“Nor was she a Woman of any Beauty, but was a nasty Slut.”
Hearne, 1715
“Our little girl Susan is a most admirable slut, and pleases us mightily.”
Pepys diary, 1664
Until recently, there wasn’t much confusion about the word slut, though it’s a word with an interesting etymology. The word first appeared around 1450, describing “a woman of loose morals.” Later it was also used to describe a maid or drudge, as in the reference to my namesake above. From there the connotation of a dirty, slovenly woman was added. That pretty much takes us to the present day, with feminists attempting to reclaim the word, redefining it as a badge of sexual freedom.
After some thought, I would like to offer the following definition of a slut:
a. A slut is a person of either sex who regards sex strictly as a physically pleasurable activity. Sex in and of itself does not include an emotional, spiritual or practical component. Love, emotional intimacy and reproduction are sometimes associated with sex, but are in no way necessary or even desirable as a precondition for sexual activity.
b. Sluts generally disavow any biological difference between the sexes. In fact, there is some truth to this among sluts. Female sluts experience less bonding behavior as a result of sex, perhaps owing to having become inured to the experience, or perhaps as a result of a hormonal profile that is more male, i.e. higher than average testosterone levels.
c. Sluts maximize opportunities for sex as they arise in the pursuit of immediate gratification.
d. Male sluts are generally found highly desirable by many women, and prefer promiscuity to a committed, monogamous relationship. Female sluts are generally found temporarily desirable by highly desirable men, and have few opportunities for committed, monogamous relationships. Some female sluts feel fine about this, others feel regret.
Looking around on the interwebz, other interpretations vary widely:
What a Slut Is
1. A much needed sex-positive term for women (and men)
Organizers of the Seattle Slutwalk:
One of the most effective ways to fight hate is to disarm the derogatory terms employed by haters, embracing them and giving them positive connotations. This also serves to provide a sex-positive term for women (and men), few or none of which currently exist, and allows sluts (individuals of any gender who have and enjoy frequent consensual sex, especially with multiple partners) to identify as part of a cohesive group for political representation.
2. A way of disconnecting sex from emotion
If all negative connotations are removed from the word, a “slut” is simply a person, most often a woman, who has had sex with multiple partners…The shift in sexual mores [in the U.S.] has simply shifted the goal posts for “proper” female sexuality from marriage to “the attitude of the girl, her emotional feeling for the boy she’s with and her feelings about sex as an expression of love.”
3. A jumble of nonsense from Jaclyn Friedman
Jaclyn Friedman at Boston Slutwalk:
Slut is a word with little meaning. If you ask ten people, you get ten different definitions.
…Sluts are loud. We’re messy. We don’t behave.
…The word “slut” is an act of violence. Not just metaphorically. It gives permission for people to rape us, and the person who wields it doesn’t have to lift a finger. It sends a signal: this one is fair game. Have at her. No one will blame you.
…And make no mistake about it: we can be called sluts for nearly any reason at all. If we’re dancing. If we’re drinking. If we have ever in our lives enjoyed sex. If our clothes aren’t made of burlap. If we’re women of color, we’re assumed to be sluts before we do a single thing because we’re “exotic.” If we’re fat or disabled or otherwise considered undesirable, we’re assumed to be sluts who’ll fuck anyone who’ll deign to want us. If we’re queer boys or trans women, we’re called sluts in order to punish us for not fearing the feminine. If we’re queer women, especially femme ones, we’re called sluts because we’re obviously “up for anything,” as opposed to actually attracted to actual women. If we’re poor, we’re gold diggers who’ll use sex to get ahead.
…You know what I expect will happen when I’m dressed like a slut? People will want to get with me…all we want is to enjoy the incredible pleasure that our bodies are capable of.
…Because the secret truth nobody wants you to know is that, using nearly any definition, there’s nothing wrong with being a slut. Not a thing.
4. A powerful political statement.
Tracy Clark-Flory in Salon, agreeing with Jaclyn Friedman while contradicting her::
As feminist activist Jaclyn Friedman explained in her SlutWalk Boston speech, “That’s how the word ‘slut’ usually works. If you ask 10 people, you get 10 different definitions” — and, of course, therein lies its power.
