He's a Stud, She's a Slut

I blame Christianity for these attitudes of sexism.
I only have one female friend who is on the same wavelength as
me about this subject. Even my thirty something niece who is pretty
hip had an argument with me the other day about older women with younger
men, even though she has had more boyfriends than anyone I know.
But, getting to the point. I recently had an experience and the guy
was an acquaintance of my female friend. My female friend has a boyfriend
anyway, but she got very pissed off at me, when her acquaintance (and this
was at her house) came on to me after we all went out drinking,
and as the night went on before I left her place we had a big fight. All this is really unfortunate because she is a very good friend. I don't understand because this is a girl who has her own man and has not been alone for a long time like I have. I am so sick of people expecting me to be miss prim and proper. Hey, I think I better have fun out of town from now on.....

I don't see the big deal either. Unless she told you he was hands off, she shouldn't have got angry with you.
 
This 'a girl is a slut, a guy is a stud for doing the same thing' discussion becomes moot because of one simple thing that happens to all of us: we stop being fifteen years old.
Anyone who even uses the words 'slut' & 'stud' probably has maturity issues.
 
Oh I just remembered some women are absolute bitches and instead
of supporting each other and just jealous and catty.
I've seen some weird double standards with women over thirty especially
ones in relationships, I mean they look down their noses at single women
but the minute you get a man they think you're a slut so you can't
win either way.......
 
This 'a girl is a slut, a guy is a stud for doing the same thing' discussion becomes moot because of one simple thing that happens to all of us: we stop being fifteen years old.
Anyone who even uses the words 'slut' & 'stud' probably has maturity issues.

I'm struggling to care about this thread. Just sayin'...

No woman I know (in the three-dimensional world) would see this as an issue. It's a little annoying when feminists go picking through the dictionary looking for examples of sexism, and it's pretty counter-productive to their movement. English is a sexist language. Deal with it.


Coiff.

I don't think this is about words, more about general attitude towards male and female sexuality:

"But it makes sense when you think about what the purpose of the word "slut" is: controlling women through shame and humiliation. Women's bodies are always the ones that are being vied over for control -- whether it's rape, reproductive rights, or violence against women, it's our bodies that are the battleground, not men's."
 
Yeah, but the general attitude only shows it's head when people attatch words to it.
Though my point was, it takes a pretty childish attitude to even care about how many partners someone has had or not. You would imagine that grown ups have better things with which to occupy their time.
 
Yeah, but the general attitude only shows it's head when people attatch words to it.
Though my point was, it takes a pretty childish attitude to even care about how many partners someone has had or not. You would imagine that grown ups have better things with which to occupy their time.

Unfortunately, they don't! People are socialized to care about it. Maybe slightly less so nowadays in western Europe, but that's just a very small segment of world population.
 
That is so not true, and you are a tad bit sex negative my friend.

The fact that we must use protective measures to prevent them is proof enough that they are not natural. It's purely logical. People will make their own choices, but it's quite obvious what nature intended.
 
I blame Christianity for these attitudes of sexism.
I only have one female friend who is on the same wavelength as
me about this subject. Even my thirty something niece who is pretty
hip had an argument with me the other day about older women with younger
men, even though she has had more boyfriends than anyone I know.
But, getting to the point. I recently had an experience and the guy
was an acquaintance of my female friend. My female friend has a boyfriend
anyway, but she got very pissed off at me, when her acquaintance (and this
was at her house) came on to me after we all went out drinking,
and as the night went on before I left her place we had a big fight. All this is really unfortunate because she is a very good friend. I don't understand because this is a girl who has her own man and has not been alone for a long time like I have. I am so sick of people expecting me to be miss prim and proper. Hey, I think I better have fun out of town from now on.....

You are completely uneducated. Christianity teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong for men and women, and does not to promote the idea of pre-marital sex for men. Please in the future, research before you make such ignorant statements.
 
Unfortunately, they don't! People are socialized to care about it. Maybe slightly less so nowadays in western Europe, but that's just a very small segment of world population.

Looking at it that way ('less so in Western Europe'), can we not just put this whole discussion down to Americans not being very mature then?
Hardly news really.

And it's hard to care about someone's sexual endeavours when you're paying $3 a litre for gas.
 
And I thought I'd been abrupt on the Memorial Day thread...:p


Coiff.

When people attack religion without merit or cause, it shows their short sidedness...and I personally won't shed a tear when they meet their ultimate demise.
 
Looking at it that way ('less so in Western Europe'), can we not just put this whole discussion down to Americans not being very mature then?
Hardly news really.

And it's hard to care about someone's sexual endeavours when you're paying $3 a litre for gas.

