One who engages in sexual intercourse for any alternative motive other than to reproduce, meet one's sexual "needs" or to please a person you care for on an equally intimate level.
When I say "needs" I'm referring to strong physical desires, as it is possible to live a life without ever preforming a sexual deed with another person. There's more to life than sex; a hell of a lot more.
Provocative clothing and occupations such as stripping are in a gray zone for me. The word "slut" doesn't quite fit, but I'm aware that those people wearing and participating in these things are simply using their bodies to sexually stimulate others.(Although that is not always the case with the way people dress.) Clothing especially is a shady area since "appropriate attire" is and will always be subjective.
High school girls with fishnet leggings or high school guys with extremely tight workout shorts on will most likely draw a certain kind of attention, but does that make them a slut?
I wouldn't say so. A tease of some sort yes, but not a slut.
It's common knowledge that some people have more of a sexual drive, but why should they limit what their body craves more often than others? Because it's the "right" thing to do? Or an even worse reason, because other people don't have as much sex. Right and wrong are based off the perception of social normality and in this case, I believe that the word "slut" is a broken term.
Now, moving on to men and women who participate in sexual activities regularly (meaning one bad decision doesn't label a person as a slut for life) for reasons such as to raise self esteem/worth, gain acceptance from a particular social group or as "payment" for another deed or object including money, clothes, manual labor or even drugs. An example of this would be a very attractive person going in for a job interview, charming their way into the employer's pants, and landing the position... and the job. Who in this case would be the "slut"? The employee or the employer? My answer: Both of them.
I say this because the employer may be trying to meet his/her sexual needs but they are giving their momentary partner something other than sex itself. The employee is a slut because of two reasons: one being they are "giving" their body up and the other being they are "receiving" employment.
In another light, when would two people not be considered sluts? Imagine two individuals on a date, one of which engaged in sexual intercourse a week ago, the other, a few months ago. The date progresses and both parties can feel the sexual tension rising. They eventually go over to a residence and, to simply put it, fuck. Sex after the first date, does it make either of them a slut? No. It's natural, and both parties were in it for the same reason.
Now, take the same situation but imagine that one of the two developed feelings while the other wanted to leave it as a one night stand. Does this make either of them a slut? It depends. Did the person who developed feelings sleep with the other person simply because they thought by giving up their body they could "seal the deal" or did they sleep with them because they wanted sex or to meet their sexual desire? Intention is what ultimately decides whether or not they can be deemed a slut.
The exact number of sexual partners doesn't make a difference, as common sense tells us that some people manage to remain in relationships longer. Just because someone isn't in a relationship does that mean their sexual drive should lessen let alone cease altogether? Obviously not.
Biologically speaking, reproducing is the main reason we as human beings exist, to pass on as much of our genetic code as possible to the next generation. It is with the introduction of social "norms" that people begin to limit their sexual encounters. We are neither a true tournament species nor a true pairing species (at least not in this day in age). Men in today's society are typically praised for their sexual triumphs while women are shunned ultimately becoming a social pariah (mostly by other women who claim to have more "self respect").
And to that I say, why? That doesn't make any sense. Women, from my experiences alone, end up being a lot hornier than myself.
No one should have to conform to this ridiculous standard, especially because it's based on gender. For the thousands of years intelligent human beings have been on this earth, we are still trying to reach a gender equilibrium. Agree or disagree, these are my observations and thoughts on the subject.
Comments? Thoughts?
Recommend
Comments (53)
guess i see it more simply: sluttiness is in the eye of the beholder.
i find that the beholder is a usually a jealous or insecure woman.I prefer the second definition, personally. I've never called anyone a slattern but it sounds more intelligent than slut or skank.
i'd have to define sluttiness if the deed is done other than for love. if it's for material possessions, one-night stands, money etc then it's slutty.
when you don't know who the father of the baby is and have to take DNA tests to find out, and still can't find the father...when you don't remember who you hooked up with....when you pretty much get with anything that walks and never say no.
I think children should be covered up, including teenage girl, and I think adults should dress properly around children, however If you want to be sexy or be all naked at a strip club- to each their own. I judge people more by their character and compassion than anything else.
This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever read. I think so-called "sluttiness" is a load of crap. There's nothing wrong with sexual expression. There's nothing dirty, bad, etc. about sex. It's part of life, get over it, prude.
