Are "sluts" bad people?

[syoBsUtsuJ]

From a therapist's perspective, promiscuity is indicative of molestation at an early age. Later in life, depending on age needs to be gauged on: http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/_Census_data_shows_more_homes_led_by_single_dads_124164114.html

 

[syoBsUtsuJ]

NOOO!!!!


ON http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318058c.pdf


WTF

 

[Greendragon]

I have a question for all the 'anti-slut' posters. I'm sure you've all heard of 'serial monogamists', right? That is, people who go from one casual-ish, short term (eg six months or less) relationship to the next, or people who, almost immediately after breaking up with someone, are in a relationship with someone else (these people are usually straight, but include men and women). I have a friend I was talking to on Facebook the other day who lives far away and i mentioned his new girlfriend I saw in some photos. He was immediately non-committal but said she was just this nice girl he was seeing. They look all loved up in the pictures, but I could tell he's not that into her. And I have other friends who always want to be in relationships because, I think, they don't want to be on their own.

I want a relationship too but unlike many people, I don't want to 'settle'. I want someone both physically AND intellectually engaging that I could see myself with longterm. In the meantime, I don't want to pass the time with casual boyfriends I'm not really into, and I don't want to go without sex altogether. That's why probably many people on this thread would call me a slut.

What I'm trying to say is.... sometimes 'sluts' are more honest and respectful than a lot of people who are in relationships that they aren't really happy in. Isn't a good no strings fuck, when both parties know the score, better than pretending your connection is something it is not?

Think about it.....

 

[bankside]

I want a relationship too but unlike many people, I don't want to 'settle'. I want someone both physically AND intellectually engaging that I could see myself with longterm. In the meantime, I don't want to pass the time with casual boyfriends I'm not really into, and I don't want to go without sex altogether. That's why probably many people on this thread would call me a slut.

What I'm trying to say is.... sometimes 'sluts' are more honest and respectful than a lot of people who are in relationships that they aren't really happy in. Isn't a good no strings fuck, when both parties know the score, better than pretending your connection is something it is not?

I could say almost exactly the same thing:

I want a relationship too but unlike many people, I don't want to 'settle'. I want someone both physically AND intellectually engaging that I could see myself with longterm. In the meantime, I don't want to pass the time with casual boyfriends I'm not really into, and I don't [STRIKE]want to go without sex altogether[/STRIKE] see the point of having second-class sex with people I'm not really into, or having really great sex with people I'll never see again. That's why probably many people on this thread would call me a [STRIKE]slut[/STRIKE] prude.

What I'm trying to say is.... sometimes [STRIKE]'sluts'[/STRIKE] prudes are more honest and respectful than a lot of people who are in relationships that they aren't really happy in. Isn't a [STRIKE]good[/STRIKE] pointless dead-end no strings fuck, when both parties know the score, [STRIKE]better than[/STRIKE] worth just skipping instead of pretending your connection is something it is not?

 

[Greendragon]

Well, if you really think a no-strings is pointless, fair enough. I don't think sex always has to have a higher purpose, that's where we differ. Out of interest, how long would you be prepared to go without sex while waiting for that special guy?

 

[jasoncrew03]

What is it about gay men and sex?

Men like sex a lot.

And I think some people are confusing sluts and sex-addicts. I have plenty of meaningful relationships with friends and family - I just don't have any romantic ones for the simple reason I don't want one. I'm 20, I have no interest in making my life revolve around someone else. Having sex is what I like to do, it's fun it's not something I need. I assume some people on here like playing golf or doing some other activity, it's really no different (at least to me). I don't do it for sport, I said it's like one to me.

And I've never been molested...

 

[MyReply]

Just because I love McDonald's french fries, and am not on a diet, doesn't mean that I should eat them everyday.

As I said before, no one is perfect...and so the occasional 'no-strings' hookup when someone is unattached is fine. It doesn't qualify them as a "slut." What's not good is when casual sex becomes a regular habit, and someone has had so many partners that they can't remember all of their names (and/or in some cases they never knew their names) or faces. There's a reason why the phrase 'You can't turn a ho into a housewife' is true. Let's say you do eventually find a guy you want to be monogamous with, are you going to be comfortable disclosing that you've had 50-100+ sex partners before him? If you were him, and you heard that, would you not think to yourself that this guy had commitment issues, is a bit on the 'flighty' side, and perhaps doubt if he could be trusted with exclusivity, after having been such an easy lay before?