5. An enemy to motherhood, a symptom of the spiritual disconnect between men and women
The swift global spread of Slutwalk strikingly demonstrates the energy and aspirations of young feminists. But its confused message is a symptom of the Ksexual chaos and anomie of the Western bourgeoisie.
…The sexual revolution won by my 1960s generation was a two-edged sword. Our liberation has burdened our successors with too many sexual choices too early. Their flesh-baring daily dress is a sex mime to whose arousing signals they seem blind. Only in a police state, and not even there, will women be totally safe on the streets. Honorable men do not rape. But protests and parades cannot create honor.
Slutwalk’s overflowing emotion is a cry of distress, less about sexual violence than the spiritual disconnection of men and women in this garish, tech-driven, careerist age. When it devalued motherhood, Western feminism undermined women’s most ancient claim to dignity. Sluttishness as fact or metaphor cannot restore that lost mythic power.
6. A way of participating in respectable society
Jessica Valenti in an editorial in The Washington Post:
The SlutWalkers, in outfits that could be grumpily labeled “ridiculous and indecent,” are not inducing exclusion from respectable society.
7. A joke
Amanda Marcotte:
“I think it’s important to have a sense of humor about this. Obviously, the whole point of Slutwalk is it’s funny. I mean, it’s funny. It’s taking the issue, turning it into a joke and trying to, you know, because we’ve had this conversation so many times, over and over in the most serious terms and I think that’s just hit a wall in terms of what it can be.”
8. Satire
Lindsay Beyerstein at Jezebel:
In fact, Slut Walk is satirizing the whole slut construct…Who’s a slut? We all are. Or none of us are. And who cares? It’s a stupid, meaningless concept anyway.
…If you try to argue that you’re not a slut, you’re implicitly buying into the idea that there are sluts out there. If there’s some criterion that will set you free, that standard will indict someone else—someone with a higher “number,” or shorter skirt, or a later curfew. So we get bogged down in slut/non-slut border skirmishes over a line nobody should have tried to draw in the first place, and we all lose.
9. Activism from the pro-porn faction of feminism
Kirsten Powers in The Daily Beast:
Samantha Wright, the organizer of the D.C. Slut Walk, which held its fundraiser in a strip club, told me: “I do see how it’s hard coming from an anti-porn standpoint to see how Slut Walks could be beneficial. I consider myself a feminist [who is] pro-pornography. There has to be freedom of choice for women to work in [the sex] industry.”
10. A dude
Urban Dictionary:
A woman with the morals of a man.
11. A hypergamous creature
Collegeslacker/whiteboykrispy:
[A slut is a girl] who has spent [her college] years fucking every athlete, cool dude and somewhat cool dude across campus.
12. A verb
Doug1:
“slutting the first date”
13. A Playah
Commenter Sarah:
He sleeps with anything that breathes. He lies his way into your pants.
14. A sexually aggressive female
Detinennui32:
[A woman] who hits on every guy at the bar.
15. A menace to society
Elusive Wapiti in his post Logically Challenged Slutwalkers:
It is chaste/modest women whose opprobrium is the sort of condemnation that the slutwalkers would be more or less unable to counter with accusations of “rape apologist” and “misogynist”. For it is the relationships of upright women to their men that are most harmed by the rude and reckless behavior of the Slutwalkers. And no less a feminist than Naomi Wolf herself recognizes that a man need only walk down a street to be bombarded with pornographic and near-pornographic sexual imagery…women in relationships with men should be very indignant about the continued commodification (and as a consequence, cheapening) of female sexuality by other women. Sluts don’t threaten men–they may offend us, or tempt us, amuse us, or irritate us–but sluts very much threaten non-slutty women, the security of all women’s relationships with the men around them, and the very fabric of our communities.
…by slutwalking, these women continue to pick at the very social fabric upon which they depend for their own safety. Slutshaming does indeed boost women’s security, and is most effectively employed by more upright women whose objections keep their wayward sisters from polluting the air which we all breathe.
Which brings me to this gem:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Q7tEgumPs
Bwahahahahahaha, that’s me she’s paying homage to!
Sluts are indeed detrimental to a civilized society, and yes, to the economy. Be sure to come back for my next post: What a Slut Costs and I’ll tell you how.
