Slutwalkers and Saints
Saint ... or sinner?
The SlutWalks have not just driven many MRAs to distraction; they’ve also driven one of the bloggers at the Gates of Vienna to set aside her usual Islam-bashing for a few moments to take on the awful bullies marching in the SlutWalks. Yes, bullies, for how else can we describe young women who go out of their way to highlight their foul sexiness whilst denying their bodies to the helpless males who happen to catch sight of them?
According to the blogger who calls herself Dymphna:
Women who walk around in slutty clothing in order to “voice” their opinion about male sexual aggression are indeed acting out a hugely immature power trip. … Call it for what it is. Strutting your stuff and daring anyone to stop you isn’t real freedom. It’s a sneaking, sadistic bully-girl game.
So evil is the behavior of these slutbullies that if any man decides, upon catching sight of one of them, to grope or otherwise assault her, well, she’s at least as much to blame as the dude who lays his hands on her.
If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result.
Dymphna seems to mean this quite literally, suggesting that a slut who gets assaulted should be charged
as an accessory before the fact — i.e., if some dolt grabs her, then at the very least she is his partner in crime. And the offense in which they both participate is a serious transgression against civil order. Sadistic provocation is a breach of the peace.
Ironically, Dymphna the blogger has apparently named herself after Saint Dymphna, a 7th century Irishwoman who, legend has it, was murdered by her father after she refused to marry him.
In the light of Dymphna the blogger’s airtight logic, we have to wonder if Saint Dymphna was wearing something really, really slutty. I mean, what else could have inspired her father’s foul desires?
Posted on August 27, 2011, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, bullying, evil women, oppressed men, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 326 Comments.
Actually, it doesn’t matter what Saint Dymphna was wearing, specifically–if she sadistically manipulated her father into a lustful rage (it’s unclear what benefit this gave to her, but perhaps it was just funny or something), then we know her clothing, whatever it was, was too slutty.
That’s the wonderful thing about “slutty”–it’s judged post facto, by the “effects.”
Oh, this shit again. Cue the mewling of our resident MRAs about steak and car theft.
I love the concept of “slutty” clothing. In my experience, the biggest sluts tend to dress in blue jeans and T-shirts.
OHMIGOD YOU ARE WEARING A STAR WARS SHIRT YOU ARE JUST ASKING TO BE RAPED
“as an accessory before the fact — i.e., if some dolt grabs her, then at the very least she is his partner in crime. And the offense in which they both participate is a serious transgression against civil order. Sadistic provocation is a breach of the peace.”
Actually, provocation is never a crime. In fact, provocation doesn’t even provide a defense to assault charges. The most provocation can do is remove your right to a self defense claim. So no, this is still stupid, even if we accept the premises as accurate.
Also this isn’t Britain; we don’t actually have amazingly permissive Breach of the Peace laws.
I’m skeptical that the sight of half-clad bosoms and bare thighs turns the average heterosexual man raving mad. In a world permeated with pornography, where anyone who wants to can look at much more explicit stuff all day long, I don’t think slutwalkers are causing temptation so much as anger. Women aren’t supposed to object to objectification. The times I’ve had some angry or pervy man grab me on the street, his action hasn’t seemed to have any relation to how I am dressed. One time I was wearing khaki pants and a hoodie, deliberately dressed to avoid attention. I get filthy or just forward comments when wearing ladylike dresses. So, while slutwalkers are stating that scanty clothes are not an excuse for assault, I would go further and say they are rarely the reason for assault either.
Maybe I’d believe that nonsense about sexy clothes contributing to assault and harassment, if I hadn’t had the same experiences in any sort of clothing.
This is the problem with getting off on outrage and indignation. One starts to see every instance where zhe could take offense as an opportunity. To me, it sounds like Dymphna wants to get groped on the bus, not because she likes getting groped, but because it would give her an excuse to berate someone. Instead she has to settle for taking offense at the people clever enough to come up with the idea before she did.
From what she tells us, she can’t imagine any other reason for people to do a slutwalk.
