I think a better alternative to when wives were once “bought” as property; I am not lauding it but attacking the prejudice in which the marriage culture is steeped in and which the word “srut” forms a part.

    The ideas in this article and the ideas in marriage are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist.

    If one is more serious about defending the sanctity of marriage and raising children, attacking polyamorous and casual couplings is not the answer. I would suggest the answer lies in outlawing divource and outlawing adultery.

    • James Hill
      December 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

      No one suggested that ancient forms of marriage were somehow better than the choices we have today, especially if those marriages failed to acknowledge the rights of women. I’d also extend marriage to non heterosexual couples, especially if they intend on adopting and raising children in a stable home for the very reasons I’ve already outlined.

      And yes, an overindulgence in adolescent behaviours is detrimental to the individual and society at large, the same way overindulgence in any hedonistic pursuit (alcohol, junk food, narcotics) is detrimental. I don’t think these behaviours should be outlawed, but it’s interesting how hysterical people get when you try to suggest that there might be negative consequences to the choices they’re allowed to make.

      Other than that, I’m not sure what you’re looking for. A casual, disposable attitude to sex and sex partners will always represent a threat to the paradigm of a stable, long term monogamous relationship, and people will always find a way to voice their disapproval. I agree that a term like the word “slut” is hurtful and shouldn’t be used, but people will always use strong language when speaking candidly.

      • December 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

        I think it is more hysterical to try to defend the indefensible.

        It’s not the rights of women that concern me in “ancient forms of marraige”, more that, in the modern age, women are still groomed to define their entire value based on their “value” at marriage, it is a trap, a stigma that is anachronistic. Today when a woman can vote, can serve in the military and be a CEO, hearing them pining about, “oh I’m getting old, all my friends are getting married” is a bit stale. AND it’s even weirder when women are aghast (through plausible deniability) to admit that they enjoy sex, lest they be branded a “srut.”

        I think the answer is to educate and enlighten people to the possibilities that the Information age has to offer. For example, adjusting the expectations of those seeking partners so that it is a balance between settling for the realistic and finding someone they are genuinely (sexually) attracted to, and teaching how to screen for deal-breakers. This is preferred to the passive aggressive, “oh know we should call women who are promiscuous sruts to discourage it.”

        If the consequences are perceived to be so negative, I am surprised that no-one has stoop up and said, “no more smoking” or “no more alcohol.” In a democracy these vices are entrenched and seen as rights, despite the negative social consequences of the seven sins. In that context, the real world rules allow it, so the restriction is a purely social one.

        My motivation is this: many potentially fulfilling relationships are torpedoed because of the prejudice of the word “srut.” It is a stupid word based on hearsay, based on “ownership” of a “scarce” resource, and based on fear. Marriage has many positive connotations but those ideas above I take exception to, even when words are expressed candidly. There are words that are too toxic even to use candidly; I can not think of an occassion when the word “srut” could be used candidly.

        The only time I can see the word being used is in enacting private fantasies, which is another topic altogether.

      • December 15, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

        Please correct me if I’m wrong but, are you suggesting we use the word “slut” (candidly) to discourage women from having extramarital relationships?

        If so, with the malaise of the divorce rate and single parents already struggling in our society, how will using one word change this, when using that word in vernacular so far has failed to change anything?

        In fact, I would suggest by removing this word men may state dating women they actually want to be with, and actually want to marry, rather than worrying about the approval of their friends.

        • James Hill
          December 15, 2011 at 2:21 pm #

          You’ve misunderstood me. I was stating that there will always be a large segment of the population that frowns upon sexual promiscuity and they’ll always have slurs and insults that target this behaviour. Similar attempts to wipe out slurs making fun of mentally handicapped people have all failed: retard, spastic, mongoloid and idiot were at one point non offensive terms created to try and describe mental handicaps without the stigma of previous insults attached. People co opt language for their own purposes.

          • December 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

            Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I find it even more amusing that the people who use this slur are often as promiscuous as the slur implies, so it is more hypocrisy to share with everyone.

            Words will always be used to suit purposes, but words also define the boundaries of our personal realities. That’s why it’s a good idea to liberate people from words that are prisons.

  3. November 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Richard I share your rejection of using it in a sexual context but…

    My mind goes back to hearing about it being used in non-sexual contexts, something bout the ‘Bridget Jones Diary’ movie.

    Apparently a slang for people who keep messy homes… hm http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slut#Etymology

    If we more commonly use ‘slob’ for men, perhaps slut could just be the female version of it?

    I just wonder if there would be more success eliminating the sexual usage of the word if it were substituted with a preferred meaning rather than trying to kill the word altogether. People remember words, and words must mean things to people, so if we replace that meaning, it will shove out the newer sexual meaning and be rid of it that way.

    If we don’t return misused words to their (in this case, better, I think) roots, they will retain their new definitions in spite of our efforts to stamp them out.

    ‘Gay’ could also be something that operates the same way. At the point where the use as an insult begins to overcome a descriptor of homosexuality, returning to things related to ‘joy’ roots seems the only solution.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: