'Sup, Sluts?
An article in the NYTimes today on the current phenomenon of the slut and the significance of said word, states that a real-life Samantha Jones couldn't exist (a fearless, intelligent, and ultra sexy female sex fiend? Never!). The article furthermore quotes a young man in Albany saying he might date a slut, but never marry one. So basically, if the woman of his dreams has had a lot of lovers, he'll refuse to marry her, no matter how much he wants to?
I think we should embrace sluts rather than shun them. What's to dislike, anyway? I honestly don't see why being a slut is such a bad thing; the problem is that we give them a bad rep. Notice, additionally, how it's only women who sleep around who get a bad rep.
Come on, people. Double standards are so passé...
14 comments :
There's a documentary about this too, called Slut.
I'm a slut and no one will marry me.
I loved that documentary! Especially the DP anal action, that had to be seen to be believed.
Hmmmm, the article is silly, but I sort of disagree with you on a few counts, and at the risk of sounding like I'm 78, I ask: Is a slut really someone who is sexually active with a large number of people, or someone who is sexually active with a large number of people IRRESPONSIBLY? Because it makes all the difference. Secondly, it isn't ONLY women who sleep around who get a bad rep: this all depends on who you listen to. Third: the young man who would rather not marry a "slut"- is he being sexist or mean or merely logical? One has certain expectactions of long term loyalty going into marriage, and it makes sense to believe that a woman... or MAN... who has not been big on stability and loyalty before might continue on a similar pattern after marriage.
Would YOU be interested in a relationship with someone from whom you could not expect emotional reciprocity?
The true problem with "sluts", male or female, is that presumably they have been unable (or uninterested) in long term attachments to one individual-which creates suspicion- and envy-in other people.
From a female perspective, the problem with "sluts" isn't that they've had a lot of lovers - it's that they won't think twice about putting the moves - very obvious, very setting-women-back-1,000-years moves - on taken men.
And I agree that double standards are passé (and unfair). Men can be sluts, too. I honestly can't blame a guy if he doesn't want to marry a woman who's had a large number of partners (like hans, I think irresponsibility plays a factor here), mostly because I could never be serious about a guy who'd fuck around without regard to emotions, self-respect, respect of others, etc.
IMO, it's not about number of partners - it's about the attitude and behaviors that accompany it.
I'd rather form my arguments devoid of ficitional characters on HBO, but I think you guys are missing the point here. It's not that being a slut is good or bad, or that it can be done responsibly, it's that regardless of the requirements of sluthood, the title is given to women far more often than men; and male sluts, whent they're called that, are seen in far more favorable light than their female counterparts.
We're constructing strawmen here.
Yeah, I'm not sure a character that gets to resolve her relationships in thirty minute arcs is an appropriate example.
I agree with tere- sluttines is not a number, it's an attitude. Likely, a DESTRUCTIVE attitude.
I think you're using the term interchangeably with promiscuity- what you're describing is just the accelerated serial monogamy most people probably engage in today.
And yes, of course there's still a double standard, attitudes towards sex and gender change surprisingly sloooowly. But you will admit they DO change. Is there still a frat house mentality of "boys need to scare as much as possible" and girls remain as "virginal as endurable"? Sure, in some places and to some extent, but I think everyone can appreciate a partner with a juicy history.
I'm going to guess most guys AND girls don't really care about each other's number of previous partners, or even how casual the sex was, as long as they can believe that "this time h/she REALLY cares."
(I'm talking about reasonable numbers here. If your possible partner has been with 200 people-and assorted animals- in the last month, you might be in for trouble. Or a treat.)
Yes, sluts are promiscuous by definition, but perhaps not every promiscuous person is a slut? (i.e:
I felt tempted to look up the Middle English root for slut- the connotation is uncleanliness and disorder, rather than quantity. Hence Shakespeare referring to a house as being in sluttish disarray.)
The responsible promiscuous person you describe would almost deserve another category.
But not denying your point- the world "slut" conventionally is thrown on a promiscuous woman, and the equivalent guy is a more flattering "player". Still, I think by far the current trend is to encourage and admire sexual conquests in both women and men- and definitely quantity over quality.
The fact remains that sex will now and (hopefully) forevermore remain a question of personal outlook and ethics. One may approve of a sensible orgy and be utterly repulsed by a disloyal kiss. It happens all the time. A standardized view on what's good and bad in sex, slutty or not, is not only unlikely, but I would think, undesirable.
"One may approve of a sensible orgy and be utterly repulsed by a disloyal kiss."
That's one for the quotation file, right there. Hans, you're the Hansel Castro who posts on the site, right? I want to attribute that properly.
Hey, but look at who Samantha ended up with!!!
Correct, Hans is Hansel,.
Interestingly enough Hansel is the nicknanme for Hans, even though it's longer.
Gosh, misspellings did abound there, no?
Super color scheme, I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»
Post a Comment