I get filthy or just forward comments when wearing ladylike dresses.
congratulations. you may have met dkm irl.
The misogynists who object to slutwalks are trying, I know, to put their finger on something and don’t quite know what it is. How do you define a slut, as in, a woman who deserves to get catcalled, insulted, groped and possibly raped? I’ve been in some places in the world where wearing “nice Church-going girl” garb is actually a sure way to invite that kind of male attention; men in those cultures see it as a challenge and some of them want to signal that women who are dressed like that are moralizing hypocrites. And of course, rape has been used as a way to retaliate against an opinion or a political act that has nothing to do with how a woman is dressed. So I offer my own definition of “slut” as embraced by a misogynist:
Slut: a woman who draws attention to herself.
That’s it, really. It’s a definition that, I think, covers all those contradictory characteristics that misogynists take such pains to describe as slutty. In their view, the only proper way for a woman to behave is to be unseen and unheard. I now understand what Pericles meant when he said that a virtuous woman is one about whom no one ever says anything, neither good nor bad.
So terrible people do this in the name of St Dymphna, while decent people do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheel#A_model_of_psychiatric_care
In May 2010, a 41 year old man in Hastings, MN raped a 9 month old girl. In February 2006, a 98 year old Australian woman was raped by a staff member at her nursing home. I found these two cases in less than ten seconds on Google.
Babies get raped. Elderly women get raped. Women in burkas get raped. If rape was truly caused by provocative attire, these other instances would not happen.
(Please note that I am not for one instant trying to say that men and boys do not experience sexual assault. I only list females in my above examples because in general, only women are told that they’ve caused their sexual assaults by dressing a certain way.)
SSDD. You’d think these people could at least try to be original but no dice.
Basically all I’m hearing is that “slut” = woman who refuses to disappear into the woodwork/woman who refuses to give her body to me. And really, if that’s all a slut is I see absolutely no problem with being labeled one.
Isn’t St. Dymphna the patron saint of people who have mental problems? That’s what I hear. Of course, I am (used to be) a Protestant, so what I hear may not be reliable.
If Dymphna is not the patron saint of loony people, what a waste of a super opportunity, whereas if she is, how cool is that?
Would love to be more informed on this subject than I am.
As a man, I am sick of the “men can’t control themselves” rhetoric. It’s complete bullshit. What these people are essentially saying is: “men shouldn’t have to control themselves,” which is as misandrist and infantalizing to men as anything I’ve ever heard.
Of course, no one is really objecting to the display of female sexuality here. I seriously doubt that those who find the Slutwalk infuriating would have any objection to, say, the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. It’s the assertion of female control over their own sexuality that sends so many around the bend.
The “display of female sexuality” thing is kind of impossible to get away from, anyway. I can’t go out and leave my sexuality at home. If I wear a long-sleeved high-collared floor-length dress, I’m still making a statement about my sexuality.
(In fact, I might get more shit for that dress, because some guys will harass a woman who looks meek, or like she doesn’t fit in, or like she’s “withholding” her charms.)
Ultimately, “female sexuality” is on display any time a female body is, and I can’t go anywhere without taking my female body along.
Guys are just going to have to deal with that. And the funny thing is, most of them do. The vast majority of guys could see a woman walking down the street buck-ass naked, and they might be confused or worried or offended by the sight, but they wouldn’t be uncontrollably aroused. The number of guys who feel a “uh oh, I didn’t want to, but now I have to assault her” urge under any circumstances is just not as large as these anti-Slutwalk misandrists would have us believe.
A man called me a slut in the street once. I was clothed neck-to-ankle, with long sleeves, in several loose layers of thick, navy blue fabric. However, my bad – the bare head and hands were sadistic provocation.
I find it really interesting and amusing what a stir the Slutwalks have caused. I just…don’t understand how some people think, I guess.