It's just a bad, and very easy, habit to get caught up in and warped by. There is something to treating your body like temple, and having standards...and standards go beyond just if the person is decent enough looking to bed.

 

[jasoncrew03]

As I said before, no one is perfect...and so the occasional 'no-strings' hookup when someone is unattached is fine.

I don't see how what I do is a flaw...

What's not good is when having casual sex with becomes a regular habit, and someone has had so many partners that they can't remember all of their names (and/or in some cases they never knew their names) or
faces.

Do you remember the names of every person you've ever played a board game with? A sport with?

Let's say you do eventually find a guy you want to be monogamous with, are you going to be comfortable disclosing that you've had 50-100+ sex partners before him?

Of course.

If you were him, and you heard that, would you not think to yourself that this guy had commitment issues, is a bit on the 'flighty' side, and perhaps doubt if he could be trusted with exclusivity, after having been such an easy lay before?

No, because he wasn't giving anyone a commitment he was just having fun and that was made clear to everyone so nobody was getting hurt. And what we'd have would be different from what he'd done previously, I'd be asking for a commitment and he'd be agreeing to it which is something which had not occurred before because previously it was just about having a good time and this would be an actual relationship. I don't understand why everything needs a "commitment".

There is something to treating your body like temple, and having standards...and standards go beyond just if the person is decent enough looking to bed.

Not to be rude, but what does that mean? "Your body is a temple."? And I'm pretty sure different people are allowed to have different standards. And standards change depending on the kind of relationship one is seeking.

Just to be clear, I am fully capable of having serious romantic relationships. I've had them in the past, I just don't want them.

 

[MyReply]

Do you remember the names of every person you've ever played a board game with? A sport with?

I don't know about you, but *I don't* equate having sex with playing a game of Monopoly or Basketball. That's actually a pretty disturbing parallel.

 

[jasoncrew03]

Eh, think what you want. Sex is what I like to do for fun.


Edit: Upon that realization, I don't know what the hell has gotten into me. I couldn't give a shit what people think about me. I guess it was just because it came from someone who's opinion actually matters to me. Well, thanks for the responses people.

 

[yummylongsword]

"If you just go out and have sex with a different person every night, it shows me that you have little desire or ability to connect on a deep level with people (no pun intended). People that have lots of sex with lots of people just don't really care about getting to KNOW anyone, they just want to use someone else's body as a toy."

Interesting. What would you say about someone in an open relationship who loved their partner but also had casual sex (with their partner's consent)???

I would say that the sexual component is missing from their relationship if that's the case. I don't believe that a romantic relationship, no matter how open, should require the use of other people for sex on a weekly basis; it should provide a breath of fresh air after a long time with the same partner, not just be an excuse to sleep around.

Honestly, if you're not sexually attracted to your "partner" enough that you can enjoy having sex with them... then you're just friends. There are plenty of people I love but don't have a romantic attraction to, so I don't pretend to "be in an open relationship" with them. Sexual attraction is a key component of romantic involvement, in my opinion, which is why romantic relationships have generally been monogamous.

But I digress. Open relationships aside... it's certainly possible to have sex 24/7 and still be an awesome person. I've just usually found that people more interested in sex tend to be more interested in themselves and their own well being, rather than the well being of others.

 

[ixthrock]

Am I the only one who missed the point here?

when people have negative impressions of sluts, it's far too easy to make the observation that they have an underlying jealousy because they aren't having as much fun.

It's not always the case that they've been burned by a "slut," but sometimes I think a situation occurs when people form an attachment to someone else who may like them, but do not reciprocate the same level of attachment. Instead, they're out getting their wood on while the other person is left feeling hurt and used.

People who feel that sexual liberation is disruptive and empty have missed the point - this is why I used "sadly" or "unfortunately" or whatever - I can't see the post right now. Am I any clearer? It's tempting to say that people say those things about sluts b/c they're jealous, basically.

 

[mbamike]

I am a slut. I was NEVER molested as a child!

Next!