Perhaps a better discussion would be when will the rest of the world see the error of their ways and abandon the metric system?
 
You are completely uneducated. Christianity teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong for men and women, and does not to promote the idea of pre-marital sex for men. Please in the future, research before you make such ignorant statements.

What I am talking about is the archaic modes of lifestyle Christianity portrayed as being the one and only way:- marriage or celibacy
and the lack of understanding of people in other cultures...
Excuse me for living but I grew up Catholic educated and I was pretty damn angry when I was told we were the only ones who would go to heaven
and that Buddhists and David Bowie fans were wicked........
not to mention that a lot of people I knew when I was growing up were in very unhappy marriages because the only way they could end them was with the Pope's permission.....
I'm truly sorry but I think that is called an imposition, inquisition,
plus I knew someone who was married to a homosexual man, whom once
he realised he was gay was not allowed to divorce his wife.
The couple had a terrible life. All these things are examples of the damage,
not to mention the child abuse etc, that has been done in certain
areas of Christendom.
But, of course, it is only my opinion. I am only stating observations of situations that have occurred and I'm sure there are plenty of lovely Christian situations for lovely Christians, but for me, save the world and save yourself.
You can't force people into rules that make them sick.......
 
What I am talking about is the archaic modes of lifestyle Christianity portrayed as being the one and only way:- marriage or celibacy
and the lack of understanding of people in other cultures...
Excuse me for living but I grew up Catholic educated and I was pretty damn angry when I was told we were the only ones who would go to heaven
and that Buddhists and David Bowie fans were wicked........
not to mention that a lot of people I knew when I was growing up were in very unhappy marriages because the only way they could end them was with the Pope's permission.....
I'm truly sorry but I think that is called an imposition, inquisition,
plus I knew someone who was married to a homosexual man, whom once
he realised he was gay was not allowed to divorce his wife.
The couple had a terrible life. All these things are examples of the damage,
not to mention the child abuse etc, that has been done in certain
areas of Christendom.
But, of course, it is only my opinion. I am only stating observations of situations that have occurred and I'm sure there are plenty of lovely Christian situations for lovely Christians, but for me, save the world and save yourself.
You can't force people into rules that make them sick.......

But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? We're talking about the double standard for sexual promiscuity for Men and Women.

For the record, Christianity provides two logical choices. Veneral Disease is rampant as a result of promiscuity, in addition to the risk of unwanted pregnancy (which is of course resolvable by infanticide (abortion), not to mention the psychological effects of having to accept the idea that your partner has been with another. By all means, it may not be the right choice for everyone, but you can hardly fault it for being wrong. If you chose to pursue an alternative course to action, you must of course take precautions to avoid the prescribed problems that unwarranted sexual relations can result in.
 
Does the notion of Autism have a figurative equivalence in Ethics? And could someone blow chica's nose before she starts an obtuse poll/thread on the matter?

Thanks. :)
 
Perhaps a better discussion would be when will the rest of the world see the error of their ways and abandon the metric system?

Well, if we measured the cost of gas in terms of gallions, every driver would have been driven mad by now.
Remember that space probe that Europe & the US sent up jointly a few years ago? The US were using Imperial, Europe were using Metric & BANG!, bye bye space probe.
 
The fact that we must use protective measures to prevent them is proof enough that they are not natural. It's purely logical. People will make their own choices, but it's quite obvious what nature intended.

Well you said "If people were monogamous there would be no further spread of venereal diseases....plain and simple....."

This is not true. Many sexually transmitted diseases can remain dormant and pass unsuspectingly between members of a committed relationship. A person could get an STD from their girlfriend/boyfriend, fall out of that relationship without any symptoms of the disease, and give it to their next partner unknowingly. This makes STDs a danger to any person regardless of their choice to be in one relationship at a time.
 
One time a (drunk) guy called me a "fu**in' hoochie ho" for sleeping with his ex- boyfriend, of whom the ex had said he never wanted anything to do with ever again.
Well you said "If people were monogamous there would be no further spread of venereal diseases....plain and simple....."

This is not true. Many sexually transmitted diseases can remain dormant and pass unsuspectingly between members of a committed relationship. A person could get an STD from their girlfriend/boyfriend, fall out of that relationship without any symptoms of the disease, and give it to their next partner unknowingly. This makes STDs a danger to any person regardless of their choice to be in one relationship at a time.
Haha, the ex gave me an std (not haha)...
and then hooked up with the yelling guy again at a party.:rolleyes: Ah, fond memories of my early 20s. I must say that less sex = less slut-name-calling, but if I refuse someone I become a bitch. But of course we know this.
 
Tags
tldr
Back
Top Bottom