Y’know, I wander around SCA events in a very cleavage-y Italian Renaissance dress. The rest of me is pretty well covered, but the cleavage is pretty impressive. I have yet to meet, among the thousands who have seen me over the years, a man who couldn’t control himself at the sight of bosoms. I refuse to believe that all SCAdian men are paragons of virtue or that we have a statistically higher percentage of gay or asexual men, so why can men in the Society control their lustful urges without whining, when many MRAs can’t?
re St Dymphna: She is the patron saint of the mentally ill.
It was not long, however, until an unexpected cloud overshadowed the happy childhood of the beautiful girl. She lost her good mother by death. Many were the secret tears she shed over this bereavement, but at the same time she found great comfort in the Divine Faith which, though she was still of a tender age, already had taken deep root.
Dymphna’s father, too, greatly mourned his deceased wife and for a long time continued prostrate with grief. At length he was persuaded by his counselors to seek solace in a second marriage. So he commissioned certain ones of his court to seek out for him a lady who would be like his first spouse in beauty and character. After visiting many countries in vain, the messengers returned saying that they could find none so charming and amiable as his own lovely daughter, Dymphna. …
She fled, he followed. She spurned him, he killed her. Some of this is probably parablaic; her father was a pagan remnant in 7th cent. Ireland, which was almost completely Catholic.
The effects of her sanctification are actually manifest in the present day.
Gradually St. Dymphna’s fame as patroness of victims of nervous diseases and mental disorders was spread from country to country. More and more mentally afflicted persons were brought to the shrine by relatives and friends, many coming in pilgrimages from far-distant places. Novenas were made, and St. Dymphna’s relic was applied to the patients. The remarkable cures reported caused confidence in the saint to grow daily. At first the patients were lodged in a small annex built onto the church. Then gradually it came about that the patients were place in the homes of the families living in Gheel. From this beginning Gheel developed into a town world-famed for its care of the insane and mentally afflicted. An institution, called the “Infirmary of St. Elizabeth,” which was conducted by the Sisters of St. Augustine was later built for the hospital care of the patients. Most of the latter, after some time spent in the institution, are placed in one or other of the families of Gheel, where they lead a comparatively normal life. Every home in Gheel is proud to welcome to its inmost family circle such patients as are ready to return to the environment of family life. Generations of experience have given to the people of Gheel an intimate and tender skill in dealing with their charges, and their remarkable spirit of charity and Christlike love for these afflicted members of society gives to our modern-day world, so prone to put its whole reliance on science and to forge the principles of true Christian charity, a lesson the practice of which would do much to restore certain types of mentally afflicted individuals to an almost normal outlook on life.
KathleenB: Imagine how they would react if you showed shoulders, or ankles.
:)
I’m sure Dymphna will start commenting on Hookingupsmart.
KathleenB: Imagine how they would react if you showed shoulders, or ankles.
I am a modest matron, good sir! Ankles, what do you take me for?!?
Wow, that was almost painful to read. Sadistic provocation? What exactly does she think the purpose of Slutwalk is, that women are purposely trying to rile up random men on the street? And how is being assaulted an equal reaction to dressing “slutty”? I think a more equal reaction would be decking a guy who gropes me…if I weren’t small and rather weak and afraid of getting my ass kicked.
Also, a guy made kissing noises at me and then wolf-whistled when I was on my way back from jury duty. Yes I was dressed up a bit but I was also dressed very conservatively, so I wasn’t “provoking” anyone, but they certainly ruined my day by breaching my peace.
“slutwalk” is now what you think it is. I had a Taco Bell encounter two weeks ago that told me everything I needed to know about slutwalks. I posted about it on A Voice For Men:
————
I also experienced an event that I want to share on Thursday at the local Taco Bell. A young woman dressed in a micro-skirt and see-through tube top (nothing wrong with either) was offended when a man in a passing pickup truck glared at her and honked. The woman called the police AND THEY CAME. Apparently, “street harassment” is now illegal. Catcalls and even glaring are against the law. What the FUCK is this?!?
If it is a woman’s body to do with as she pleases (which I support), then it is my fucking mouth and eyes to do with as I please.
It was suffolk county trooper car #702, and I want to write a complaint to the police. What kind of moron wastes police resources investigating CATCALLS and GLARING?