{ 373 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
A slut, as viewed generally in Western society, is a female member of a minority group who, not too long ago, would have been categorized as a prostitute. As for a world view, especially south of Mexico and in other vast regions where the absolute majority of global women live, sluts are so few that any discussions about their existence would be considered foolish and without merit.
Woah, glad I could contribute in some way
slut [sluht]
–noun
1. a member of a sexual minority group
2. an poorly parented woman who deludes herself as desirable by seeking validation through the sexual satisfaction of always ready and willing men.
3. an aid for men who wish to delay commitment
Fail. You can’t change the fact that the word ‘slut’ has always thus far been applied to a certain subset of the female population, not the male, and propose a new definition that encompasses certain members of both sexes. In fact, you don’t get to propose a new definition, period, because doing so takes you into Alice in Wonderland territory, where Humpty Dumpty said ‘When I use a word, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’, to which Alice of course reasonably objected.
Old words in the English language mean whatever Oxford and Webster say they mean; new words and terms get voted on urbandictionary. But ‘slut’ is an old word, with an established meaning. It means a sexually promiscuous woman. That is all.
Right now its just lumbering along. You women who are reading this, you will know shortly how fast this will take off, once the “damage controllers” get on board to continue their hell bent mission to “protect” you from the reality of how men think when it comes time to select one woman for commitment.
Well, since the barrage has not started, now is a good time to get some very well known facts restated.
.
Men LOVE sluts! Men do not shame them. There are exceptions but so minor that to bring them up is stupid. Yes…men LOVE sluts. Men NEED sluts. Always have, always will. Fact is, these days they dont charge for the service. Invent and distribute BC pills and you are all set. As long as sluts are confined to urban pockets in the West and to the small minority of women who go to college in the West and as long as they are not generating new sluts beyond what is needed, the system works perfectly. As planned. All is well.
Over/under on this one? I’ll take 350.
.
And in this corner we have Abbott…and in the opposing corner Tom and Jess.
A slut is…
… what alphas call a girl after they put out.
… the driving force behind beta-enlightenment, leading either to the red pill (positive) or bitterness and pleading (negative).
… a girl that less openly-promiscuous girls get to look down on.
… an investment secretly manipulated by cats in order to ensure their continued survival.
… easier to spot than she thinks she is.
Separate appearance from behaviour. Those “ladies” showing off on the Slut Walks sure looked the part. Sloppy, slovenly, disordered and undisciplined showing off ill-fitting and badly styled outfits (not to mention generous portions of muffin tops). Nothing tempting there. Can anybody explain why the women pictured from the Slut Walks looked so awful? If you’re going to be slutty why can’t you at least look good? It’s sad but hardly surprising that the ladies pictured from the various slut walks hardly measured up to the perfectly fabulously styled professionals one can see strutting proudly evenings here in the Oranienburgerstrasse. Perhaps it’s an unfair comparison. After all for those ladies it’s their job, for the sluts it’s just a hobby they do for fun for free so we shouldn’t expect too much professionalism from them. But dear sluts of the western world, learn from the pros in the Oranienburgerstrasse. I’m certain they have some boundaries, but they carry themselves with such confidence project such strength, I have a hard time imagining them taking any BS from their clients. There is no excuse for fellows to cross boundaries that the sluts may have. Hate me for blaming the victim, but inebriation makes it really hard to articulate and enforce boundries. Why do so many allegedly “sex-positive” sluts need intoxication to lower their inhibitions? A handful of women I’ve known (here in Europe) have told me how they’ve avoided becoming victims when men they knew as well as strangers have tried to have their way with them. One was a tiny little young Greek lady. I have no idea how she did it, but I imagine it was like one of those little dogs in a fight who stands its ground with nothing but attitude and confidence. Ladies stay safe, be strong and keep your wits about you.
As for what’s going through a the head of rapist or a slut, I can only surmise. I do know that I have a harder time resisting sweet treats that look particularly delicious. Do rapists prefer to target women they find more tempting? As for sluts, I suspect that a lot of the motivation for the escalation of the exposure of their bodies is to try to get a more attention than the ladies against whom they are competing. But how can they be so stupid to think that this “advertising” only provokes the “right” attention from the “right” guys?
