-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What is Your Definition of a Slut?
- Thread starter Devolution
- Start date
- Status
Devolution
Member
You mean guys wouldn't jump at the bit to get at female celebrities if they had a chance? Have you seen the hot women threads?
No, men simply like 'Hot Women'. Not really the same thing.
Devolution
Member
Clearly I simply don't like "hot men." Got my gender all figured out huh.
What. the. fuck.
Yeah, it's not because they're celebrities.
Isn't there an element of truth to it?
I do have explanation to this actually. It's that 'Alpha Male' thing. Men of status within modern society have replaced the 'Knights' and 'great warriors' of old. In nature, the female is more inclined to go with the dominant male.
jim-jam bongs
Member
You'll never find someone to wife you with that attitude, Missy
Devolution
Member
Yeah it totally explains my infatuation with Timedog, for sure.
The power of the vagina correlates directly with the difficulty in which its accessed.
The problem that creates the double standard is that some woman wanna control the world with the vagina, but that power diminishes when its given away so freely.
In truth I already knew the answer to the question. There are actually studies that have come to this conclusion. I don't say things in ignorance.
There are cultural reasons I am sure for why there are these double standards, but the lines between culture and instinct are blurred. Behaviour in humans in part is instinctual. There may well be, as stated in my previous post, natural reasons for why, in part, there are these double standards between men and women.
Of course we're not dealing with absolutes, but in general terms.
There are cultural reasons I am sure for why there are these double standards, but the lines between culture and instinct are blurred. Behaviour in humans in part is instinctual. There may well be, as stated in my previous post, natural reasons for why, in part, there are these double standards between men and women.
Of course we're not dealing with absolutes, but in general terms.
Devolution
Member
You're not even trying.
I generally agree with Gaborn; I had the general concept already defined in my head, but he broadened it and synthesized it very well.
A "slut" would be a person who engages in sexual behavior for reasons we consider unhealthy or inappropriate. Appropriate, healthy sexual relations include sex for pleasure, for love, or for bonding. That list is not intended to be exhaustive.
Other motivations for sex may include using sex as currency, or as a means to boost self esteem. Again, that list is not exhaustive, but represent what are, to me, unhealthy reasons to have sex.
A "slut" would be a person who engages in sexual behavior for reasons we consider unhealthy or inappropriate. Appropriate, healthy sexual relations include sex for pleasure, for love, or for bonding. That list is not intended to be exhaustive.
Other motivations for sex may include using sex as currency, or as a means to boost self esteem. Again, that list is not exhaustive, but represent what are, to me, unhealthy reasons to have sex.
Vermillion
Banned
...This too.
BoobPhysics101
Banned
Statusdog has his appeal. You might say his appeal is timeless.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I like sluts, some of my best friends are sluts. But then again, I'm having a hard time understanding concepts like monogamy and jealousy. I've seen them but never felt them. I was monogamous in my last relationship out of courtesy for her insecurities.
Angry Puppy
Member
There is nothing wrong with the woman who is confidant enough to have sex with men she finds attracting, no matter how many.
There is something wrong with people who view this as a negative and calls her a slut.
There is something wrong with people who view this as a negative and calls her a slut.
I'm not sure they are that hard to understand. People say we are not naturally monogamous, but I personally feel it is neither one or the other. I think there is a reason why it doesn't sit well with a lot of people, regardless of the evidence. The reason, I feel, is that we're not emotionless beings. From a purely naturalistic point of view, it is easy to see what purpose 'love' has in terms of survival and health of the human species. We naturally bond with our partner. We grow attached to one another so that we reproduce and start a family. There are a few instinctual things at play. We become protective and naturally possessive of our partners and children. This is to insure the survival of the children up until adulthood. It just so happens that humans have one of the most prolonged childhoods of any species. Love and emotional ties is what keeps us together. For that reason, it is easy to see how a monogamous relationship can arise quite naturally. Whether it lasts is another thing.
On the other hand, we have strong lustful desires for sexual satisfaction. In this sense we can see how a couple might cheat on each other to fulfil those desires. Lust is not about right or wrong, there is no morality in lust, it is purely about fulfilling desires. The root of basic morality is love. It is also the root of monogamy.
It is said that more societies in history were actually polygamous, but interestingly, that would be in the form of 'polygyny'. That means a male takes more than one wife. In that sense the women would still be monogamous. A possible explanation of this could be it fulfils both man's lustful desires as well as keeping him interested enough, protective, and possessive of the family, and to provide for it and help raise. You could imagine if the woman was 'everyones' and had children of many people, he might be less inclined. There is no incentive to do so. Of course that wouldn't be to say it is either right or wrong, just an objective view of the potential benefits.
But what determines the relatively healthy/unhealthiness of sex?
I kinda have an idea in my head how I'd proceed with that argument - something along the lines of maximizing the benefits of sex (mind and body benefits); requiring emotional bonding and a certain degree of partner filiality and exclusivity, which those 'unhealthy' sexual behaviours can reduce, marginalize or even eliminate... or leaving a person open to greater health risks...
