The Slut Debate
 

Can women sleep around without being considered a slut? Is it actually possible? Does everyone here believe it is slutty for a woman to have multiple sexual partners? If your friends, sisters and grandmothers were doing it would you call them a slut?

And is the term man slut widely used enough? If women get called a slut, why shouldn't a man if he carries out the same behavior defined as a slut.

Disclaimer: in no way do I think people should be called sluts in the first place but it is an issue and it makes me uncomfortable about making my sexual decisions.

Why does everyone always assume that men can get away with this without criticism yet women cant?

A slut is a slut in my opinion, regardless of gender.

But is it really so wrong to sleep with lots of different people? I think that is my underlining question here.

People should do whatever they want. But for me personally, I would use that term where someone has what I would consider to be an excessive number of casual sexual partners or behaves in quite a careless manner.

When women sleep around, it's seen as a bad thing. Because guys have egos, and they don't want their girlfriend or wife to have slept with like 50 guys. I don't think girls care as much about how many people their boyfriend has slept with. If a guy has slept with a lot of girls, it'll give a sense of value to them in the eyes of a lot of women. 'If they are getting laid so much, they must be doing something right!' Some girls might be 'impressed' for lack of a better word, that their man has succeeded in attracting so many girls. At the same time, a guy won't be impressed because it's easier for a girl to find partners. If an average looking girl just wants to have sex with a more attractive guy, the chances are that guy isn't gonna refuse sex. But if an average looking guy just wants to have sex with a more attractive girl, there's a very high chance she will refuse.

I don't think many men would really care or be offended by being called a slut. Most would probably just shrug it off. They are getting laid, who cares? Women however will get offended, because like I said the value of a woman to a potential boyfriend or husband might decrease, whereas a mans value to a potential mate probably isnt going to decrease because he sleeps around. Think of it as this... Everyone likes a master key. It opens all kinds of doors. It's awesome! But a lock isn't very good if tons of keys can open it, is it?

As for my opinion on a slut... Kinda gotta go case by case basis, but really it depends on 1) How many guys shes banged who she wasn't dating and 2) How easy she is.

*Cue posts flaming me*

I've had two big relationships in my life. One was with a girl who was a virgin, one is with a girl who pretty much slept with anyone she felt like. I know damn well which relationship has better sex :P

To be honest, I have absolutely no problems with girls sleeping around. I think that it's good, to a great extent, so long as you're careful, and it's exactly the same with guys. Sleep with whoever you want, but make sure that you don't overdo it. There is definitely such a thing as a slut, but I'd define a slut as someone who'd sleep with pretty much anyone, whereas a girl who likes to sleep around is, to me, entirely different. There's an element of choice to a girl/guy with sexual experience that a slut doesn't really have. She/he just does it.. cause. I'm not even sure why, maybe they like sex so much that they don't care who it's with, maybe they're just easy.

Certainly, I think that there shouldn't be a differential between a man-slut and a girl-slut. The whole idea of a "player" is ridiculous in itself, though I agree with Dirty in that I can see exactly where it comes from in terms of our social structure. Sometimes I feel daunted as to the amount of experience my gf has over my own, even when I know that she's told me a million times that she's more than happy with me.

I feel like i kinda understand why the term is different for guys and gals.

A more basic thought is this... The different way women and men look at sexual experience... If a guy has a lot of experience, then thats good in a females eyes. He probably knows what he is doing by now sexually and he obviously has qualities that attract many women. If a guy hasn't had much sex, girls will wonder why and think hes a loser. If a girl has a lot of sex, the experience isnt as much related to performance as it is with guys. Any girl can lay on her back and take a shafting. But not every guy can be good at giving a shafting... and who is most likely to be bad at sex? Virgins, or guys who havent had much sex.

Request: if you're going to vote in a poll, post your reasonings pl0x? It gets quite annoying when a thread is being constantly bumped up and no new posts are added :P

What's the real question? Do we think there is such a thing as a slut?

I think there's such a thing as a slut, but as I said in my original post, it's not as simple as how it's normally defined. This:

Is the question at hand. Answer, for me: hell no. In fact, if life had worked out differently for me, I would have, and I would wish my children to as well. Sleep around, find out what you like, but by all means don't overdo it. There's a difference to being up for a bit and being the town bicycle, ya know? Sleep with anyone you want to sleep with, but don't sleep with anyone for the sake of sleeping with someone. And always use protection, regardless of whether you're on the pill or have other contraception. STI/D's are nasty things.