 

[barnbuddy]

if some people don't want to enjoy what's available, fine

but why adopt patriarchal/ religious language to make some absurd point.

some of the worst characters I've met were also big on calling folks sluts, whores, immoral

if you actually believe in freedom, you're first rule should be:

live and let live

 

[yummylongsword]

if some people don't want to enjoy what's available, fine

but why adopt patriarchal/ religious language to make some absurd point.

some of the worst characters I've met were also big on calling folks sluts, whores, immoral

if you actually believe in freedom, you're first rule should be:

live and let live

Discussion doesn't always need to have a "point". Most conversations don't, they're just an exercise in social interaction and logic.

It's perfectly fine to live and let live... and part of that is letting someone live that dislikes the way someone else lives. One can express their negative sentiments freely, in my opinion, as long as they don't actually directly cause problems in the lives of those they dislike.

I find it interesting to see how people feel about controversial issues. That's why I hang around these threads. Some people get angry and hate these kinds of discussions, but I think they're fascinating.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Jason, I just told you. Oftentimes, sluts don't care who they hurt.

<takes a sip of coffee>

Now I don't know how choosy you are in your choices of partners, so I"m not talking about you, personally.

But generally speaking, sluts will hook up with anyone they find sexually desirable, without caring whether or not he's married, or in a relationship, or even whether or not there's a risk of VD.

How do you think AIDS got started, anyway? 'Specially in the Hetero population. Then answer? Sluts.

great cultures alway a great ta read

thankyou

 

[MyReply]

Well, thanks for the responses people.

Yep .

 

[Knucklehead]

I don't think sluts,per se,are any worse worse than ''Miss Bertha- Better Than You'' or the ''Miss Penny Pure Pussy'' types that wreck more homes than the men who aint getting their dicks sucked by them...

Sluts,have a place in the universe too..

 

[Chocras]

Some random points in no particular order of importance....

The term "slut" is a derogatory term that reinforces the double standard against women. If a women is sexually active she's a slut. If a man is sexually active he's just being a man or he's just sowing his wild oats.
So what does the term "slut" mean in the gay community where men have sex with men?

The answer to the OP's question depends on one's view of sex. Should sex be saved only for a relationship where two people care deeply for each other? (I can't say marriage because gay marriage is not legal, at least from the view of the federal government.) Or is it ok for people to have sex with each other for no better reason than that they're sexually attracted each other? How does the question of fidelity and respect for each others as human beings (and not just objects) play into this?

Why do I feel like I'm switching between two languages while I'm thinking about this issue? It's as if I'm switching between ethics for heterosexuals and ethics for gays.

Is someone who has had a lot of sexual partners likely to settle down and be faithful to one person later in life because they've "got it out of their system" or will they be more prone to cheat on their partner because they've had a lot of sex partners and crave a variety of sexual experiences?

Someone in this thread said the sluts
"have a lot of love to give"...but love isn't the same thing as sex. Maybe they have a lot of sexual pleasure to give (and get, not too incidentally). That's not the same thing as love.

What is love?

And what would Michael Sandel think about all of this?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Some random points in no particular order of importance....

The term "slut" is a derogatory term that reinforces the double standard against women. If a women is sexually active she's a slut. If a man is sexually active he's just being a man or he's just sowing his wild oats.
So what does the term "slut" mean in the gay community where men have sex with men?

The answer to the OP's question depends on one's view of sex. Should sex be saved only for a relationship where two people care deeply for each other? (I can't say marriage because gay marriage is not legal, at least from the view of the federal government.) Or is it ok for people to have sex with each other for no better reason than that they're sexually attracted each other? How does the question of fidelity and respect for each others as human beings (and not just objects) play into this?

Why do I feel like I'm switching between two languages while I'm thinking about this issue? It's as if I'm switching between ethics for heterosexuals and ethics for gays.

Is someone who has had a lot of sexual partners likely to settle down and be faithful to one person later in life because they've "got it out of their system" or will they be more prone to cheat on their partner because they've had a lot of sex partners and crave a variety of sexual experiences?

Someone in this thread said the sluts
"have a lot of love to give"...but love isn't the same thing as sex. Maybe they have a lot of sexual pleasure to give (and get, not too incidentally). That's not the same thing as love.

What is love?

And what would Michael Sandel think about all of this?

gon read it ans a one a thing is a wirte what is good see thankyou

world about ans da cultures so great ans their amazin wakamoolee of stuff a HEY HOLD DA SPIN why dont ya ans shit then da great cultures invent da Internet ans DOH?

anyway is late fa bein tarmac