A woman wants to show her tits in public? I support that, it is her right. It is also MY right to look, or say, whatever I want about it, as long as I do not threaten her.
———-
In case you thought I “made this up”, look at the reply to this post from two weeks ago:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/avfm-2-0-recap-and-some-thank-yous/#comment-62518
antz we totally believe you filed a complaint against a police officer for doing his job. you dont have to prove it to us.
“Manboobz is actually unusually tolerant, for a feminist site.”
awwww antz you like us :3
antz: WTF does your Taco Bell encounter have to do with SlutWalks? SlutWalks are about raising awareness and challenging the perception that only women who are dressed a certain way get raped.
Does it ever occur to you that it’s not what you felt upon seeing what happened to that women that the police care about? If she felt harassed or threatened, she had every effing right to call the cops, and they had an obligation to enforce the law. Which forbids, btw, harassing or threatening ANYONE.
AntZ, if the Taco Bell story you’re telling is true and is not being wildly exaggerated, then the guy in the truck was a jerk. First, he glared at her. Glaring is a nonverbal way to threaten other people. Then he honked at her. People honk their horns because they’re pissed off on the road, road rage. I could see how she could feel threatened. He did two things to show anger and aggression toward her, a complete stranger. I don’t care if she was naked. That doesn’t mean he should threaten her.
@Antz: If it’s any consolation, upskirting is still legal in more than half the states. Apparently (if you are too lazy to click on the link), the majority of supposedly feminist-controlled courts have held that a woman who has the temerity to appear in a public place wearing a skirt does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her crotch. But, as we all now know, women who wear pants instead are sluts too (maybe because by wearing pants they deprive men of their God-given right to take pictures of their privates). So you see, contrary to your claims of doom and gloom, certain forms of sexual shaming, exploitation and harassment of women are still legal. Justice!!
(I love your argument, by the way. I expect now every rapist can say: “She has the right to do whatever she wants with her tits, and I have the right to do whatever I want with my hands and penis.”)
“If it is a woman’s body to do with as she pleases (which I support), then it is my fucking mouth and eyes to do with as I please.”
This is my view also, at least the part about your eyes. Looking at someone is not a crime. I don’t disagree with the notion that a woman should be free to dress however she sees fit, free from physical assault, or even verbal assault (a definition of which is no doubt problematic in it’s conception). But if a woman dresses in a way that is appealing to me, I will look at her, I can’t help it: and neither should I be expected to. Much like when Sharculese catches sight of my knee socks and sandals.
The things that I find unpleasant about the “slut walks” are: firstly the glorification of the word slut, as if it’s some sort of achievement for a man or woman to be seen as such, and secondly, the implication that men, in general, and not in fact rapists, need to be told, by women, not to assault them. As if we believe that it is in anyway acceptable to do so.
As if we believe that it is in anyway acceptable to do so.
Are you actually reading anything posted here? Many MRAs do believe that they have a sovereign right to do whatever they want to a woman who has the effrontery to turn them on. What else are the ‘waving raw meat around’ comments supposed to be? Metaphors for vegetarianism?
@qwert: It has already been discussed above that the word “slut” is used and was originally made up just to shame women. To keep them “in their place.” As I mentioned before if the word “slut” means “someone in charge of their sexuality who refuses to disappear into the woodwork” then I have no problem with that.
@ KathleenB
“Many MRAs do believe that they have a sovereign right to do whatever they want to a woman who has the effrontery to turn them on. What else are the ‘waving raw meat around’ comments supposed to be? Metaphors for vegetarianism?”
Whoever says such things is an idiot and completely wrong in their assertions. I don’t agree with them in the slightest. But, as you might admit, there are very few MRA’s: there are a lot more men. The slut walks are not about the way MRA’s view women they are about the way women are viewed by men, as in all men. Big difference.
But if a woman dresses in a way that is appealing to me, I will look at her, I can’t help it: and neither should I be expected to.