The only time I ever refer to a man or woman as a slut is if they sleep around AND they are an arsehole.

Just the sleeping around thing ... Don't really care, It's none of my business.

I'm convinced that (most) people are not made to be monogamous.
So I don't mind a girl having a couple of boyfriends at the same time or having a one night stand with a really close friend.
What I don't like is girls going out and ****ing some other guy's brains out every weekend.

That's my two cents.

...And where do we meet them.

Hahaha, lol (literally)

My view on it is strictly a 'type of person' perspective.
What I mean by that is I'm less inclined to want a relationship with a girl who drops trousers for any swinging dick that crosses her path. That's not to say I think all people who do that have cheap values, but speaking strictly from experience, if I were to make an assumption about that kind of person's character, I'd likely be correct.

Obviously, I would expect women to hold men up to the same standards. I certainly wouldn't expect a woman to want a relationship with me if I was frivolously bonking every random girl I met. I think there should at least be some semblance of self control and pride regarding who you're intimate with... to me, that makes a statement about the kind of person you are and it's simply one of the things I consider regarding relationships. I would hope my partner held the same basic expectations of me as well.

Yeah, I wouldn't call myself moralistic, but some girls just have quite some sexual partners and some girls are sluts. It's not always the same thing, I guess.

Open question to everyone... If you found a girl.....not the perfect girl or 'the one' or whatever... but you had a good vibe and you liked her and she wanted to start dating. Is there any number of guys that shes slept with that would turn you off from dating her? Or a ball park number, and what is that number?

IMO, a slut is anyone who ****s for any reason other than they like ****ing. Anyone who ****s for personal gain = slut

I don't care about the number. How would you know if that number was mostly random sleaze bags or not? What if they were all good friends or people she's known for a while? To me, the people she sleeps with and how she goes about it is more important. I'd take 30 good friend fucks over 5 bent-over-the-toilet in a public bathroom random stranger fucks any day.

That's a whore

I don't find women (or men, for that matter) who sleep around to be sluts generally. There's a line, but it would have to be really extreme for someone to cross said line.

For example: A single girl who has multiple sexual partners, a few one night stands she'd rather not talk about, and a legitimate enjoyment of sex is not a slut.

A single girl who has sex for personal gain or consistently sleeps with people just because someone else is interested in the person and they want to shove it in their face, has sex solely for drugs, money, or some other gain, or something at that sort - I'd consider that a slut if it's done on a consistent basis.

Then again, that can just be construed as being a prostitute in some cases, or as a complete bitch in others (the sleeping with people just to rub it in someone else's face scenario).

Nah, not really.
But I must say that I don't know any girl who slept with more than ten guys or so. It probably has something to do with the kind of people people I hang out with I guess.

If on the date a man has to pay for everything surely he deserves the right to be able to sleep around. Also since we can get drafted in times of war we deserve the right to be mansluts.

Difficult to answer.

I don't think highly of women who sleep around, but I also don't think highly of men who do it. In the end, regardless of which direction the issue takes, I would prefer for there to be no double standard, and have everyone treated the same.

Anyone who takes/gives a good shafting for no real reason is a slut imo. People who sleep with people on first meetings = sluts.

Theres a classy way to do it and there isn't. I think when most people accuse another of sluttiness are because of dress and actions, not because of sex.

Totally agree.
It's not what you do, but the way you do it.
Goes for most things in life too.

I'm surprised the evolutionary viewpoint hasn't been brought up yet. So...

Evolutionarily speaking, females invest more into spreading their genes. They have to deal with the fetus developing inside of them for 9 months, consuming their nutrients and causing minor health issues while simultaneously being physically encumbering. They have to experience the excruciating birth process. They must invest significantly more post-birth, too. Breastfeeding, rearing, etc.

For a male to spread his genes, he just needs to f*** as many females as he can.

So really, I'd argue that men are biologically programmed to be "sluts" and that's the way it has always been, therefore it's socially acceptable that they are indeed sluts. However, women are expected to do everything I just listed, and that's why it's not socially acceptable for them to sleep around; our evolutionary past dictates that they can't, if they wish to pass on their genes.

Yeah, that's why I think obnoxious drivers are sluts.