But if we argue things that way, wouldn't we have to consider other sources that harm the ability of sex to provide us with the pleasure that it should provide us with, such as a prudish social/cultural view that minimizes the discussion and optimization of sexual techniques and behaviours among the member group, other physically and disease risky behaviours - touching hand rails, not wiping down keyboards, going mountain biking, etc...?
Basically... what are the rules of thumbs we should embrace in order to maximize the efficacy of this wonderful emergent behaviour, while reducing its harmfulness? What are the rules we can embrace as individuals... and what are the rules we can embrace as a culture/society in order to reduce the degree of associated harm (primarily the mental anguish of been labelled a slut, or some other denigrated member of society - particularly in more conservative social circles).
tuna on toast
Banned
Sluts are promiscuous people. Sluts aren't necessarily bad people. They can have hearts of gold, but their behavior is more likely to lead to undesirable consequences such as disease and unwanted pregnancy than the behavior of people who are more selective. Therefore, sluts are generally not good for society and should be viewed as a negative.
Fun fact - The elimination of sluts would put Maury Povich out of business.
Fun fact - The elimination of sluts would put Maury Povich out of business.
There is a stigma involved, because intelligence and sexual activity correlate. The less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to start sex early/have sex with a lot of partners, statistically speaking. (There are many studies on the subject and as I said before this is statistically speaking, not a general rule.) So "sluts" are generally considered dumb and thus being one is not desirable.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I'm going to need some studies on the ages of people who lose their virginity and intelligence. If they exist you should be able to cite them.
?
I remember a study in which people who were more intelligent (or at least had a higher IQ) lost their virginity later, but that's not really the same thing as saying the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to start having sex sooner, since in all likelihood those who are 'average' are most likely to start sex sooner.
Unless you're talking about a different study, in which case please share!
What, there aren't women that serially jump from man to man and constantly keep a 'dick in a jar' (ie. 'in case of emergency, break glass') while they are in a current relationship? Using sex as a weapon and an easy shortcut to building intimacy?
That does not exist in real life?
My point was that those women are not 'sluts' just horribly emotionally-damaged human beings. They should receive sympathy, not derision.
GAF has plenty of smart people. GAF also has plenty of very old virgins and sexually clueless people. Because smart people gravitate towards a certain direction does not mean that it's a positive thing.
Finaika
Member
I must be a genius!
Devolution
Member
Yeah nerds were a real hit with the opposite sex in highschool.
You are right. There is a threshold basically where "when you're this dumb you won't find a partner". According to a german (or austrian?) book on behavioral psychology I read, people who are mentally deficient actually have a very high sexual drive and probably will expose it to other people but are not likely to succeed in finding a partner to act upon it.
So the average / slight less than average intelligent ones actually have more sex than the downright mentally challenged ones.
Only one of those is about high schoolers.
People of higher intelligence and education typically also believe in greater liberty for their fellow men as well... which extends to sexual liberty.
Ideally, we want to give people the choice to be idiots, even while strongly dissuading them from the path through a better understanding of the long term consequences of actions, as well as strategies for mitigating the harmfulness in sexual behaviour.
Looks like this doesn't translate to the numbers in the studies.
The numbers in the study (without looking at them) are probably describing what the people themselves do, rather than their explicit attitudes towards sexual behaviours.
Okay, so back in college I knew a girl who was kind of out there. She was almost never sober, and she didn't just get a little drunk; she was almost always colossally wasted.
She was acquainted with some girls who used to show up to my friends' parties, so I saw her in action quite a bit. This girl had sex a lot. There was a six bedroom apartment across from my friend's place, and she slept with every dude who lived there. She slept with at least half of my male friends. She would randomly take off all her clothes in the middle of parties. On several occasions we all saw her go into a bathroom to have sex with a guy just a few minutes after meeting him. She gave blowjobs on balconies. This stuff happened just about every time we saw her.
Now I'm quite a social libertarian, but... that behavior was not healthy.
She was acquainted with some girls who used to show up to my friends' parties, so I saw her in action quite a bit. This girl had sex a lot. There was a six bedroom apartment across from my friend's place, and she slept with every dude who lived there. She slept with at least half of my male friends. She would randomly take off all her clothes in the middle of parties. On several occasions we all saw her go into a bathroom to have sex with a guy just a few minutes after meeting him. She gave blowjobs on balconies. This stuff happened just about every time we saw her.
Now I'm quite a social libertarian, but... that behavior was not healthy.
Finaika
Member
Are you saying that she's a slut?
If I've ever met a person to whom I would apply the term, it would definitely be her.
I also knew a guy who was a fucking nympho like no other. Definite man-slut.
DON'T JUDGE. NEVER JUDGE.
I know what you mean. My guy isn't Alpha in any way shape and form. I love him for his goofiness, silliness and humour. People fail to realise that its not always about looks and its not always about status either! I know of many guys that are way hotter than their girlfriends or wives so its not really a woman thing, either. People tend to go for people that they find attractive, personalities can be attractive too you know, its not all physical attractiveness.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I was being facetious, I don't subscribe to that alpha/beta shit.
Nympho? The guy I'm talking about was a genuine sex addict. Man-slut? Sorry.
- Status