Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it degrading for a woman to be promiscuous?
I am not sure how you got that.
Let me rewrite my post thusly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue.red
but we still regard promiscuity as shameful for women, we still use terms like sl&t and wh*re for women who've had many sexual partners
And that would be because a promiscuous woman is a sl&t and wh*re (don't forget skank)...sort of a "duh" moment.
It is like calling a robber a thief, an idiot a moron, a loser a loser, a wealthy person rich, a doctor of medicine "doc" it is simply a label that broadly paints an individual based on a prominent characteristic. Have you ever noticed that when people have a child the are simply Johnny's Mom of Johnny's Dad, most auto mechanic's are introduced as such, so are firemen and police men, teachers, martial arts instructors, on the other hand if you work at McDonalds no one introduces you as the McDonalds guy. My Mormon friends are all known as the Mormon X but my Catholic friends are not known as the Catholic X. Once again it simply comes down to a characteristic of yours that defines you, rightly or wrongly to most people.
What makes a woman stand out is when she is overt with her sexuality, hence the label comes into play.
From some men, few of whom would admit it on a site like this, resentment about needing to pay money to see naked in person or have sex with a sexually appealing woman. (I've never been to a prostitute or a strip club nor considered doing so. It's more about an attitude I've heard others express.) That's one of many, many reasons.
And that would be because a promiscuous woman is a sl&t and wh*re (don't forget skank)...sort of a "duh" moment.
It is like calling a robber a thief, an idiot a moron, a loser a loser, a wealthy person rich, a doctor of medicine "doc" it is simply a label that broadly paints an individual based on a prominent characteristic. Have you ever noticed that when people have a child the are simply Johnny's Mom of Johnny's Dad, most auto mechanic's are introduced as such, so are firemen and police men, teachers, martial arts instructors, on the other hand if you work at McDonalds no one introduces you as the McDonalds guy. My Mormon friends are all known as the Mormon X but my Catholic friends are not known as the Catholic X. Once again it simply comes down to a characteristic of yours that defines you, rightly or wrongly to most people.
What makes a woman stand out is when she is overt with her sexuality, hence the label comes into play.
Yes, I understand the semantics of those words. I think you've misunderstood the context of my original comment as it was in response to an earlier question.
I was making the point that when it comes to women we use words that have both primary and secondary semantic value. The primary value passes on information and the second, the evaluative semantic, tells us how we ought to feel about the information. This loads the word with negative bias where the object is devalued for its action rather than the actions being devalued.
example:
A sl*t, by definition, is a girl (the object) who is sexually promiscuous (the action or state of being) The girl is devalued for her action according to the beliefs/rules of the speaker. Basically she becomes the action. If the speaker were to say 'the girl is acting sl*tty then the condemnation stays with the action.
Why it matters is because those loaded words reinforce values that have no rational base outside of religious beliefs.
so you dont think there are social or health or trust implications for someone who is promiscuous, other than in the context of religion?
im NOT in favour of putting this onto women more than men, imo the word sl*t is unisex for some time now. it may continue to be used more for women, but not because of anything inherent to the word itself. but i dont agree that the only relevance the word has is to religion, and i think its odd that you think that.
so you dont think there are social or health or trust implications for someone who is promiscuous, other than in the context of religion?
im NOT in favour of putting this onto women more than men, imo the word sl*t is unisex for some time now. it may continue to be used more for women, but not because of anything inherent to the word itself. but i dont agree that the only relevance the word has is to religion, and i think its odd that you think that.
I'm saying the societal judgement of women in regards to promiscuity and chastity is founded in religious beliefs. As a result of those beliefs we use of evaluative semantics to shame sexually promiscuous women.
I have never seen or heard of men being shamed for being sexually promiscuous. In fact, we use words like 'player' and 'stud' for them.
The social implications for promiscuity are all shame based. What does trust have to do with any of it? Promiscuity isn't the same as cheating. Sex worker most often practice safer sex than non sex workers.
And that would be because a promiscuous woman is a sl&t and wh*re (don't forget skank)...sort of a "duh" moment.
It is like calling a robber a thief, an idiot a moron, a loser a loser, a wealthy person rich, a doctor of medicine "doc" it is simply a label that broadly paints an individual based on a prominent characteristic. Have you ever noticed that when people have a child the are simply Johnny's Mom of Johnny's Dad, most auto mechanic's are introduced as such, so are firemen and police men, teachers, martial arts instructors, on the other hand if you work at McDonalds no one introduces you as the McDonalds guy. My Mormon friends are all known as the Mormon X but my Catholic friends are not known as the Catholic X. Once again it simply comes down to a characteristic of yours that defines you, rightly or wrongly to most people.
What makes a woman stand out is when she is overt with her sexuality, hence the label comes into play.
You're being disingenuous.
That GhostOfAndrewJackson, they're such an auto mechanic.
That GhostOfAndrewJackson, they're such a wh*re.
No one would be offended by the former statement, the second statement may well cause offense.
A woman who is overtly sexual is known as overtly sexual, hot, or sexually liberated, unless, you choose a derogatory term. Exactly like African Americans, are known as African Americans, Black, and other neutral terms, but, there's certainly words you can choose that are non-neutral adjectives.
Consider, the terms player and stud, to sl*t, skank. There's really only one difference in use, one refers to men, the other to women, however the meanings in a broader sense are decidedly different.