The poll options make it impossible to vote Yes because it seems like you're rejecting sexual liberation for women. As others have said, I think it's all about attitude and/or the way you present yourself. If you are overly flirtatious, come off as "loose", dress in an unnecessarily provocative manor (short skirts with no underwear??) or will have sex with just about anybody.. then yes. I would say "You madame, are a slut." If you just have sex a lot and aren't flaunting it around and bragging about it then I don't think you'll come off as such.

Yes, I would call a woman who has multiple sexual partners a slut, just like I would call man who has multiple sexual partners a man-whore.

To the people jacking off to Chad...you make me sick!

No...and if a man or woman does sleep with a lot of partners, I wouldn't call him or her a slut. They probably have their reasons.

Some reasons may be positive (I love this! This feels so good and exciting! This adds to my life!). Some may be negative (I'm a no-good loser anyway; my body and boundaries mean nothing; no one will love me for who I am; I might as well just use my body instead of find greater intimacy).

I have sympathy for people in both situations.

However, when you break a promise to someone by sleeping with another, then that is very hurtful, since you violate trust and potentially put your partner at risk. I still wouldn't call the person a slut, though.

Studies show that women often cheat physically on their mates, so I question how much validity the sociobiological argument has. In the U.S., 25 percent of men and 17 percent of women have had extramarital affairs, according to one study Infidelity Statistics.

Also, note that many men (and women) never have infidelities and not only prefer but enjoy monogamy...so this suggests there isn't a huge inborn desire to be non-monogamous.

I agree the sociobiological argument does seem to make biological sense--the whole idea that women may be "choosier" because the maximum number of children they can have in a lifetime is much less than the number of children a frisky man could potentially have. I think nature is more complicated, though, than the rules you suggest.

For example, it is certainly possible for a woman to pass on her genes even if she sleeps around! :p: The minimum you really need from a man is one sperm to pass on your own genes! :laughing: That's not much. You can get one sperm and a lot of sex with different people and still have a child!

However, I do think people want to know a child is theirs, so they desire a potential mate to exhibit the ability to be monogamous and to care for her or his children. That biological urge is probably one of the main reasons "slut" as a bad term even exists.

If there were no sluts, then a night out at the club with the fellas would be pretty pointless. So I'm for 'em.

I agree with this.

Also, I think if a woman is someone who cheats she is a slut. She could have just a few partners, but if she lacks the respect to keep her legs closed for someone she is with, then she's a slut in my view.

Agree with right-track and Dirty.

Also, is it just me or does the word "slut" in and of itself just suck? It just sounds vile, I think.

I feel like if someone called me a "harlot" or something, I wouldn't be nearly as offended. Harlot actually has a nice ring to it.

I like the world slut. S and L sound really pretty together phonetically. I think I prefer it to the word whore.

Yeah slut is a pretty dirty sounding word, it matches well with the definition. Harlot actually sounds cool.

Anyway, on the issue. I agree with right-track who said that it's not what you do, it's how you do it. You can have a lot of sex and not be a slut/man-slut. If you don't parade it around and at least have some kind of standards, you are not a slut. However someone who dresses provacatively, flirts with a ridiculous amount of people, and has sex more than they should IS a slut.

so does anyone else use the term gigolo instead of man whore/slut? there's more potential for indirect ridicule.

as for the actual question i don't think someone is necessarily a slut if they're comfortable with casual sex, but i do think it reflects a fundamental aspect of their personality that's going to run counter to mine. doesn't make them 'sluts', just means i won't bother.

promiscuous on the other hand, as in, in the bar bathroom or full on on the first night. yeah that's dirty slut action in my eyes. it's one thing for a random one nighter, yeah you were drunk and 'acted' slutty, but when that behavior becomes predictable and therefore reputable, that's when you've crossed the line into being a full fledged slut. regardless of gender.

Maybe I'm just excessively liberal but I don't see anything immoral about a guy/girl behaving in a lecherous manner or sleeping around as much as is humanly possible. If it's because they simply enjoy sex, I really can't fault that. In fact, I think it's perfectly natural behaviour, regardless of whatever collectively self-imposed decorum we think we should uphold as the super-duper civilised and advanced race that we are.

It's only when someone cheats on their partner or has sex for reasons other than enjoyment, with a hidden agenda (so that excludes prostitutes whose agendas are quite clear) that I would condemn them and label them as a slut.