I hate the double-standard, though, between men and women. If a man sleeps around he's a "stud" or a "pimp" but if a woman does she's a "slut?" Give me a break.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - For some of us men who practice what we preach, that isn't a double standard, it's a standard, jackass. Of course if you were to have such a policy it would be a double standard.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - When it's describing something a person has (or rather, should have) control over, there is absolutely nothing wrong with derogatory names.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - You want a cookie? I 'can' reject someone while disagreeing with them. It can also be done. You say it like because it is seemingly more difficult that somehow it is more right or adds more reason to do it instead. Sometimes being mean is perfectly appropriate, and far more appropriate than being needlessly nice, especially considering the person is going to do what they want regardless. Sluts gonna slut.
I don't think anyone has the right to throw the word slut at another person (not to say you can't criticize or question their behavior when it includes their sexual habits when it is clearly creating negative consequences). But slut is such a loaded but extremely subjective word. EVERYONE has a different standard of what makes someone "slutty" based on their own ideas and feelings and values regarding sex. I think the only thing people should be concerned with is if they themselves find themselves to be sluts (though I suppose some girls have no problem with referring to themselves as such, but I never understood that one. If I feel I'm being slutty, it's because I don't feel like what I'm doing is okay by my standards).
So really, people need to stop concerning themselves with the sex lives of others. If you are dating the person, fair enough. If it is a friend or family member and you are concerned about them (in which case, you wouldn't call them a slut), understandable. But if you are just being judgmental for no reason, then...yeah, you can just keep that shit to yourself.
I think actions are better termed slutty than people. If a person performs enough slutty actions consistently, then the person becomes slutty. I also don't take offense to things like that, though. If someone were to say I was slut, whether it was true or not, it wouldn't bother me.
The word "slut" is not a broken term. It has a perfectly functional definition. The problem is that people don't use it correctly. They apply it to any woman they don't like or have some disagreement with. It's an abuse of the term that's the problem. Words don't cause stupidity. People do.
@Erika_Steele@xanga - I actually heard someone use the term "slattern" in conversation once, and correctly. I'll admit that my respect for them increased just a bit after that.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - Btw, I didn't mean "I" as just regarding myself, but I see why you would think I meant that...! Wasn't too clear. I meant it in a universal sort of way--you could substitute "one" or "someone".
if we define the term, i can't throw it around to talk about any slut i meet at hh or whatever, soooo we should probably stay away from doing so.
When I hear the term slut, I think of someone who comes across as being indiscriminate about partners. It's not just the number, but there appears to be little rhyme or reason in the choice of partners. The person isn't doing it out of love, need for cash, or often even out of lust or attraction. It nearly seems some weird compulsion or dangerous habit...often accompanied by self esteem issues, abuse issues, power/anger/rebellion...basically things that tend to lead to poor decision making.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - I'm curious how you would feel about the word "whore". it definitely has a derogatory tone to it, but it has an actual technical definition. so, would there be a problem if I were to tell a woman "stop letting your male friends talk to you/treat you like a whore".
@iones_island@xanga - That's a good question. I would use it possibly the way you used it--to show that a woman isn't a whore, but that some people want to look at her and treat her as one when they shouldn't be. That doesn't seem mean, and it seems like you're trying to help her.
I mean, if someone is literally a prostitute, I wouldn't be afraid of referring to her as a prostitute. It's the intent behind whatever you're saying...that's more what I'm getting at.
Why do we need to define people as sluts?
@randaness@xanga - To express our own feelings about, to, and for those people I'd imagine... like any other word.
It's just as @Nous_Apeiron@xanga said. The problem isn't the word, it's that people feel as though the word shouldn't be used because it is often either misused or people feel as though they should be able to do whatever they want sexually and not be seen as a major contributing factor to the downfall of mankind when such is certainly the case.
I made a girl cry once because I called her a "ho", but that was back when I threw the term around like it was nothing. Apparently it carried more weight with her than with me. She was being a major bitch and was in-fact very promiscuous, and wouldn't you know it... her subconscious agreed that her behavior was unacceptable.
To put it simply, if you care what a person (or other people) think about you, maybe you shouldn't engage in activities that make them think less of you instead of trying to get them to stop expressing how they feel.
@randaness@xanga - THANK YOU
I HATE the word slut. The whole double standard there is just complete bullshit. Who cares if someone wants to have sex with someone? Why is that anyone's business? Does it personally hurt you and your reproductive organs?
The problem with the word slut is that it is almost always exclusively used by women, about women. There is a problem there.. This is one of those words that has such negative connotations, I don't use it.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - It is most definitely a double standard considering that the Merriam-webster definition of slut refers exclusively to women.