I have never seen or heard of men being shamed for being sexually promiscuous. In fact, we use words like 'player' and 'stud' for them.
despite the fact that "stud" was used in a tongue-and-cheek context on the forum recently, those uses are rare. "player" isnt always a complement either.
youre cherry picking, and you forgot about "womaniser." heck, it was even the title of a hit pop song, which was most certainly not cheering men on for being that way.
Quote:
The social implications for promiscuity are all shame based.
i think thats a circular argument.
i also dont think you got what i was saying.
lets say you go to do a dating website.
two women are interested in your profile.
one tells you that shes looking for something long-term, she doesnt like games, she would ultimately like a serious, romantic, love interest.
the other says she would like that, but shes had "more lovers than she can count" and if its just casual, thats ok.
forget how realistic these responses are for a moment, as thats beside the point.
some people would find the second reply more appealing, and others would avoid it based on the confessed promiscuity.
you dont need religion to create a derogatory term for something you consider problematic-- it happens all the time.
you claim that shaming promiscuity is from religion, but i think thats beside the point-- people have non-religious reasons to consider promiscuity irresponsible, they may not trust the person is really interested in serious relationships because theyve had so many, and while these concerns are often put on women more than men-- the truth is, both men and women have these (sometimes valid) concerns and others will use a label like "****" to describe women or men.
im aware that promiscuity isnt the same as cheating, but youre ignoring or unaware that promiscuity (sometimes) hints at cheating to some people, and that they are related concerns, even if they are different.
without religion, we would still have concerns, and some people would try to shame people to address those concerns. and it is not applied just to women.
even the situation being presented is more of a stereotype than a reality. men are absolutely taken to task (not proportionally, but unquestionably) for being sl*tty. its not all cheers and pats on the back at all.
despite the fact that "stud" was used in a tongue-and-cheek context on the forum recently, those uses are rare. "player" isnt always a complement either.
youre cherry picking, and you forgot about "womaniser." heck, it was even the title of a hit pop song, which was most certainly not cheering men on for being that way.
i think thats a circular argument.
i also dont think you got what i was saying.
lets say you go to do a dating website.
two women are interested in your profile.
one tells you that shes looking for something long-term, she doesnt like games, she would ultimately like a serious, romantic, love interest.
the other says she would like that, but shes had "more lovers than she can count" and if its just casual, thats ok.
forget how realistic these responses are for a moment, as thats beside the point.
some people would find the second reply more appealing, and others would avoid it based on the confessed promiscuity.
you dont need religion to create a derogatory term for something you consider problematic-- it happens all the time.
you claim that shaming promiscuity is from religion, but i think thats beside the point-- people have non-religious reasons to consider promiscuity irresponsible, they may not trust the person is really interested in serious relationships because theyve had so many, and while these concerns are often put on women more than men-- the truth is, both men and women have these (sometimes valid) concerns and others will use a label like "****" to describe women or men.
im aware that promiscuity isnt the same as cheating, but youre ignoring or unaware that promiscuity (sometimes) hints at cheating to some people, and that they are related concerns, even if they are different.
without religion, we would still have concerns, and some people would try to shame people to address those concerns. and it is not applied just to women.
even the situation being presented is more of a stereotype than a reality. men are absolutely taken to task (not proportionally, but unquestionably) for being sl*tty. its not all cheers and pats on the back at all.
I never talk in black and white terms ( see what I did there). But seriously, I don't view things as all one or the other. I know men get sh*t for dogging around and I'm not saying women are totally subjugated either.
Please allow me a short cut. I've posted probably a dozen or more responses on this thread that, I think, will provide a little clarity. You can find links to them via my profile. If you still have questions I'd be more than happy to discuss tomorrow. It's be one hellova day here and I'm exhausted but I do think you have relevant points. Let's pick this up tomorrow.
despite the fact that "stud" was used in a tongue-and-cheek context on the forum recently, those uses are rare. "player" isnt always a complement either.
However the texture of player or stud is different to sl*t, skank, wh*re.
Player or stud can be received as a compliment or mild insult depending on context, call a female family member in any context a skank, sl*t or wh*re and watch the reaction, its ubiquitously received as an insult, even prostitutes object to being called wh*res.
Again womanizer, rake, playboy, lady killer, etc have a perceived grudging respect to them socially regardless of context.
****-shaming really blows this into focus (no pun intended), there is very little ****-shaming aimed at heterosexual men although this is changing in younger age groups, where men are beginning to be treated similarly (great, everyone is shamed, sometimes I despair that if the options are eliminate the concept of a social stigma, or punish everyone for the social stigma, we'll pick punishment every time). Even men ****-shame women, which is weird, that they judge a girl having 5 or more lifetime partners, but not themselves, or their male friends (lifetime median partners is 5 so you can self judge).
My son in h.s. made a conscious choice to not hang with any gender that disrespected the values of intimacy. In college...his first day in a dorm...every guy there was "in heat". My son withdrew from that college. No regrets. He ended up at a larger university that allowed education to take front stage.
I certainly have no problems with identifying a person with lenient values in exploiting the body . I'm the 20% that just never found porn to be a turn on...in writing or film. Nor do I buy into the mass concept that it's OK .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
see what I did there). But seriously, I don't view things as all one or the other. I know men get sh*t for dogging around and I'm not saying women are totally subjugated either.