There’s a difference between looking to appreciate and looking to violate. I don’t mind if people appreciate my body, that’s what we’re designed for. As long as they’re polite, it fine. But looking can be a violation – outright staring, leering, the looks that are a prelude to some obscene proposal. And the only person who gets to judge the difference is the person being looked at. If a person tells you that your looking offends them or makes them feel unsafe, you responsibility is to apologize and STOP DOING IT, not try to make your inability to control yourself their fault. (the ‘you’ here is general, it applies to everyone)
qwert666 said, “The things that I find unpleasant about the “slut walks” are: firstly the glorification of the word slut, as if it’s some sort of achievement for a man or woman to be seen as such”
That’s exactly what I suspected. I knew that part of the reason MRA’s and misogynists get upset about slutwalks is that they don’t know what to do if the word slut loses its sting. They want to make women feel ashamed of their sexuality, and they don’t know how to do if we pesky feminists take the word back and spoil their fun.
Whoever says such things is an idiot and completely wrong in their assertions. I don’t agree with them in the slightest. But, as you might admit, there are very few MRA’s: there are a lot more men. The slut walks are not about the way MRA’s view women they are about the way women are viewed by men, as in all men. Big difference.
if you already understand that women in revealing clothes dont deserve to be raped, great, youre not the target of slut walk. plenty of people, like oooh i dont know, the lady david wrote the post about, dont seem to get that.
The slut walks are not about the way MRA’s view women they are about the way women are viewed by men, as in all men. Big difference.
SlutWalks are about a general perception that if you dress in a certain way, if you don’t go out at certain times or in certain places, that you don’t drink or dance, that if you only live a cloistered, virginal life, it won’t be your fault if you’re raped. But women are raped all the time, no matter what they’re wearing, and the perceptions I mentioned hinder their ability to report their assault or get any kind of legal remedy for it.
@ ClioPersephone
Slut:
1) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A woman prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly woman
4) an immoral woman
I don’t dispute the reason why the word came to be, but it still means what it means. I don’t think it really advances women’s position in society to pretend that being a slut is a positive thing. In fact, I think it has the reverse effect. There’s nothing wrong, in my view, with “someone in charge of their sexuality who refuses to disappear into the woodwork” but I don’t believe that this is in fact the definition of slut. I’m of the opinion that there are plenty of women who would agree with me here.
Small addendum to my comment about looking: If another person says, ‘The way you’re looking at the person/small animal/police call box is making me uncomfortable,’ then the response should also be as above.
@ KathleenB
“There’s a difference between looking to appreciate and looking to violate. I don’t mind if people appreciate my body, that’s what we’re designed for. As long as they’re polite, it fine.”
This is very true, appreciating a woman’s beauty and “looking to violate” are not one and the same thing. But still, I don’t want to live in a society where looking at someone is considered a crime. That is some scary stuff right there. Especially when the proof of an offence is if the person being looked at is not happy about the way that they are being looked at. The next step is being arrested for thinking the wrong thing.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
@qwert: No, not staring at someone who has asked you to stop is not a slippery slope to thought crime: it’s common fucking courtesy. Courtesy and respect for the boundaries of others is what allows large numbers of human beings to live together without killing each other over who’s in line first.
There was a short story (by Heinlen?) in which a super-duper genius in the far future is asked to do a study to determine if there is a predictable factor among human societies that have collapsed. She came back with the conclusion that there are multiple ways to know that a society is sick, but the only commonality among the ones that went down was the breakdown of politeness. And not just the lack thereof, but the celebration of that lack.
This was a story, and I don’t know if it’s true, but it struck me as a truism: it’s very difficult to be too polite, or too respectful of other’s rights.
@Qwert
“Slut:
1) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A woman prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly woman
4) an immoral woman”
Modern usage of the world is mostly 1 and sometimes 2 (and sort of 4, but really only as applied to sex and sexuality–you never hear “You embezzled money, you’re a slut!” or “She stole a pack of gum, what a slut!”)