As for the sex positive aspects of promoting casual promiscuity, I don’t see how dressing slovenly helps promote our acceptance of loose or fallen women. Perhaps it’s unlikely, but are there any wolves in sheep’s clothing out there? Women who like to sleep around, but just don’t look the part? Sluts that look more like a chaste Sunday school teacher than the whore of Babylon?
A slut is any woman who has had sex before marriage, even if only with her fiancee. That’s the traditional definition and going by the manosphere general consensus, it hasn’t changed.
I am a slut; you probably are too — unless you’re one of the very rare women who was a real virgin (no anal, no oral, no handjobs) on her wedding night.
Good post.
Proof positive that the term “slut” has been extruded to mean many different things to many different people. Tho Will is correct: at its simplest, a “slut” is a sexually promiscuous woman. The word is a put-down, employed to shame wayward females back toward more socially constructive behavior.
And thanks for the linkage, Susan!
When having sex for men becomes as easy as saying “Yes”, then male sluts can exist. It is not that easy.
Ex: http://www.rooshv.com/you-still-need-game-to-bang-whores
My favorite…
There’s no worse feeling than rejection by an easy woman. Generally, the sluts I know use sex as a means to attract attention, resources, or commitment from high status men. A woman rated a 6 or 7 is forward with alpha males, but bitchy to normal men. It wouldn’t surprise me if intern Monica Lewinsky, even before she met Clinton, turned down most dates.
Roissy suggests sluts (women with high partner counts) almost exclusively focus on alpha males, or at least men appearing to behave like alpha males.
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/sluts-are-not-less-discriminating/
As such, they learn quickly how alpha males behave and quickly reject any man lacking these traits.
I proposed to Roosh a man can judge how many men a woman has slept with based on how quickly and severely she rejects men.
http://www.rooshv.com/you-still-need-game-to-bang-whores
A woman needs a lot of experience to make a quick judgment. A cleaner low-count woman needs more time evaluate a man.
I’ll let a scientist prove that observation.
Men are fine with sluts, but they have nothing but contempt for sluts pretending to be good girls or arguing that they’ve changed.
There are probably evolutionary reasons for this, specifically that a morally loose woman was likely to be bearing another man’s child. I guess another reason would be that a slut would be likely to cheat on you and try to trick you into raising another man’s child if she got the chance. Hey, it’s happened millions of times before…
There are no straight male sluts. It is not a coherent concept and is rather like attempting to describe easy women as players. To do so is to miss the point. Attempting to generate false equivalences isn’t going to help anyone understand intersexual relations, besides, there is already a perfectly good and sexual neutral word that can be applied to both sexes, which is “promiscuous”. If you wish to imply a more negative sense, “STD lab” would also apply equally well to both sexes.
The problem is that to attempt to generate opprobrium by redefining words in this way is likely to backfire, because it is the “sluttish” behavior of the alpha player that provides the social proof that women find attractive.
Men do like sluts, in most cases. They simply don’t want to commit to them. Women, on the other hand, like players and do want to commit to them. Go figure.
Dalrock had a fun thing with Sisters Lusting for Ultimate Titillation and Women Holding Out for Relationship Equity.
I would agree that sluts are as discriminating as other women. At least I do not know any men who have had it easy “getting” casual sex (for free, no strings attached) from women with the same SMV or higher.
I am a slut; you probably are too — unless you’re one of the very rare women who was a real virgin
.
Ah, we have our first red herring and an attempt to frame it all as virgin or non virgin. An attempt to convince women reading this to dismiss what is being said as nonsense. An attempt to paint men who dare to question female sexual behavior as old throwbacks and outcasts when in fact nearly all men do evaluate women in this manner when selecting for commitment. An attempt to make it appear impossible for a woman to be a non slut. Non sluts never have a reason to make such attempts as they are secure women who were raised properly and wisely understand and respect how men think. Fortunately, that’s most women.