And the people who are trying to “reclaim” (really, claim the first time around) the word are making the point there is nothing wrong with being promiscuous. It does not make you less of a person. Also, the association between the word slut and a manner of dress is ridiculous. Which is where Slutwalks come in – you don’t get to treat women as inferior, or as if they were “asking for it” because they dressed “slutty.”
Or, as someone else put it: My Rights End Where Yours Begin (or Your Rights End Where Mine Begin, both are equally true).
“I don’t dispute the reason why the word came to be, but it still means what it means. I don’t think it really advances women’s position in society to pretend that being a slut is a positive thing. In fact, I think it has the reverse effect. There’s nothing wrong, in my view, with “someone in charge of their sexuality who refuses to disappear into the woodwork” but I don’t believe that this is in fact the definition of slut. I’m of the opinion that there are plenty of women who would agree with me here.”
What you’re really saying is “I obviously know how to advance the cause of women better than women”. You’re just full of old cliches, aren’t you?
@theLaplaceDemon: Thank you! I was trying to come up with a way to say exactly that, but I couldn’t get it to fit together in my head.
Did someone just say they “couldn’t help” what they did with their eyes? I call bullshit. You can definitely control what you do with your eyes. It’s a bit like saying that if you see someone with some kind of deformity or injury that you can’t help but stare. Absolute bullshit. You can close your eyes. You can look at something else. There are other options available to you because YOU control your eyes. The person who looks a certain way that makes you want to stare does not have some kind of eye magnet embedded in their skin. They don’t MAKE YOU stare at them. You choose to stare. You can choose not to stare too.
Feminists are supposed to be the huge “misandrists,” but it’s always the men who are claiming that other men can’t control their bodies and become weak in the presence of tits. If that were true, nudist colonies and nude beaches would be giant rapey gang-bangs. And they aren’t. Men have impulse control. They have brains. They have free will. They can choose to do things or not choose to do things. If they choose to do things that are rude or illegal, there is no excuse. “But if she wears a short skirt, she wants me to stare!” Nope, still not an excuse unless you have a notarized document informing that she does, in fact, want you to stare whenever she wears short skirts. Learn to be a human being. Free will and impulse control are supposed to set us apart from animals. So stop treating men like animals and stop acting like one yourself.
Otherwise we’ll lock you in the zoo and you can find out what it’s like to be ogled endlessly every day.
@ Spearhafoc
“You say that like it’s a bad thing.”
As far as definition 1 goes, then I’d say the more sluts the merrier! More sluts means more sluts for me to have (consensual) sex with! I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts. I’m no altruist so I won’t pretend to care too much about this, I’m just saying. A slut is a slut, man or woman.
“a bunch of rutting sluts”
Uh. What?
Zarat, you do realize that the link you provided in no way confirms your account of this incident, right? You gave a link that takes you to a post that is almost identical to the post containing the link. Is there any independent verification of this story apart from your, undoubtedly, unbiased eye-witness account?
“A slut is a slut, man or woman.”
And how, exactly, does that affect you in a bad way? Or are you asserting some position onf the “greater good”?
@qwert:
“Slut:
1) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A woman prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly woman
4) an immoral woman”
Again none of these things are in of themselves a “bad” thing. There is nothing wrong with being sexually promiscuous. There is nothing wrong with being a sex worker. Morality is subjective based on culture. So once again I’ll say to you, all of these things add up to a woman in charge of her sexuality who refuses to be put down by society. The word “slut” has a negative connotation because currently a woman who is sexually free is “dangerous” to the status quo. You’ve heard of slut-shaming haven’t you?
How exactly would it be a bad thing to have a society where women and men would be free to love/have sex whoever they please? Why would reclaiming the word slut lead to a decrease in women’s equality (as you claim)?
@ chocomintlipwax
“You can definitely control what you do with your eyes.”
Oh please stop.
If a firework explodes unexpectedly above my head I will look toward the sky. If an unknown voice calls my name I will turn to look in it’s direction. If a beautiful woman walks past me I will look at her. This is because I am biologically programmed to find women attractive.