I don’t really see any cloying need to redefine the word “slut” so that it encapsulates an attitude rather than simply a promiscuous girl: in fact, I think such an approach is dangerous for men (“innocent” girls can hide the darkest of skeletons, and their skills in keeping up appearances are often astonishing). No doubt the type of people who believe a slut is a “mindset” rather than a girl who’s had a lot of sex are the sorts who believe you can also “hook up smart”.
I’m a slut! And it’s not as easy to be a slut as people say.
Anyone can get sex with someone, if their standards are low enough. However, with the way the sexual marketplace currently works, men are more likely to make the first move than women. Therefore, we see the woman rejecting men she doesn’t want to sleep with, but we do not see the man rejecting the women he doesn’t want to sleep with (i.e. by not hitting on them). I’m not talking “must be Division I athlete” standards here: I’m talking “basic respect for boundaries, sex is likely to be at least okay, not hideously ugly” and a few quirks (for me, I won’t fuck people who are stupid, non-nerdy or currently drunk).
FWIW, I’ve always been very open about my sexual history and I haven’t noticed any reluctance to commit– rather the converse, in fact (three of the four men I’ve had casual sex with have explicitly stated they wanted to date me).
However, sluthood is not for everyone. You must be able to disconnect love and sex; you must be able to treat your partner with respect, even though it’s casual sex; you must be able to be responsible for your own orgasm (women with finicky bodies need not apply); you must be good at communicating your sexual desires; you must know how to select men who are probably going to be good in bed from a very few pieces of data (bros are probably not).
@Abbot
???? Minority group? Is this a comment about race, or are you saying that promiscuous women, plentiful though they may be, are still the minority of women?
@Will S.
Oh, OK. Here then:
Manslut:
A predatory, perpetually single male who spends every minute of every day chasing skirt. This behavior may verge from the passive and cute to the idiotic and destructive.
“Dude, give it a rest, you’re such a Manslut…”
And for good measure:
Manwhore
The male equivalent of a slut.
“Wow, Jacob is such a manwhore.”
@Grindl
Well, by that definition at least 96% of women aged 26 are sluts. And the remaining 4% haven’t had sexual intercourse, no telling what other shenanigans they’ve been up to. So, yeah, the manosphere needs a reality check on this one. Of course, every man is entitled to select whatever qualities he wants in a partner – he just may have difficulty finding her.
Susan, check your email for a story about the costs of being a slut.
My definitions
Slut: A woman who has willingly* had sex with many men. I put the number somewhere in the low teens.
Lothario: A man who has been able to seduce many attractive women. I put the number somewhere in the twenties.
Player: A man who has been able to seduce many women.
Manslut: A man who has had sex with many unattractive women.
*Rape doesn’t make a girl a slut.
Interesting pushback here from the men re the use of the word slut to apply to males. It’s a term that has taken hold among young people – it’s part of the zeitgeist. Manwhore and manslut are commonly used terms to describe men who lack any discernment whatsoever re sex partners. They never say no, and they rack up very high partner counts.
In other words, slut as applied to a male is simply slang for “a promiscuous male,” a cumbersome phrase unlikely to be used by younguns. STDs are definitely part of the package though, and IMO explain why men who have sex with multiple partners are now considered “dirty.”
Roosh has been named a few times already on this thread. What percentage of American women would have casual sex with Roosh? A very, very, very small percentage. There are men, though, who sit back and wait for the girls to come to them. Sluts are aggressors with high status athletes and cool dudes like whiteboykrispy said, e.g. Karen Owen.
I’ve written about the declining value of preselection as the numbers get large many times in the past, so won’t belabor the point. Suffice it to say that there is most definitely a boomerang effect with social proof. At some point, the promiscuous male appeals only to promiscuous women. Which may suit him just fine.
For the record, I did note the difference between the sexes in terms of the social status that sluthood brings.
@VI
Thanks, I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts on the cost of sluthood.
I like your definitions, they make sense to me. It’s that lack of selectivity in the manslut that makes him repellent to attractive women.
Susan, a “manslut” doesn’t become a manslut unless he’s received immense sexual approval from a wide sample of women. “Loose” women are basically a myth, a unicorn: as Roissy says, the sluttiest of women tend to have, if anything, the highest of standards.