At a point at which I am looking at her, or the firework, or whatever, I will have a concious thought where I recognise that I am, in fact, looking at what I am looking at. Only at this point in time am I able to control my eyes and choose to look away. The question is, is this the same point in time that the woman I’m looking at has the conscious thought that I am making her feel uncomfortable? At what point am I in the wrong here, does she define this point in time or do I?
Oh and I forgot to say, I LOVE the word “slatternly” and many of the other old english words for sexual women.
“I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts.”
I’m curious about the kind mind that is bothered by the idea of other people having lots of consensual sex. Not deeply curious or anything, mostly just mildly puzzled. What an odd thing by which to be bothered.
And what a strange use of the word “altruist.”
Why? Don’t you want society to be made up of people like Holly Pervocracy, an EMT and hilarious writer? Clarisse Thorn, one of the kindest bloggers I know, who did nonprofit work in Africa? Edna St. Vincent Millay, probably America’s foremost sonneteer of the twentieth century? Madonna, an incredible musician and influence on pop music? Even the most dedicated slut can’t fuck for more than a couple hours a day, and you gotta do something with the rest of the time.
1) A person, especially a man, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A male prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly man
4) an immoral man
What do we call this guy?
Also, slatternly, according to Merriam-Webster, means “of, relating to, or characteristic of a slut or prostitute.” So a slut is someone who exhibits the characteristics of a slut. Got it!
Oh, thanks, Ozy.
Now I’m contractually obligated to. >:(
“Oh please stop.
If a firework explodes unexpectedly above my head I will look toward the sky. If an unknown voice calls my name I will turn to look in it’s direction. If a beautiful woman walks past me I will look at her. This is because I am biologically programmed to find women attractive.”
Fucking self-control, how does it work?
And, yes, you are allowed to look at attractive ladies. You are just not allowed to leer at them. That’s not that difficult a distinction to make.
I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts.
I don’t see why not.
But I thought QWERT WAS GOING HIS OWN WAY, so why are you concerntrolling us?
And by “not allowed” I mean “I can call you a creepy asshole.” I don’t even support leering being illegal, just socially disapproved of.
I really enjoyed AntZ story: victory for feminism! Harrassment is illegal, and the cops will respond to complaints. That’s awesome! How widespread is this phenomen?
There is no male equivalent of slut that carries the same connotation. By itself, this is a good reason for women to want to reclaim and redefine the term, or at least its implication. Other groups have engaged in similar reclamation efforts, most notably gay people with the word “queer.”
“But I thought QWERT WAS GOING HIS OWN WAY, so why are you concerntrolling us?”
It’s not enough to do your own shit, one has to incessantly let people know that you’re doing it.
Every professional insecure person knows that. ;)
“At what point am I in the wrong here, does she define this point in time or do I?”
Wow, what a hard question. Of course she defines it, you twit, you’re the one who’s staring.
@ ClioPersephone
That’s actually a very interesting perspective. I’d have to concede that it most likely isn’t in fact an essentially bad thing to be a slut, it would only be so in the eyes of someone hoping to retain the “status quo”, as you put it. Which, in all likely-hood, is a great many people. Now you appear to be saying that these people are wrong to think this, and I won’t argue this point, because I don’t think that they are either right or wrong here. In the eyes of these people being a slut is undesirable, to them. Like I said before the more sluts the merrier!
So a slut is someone who exhibits the characteristics of a slut.
Gotta love circular definitions!
“Oh, thanks, Ozy.
Now I’m contractually obligated to. >:(”
I just. died. laughing.
Thank you, NWO, for the most beautiful Manbooz memes…
I’d have to concede that it most likely isn’t in fact an essentially bad thing to be a slut, it would only be so in the eyes of someone hoping to retain the “status quo”, as you put it.
Then why is it a bad thing that society is full of people who have lots of consensual sex? You hate the status quo—at least the parts of it that interfere with your own desires and aims—that’s why you’re GYOW. Why protect it here?
VoiP: I would think that chafing might become a problem, but other than that…