This is once again a case of women saying one thing and doing another. There is no reason for modern man not to slut around as much as possible and get as much social proof as he can: the only consternation he’ll face is from women looking for genuine faithfulness or to raise families, and neither is common whatsoever (you yourself took some relish in explaining to the “manosphere” that women are only interested in casual sex). I find it suspicious to borderline comic that you’re painting this image of women who have no scruples about sleeping around (“a little”, of course, as you’d like say) but who exercise perfect discretion in warding off “douchebags” and “mansluts”. It beggars belief.
I live in a growing arsty leftist college town here in the south where all I can say is the women suck. Slut might be the least of their problems. Couple it with what I term artsy feminism along with the rampant drug and alcohol lifestyle, they not only act as if tomorrow isn’t coming, they don’t care about what’s happening to them in the moment as long as “they aren’t bothering” anyone else. Yet down the road when many are in poverty and with kids, they will be a burden. Many expect government to subsidize their lives considering their views on just where money should be spent. And it isn’t on infrastructure but parks, museums, and other pork that benefits their views of what society should be.
Take this for what it’s worth. The woman that graduated at the top of her class here was able to land her “dream” job. It being a part time gig at the local public radio station. I guess using up resources and acting like who knows what is more important than becoming something meaningful in life.
Maybe it’s the town that’s the reason that the young women who come here in droves get sucked into the lifestyle that uses them up and spits them out. But their own herd mentality and competition within has a lot to do with it as well. And believe me when I say, the males for whom they lust after, the musicians, the artist, the drug dealers, the trust fund babies and the like are using it to their full advantage. I see it for myself.
Anyone can get sex with someone, if their standards are low enough.
.
read: men
.
However, with the way the sexual marketplace currently works, men are more likely to make the first move than women
.
Then the current SMP emerged in 325 BC and not with the appearance of male-invented BC pills.
.
I haven’t noticed any reluctance to commit
.
Not all men will reject sluts. In fact, there may just enough to go around given that men overall vastly outnumber the global slut-minority population
.
sluthood is not for everyone
.
Because nature intended it that way to best serve male short term needs prior to selecting a wife. Nature is a guardian angel.
.
@Anonymous
If you’re saying a manslut is always an alpha I’ll agree. I said in the post that mansluts are the most desirable men having sex with women without being selective themselves. Women who are seeking committed relationships know these men are out of the question. It’s untrue that women like this are uncommon, I can’t imagine why you say that. Some men are players who get with girls and seduce them via deceit – they make her believe at least for a time that they are interested in a relationship. Mansluts don’t bother with this. They are strictly ONS material, or may be open about having a harem.
I know for a fact that every college campus has a few manwhores, usually athletes or frat guys, who can only get with sluts. HIgh status, attractive women wouldn’t touch them with a 10 foot pole. After college it gets harder to ID them, but in college they’re “dirty.” Undoubtedly every one of them has genital herpes, HPV, and probably chlamydia.
Whaaaaa? Please provide the quote, you’re mixed up there.
You misunderstand. It’s the women who have no scruples about sleeping around who are having sex with mansluts. The women with scruples reject mansluts.
promiscuous women, plentiful though they may be, are still the minority of women?
.
Yes. If they were more than a small minority, then their behavior would be the accepted “norm” and a sex pozzy and slut walker dream fulfilled. If their numbers really increased, then a man worth marrying would become numb to all her empowerment fodder snickering at him for being such a fool.
Sluts are cool.
Every man wants a slut. He just wants her to be HIS slut. (As said by a certain elder of the Game scene).
Reformed sluts are not cool and aren’t fooling any guy with half a clue and not desperate.
You definitely need good game to nail the average looking to the attractive sluts, for they’re so used to putting out to the top dogs that they expect similar behaviours / level of Game. Your average gameless beta will get blown out quickly and rejected harshly by such sluts, or get used by them for non-sexual activities while they put out to alphas at night.
The fat/ugly sluts of SlutWalks? I know there are guys who stick their dicks in any hole with moisture, but I just can’t comprehend why.
@Anonymous
You sound as if you believe that all women have multiple sex partners in college. This is simply not true. The vast majority of women – I’d put it at 80% – have 2 or less. These women are not riding the carousel, and would never in a million years consider dating a manslut. Mansluts bang the other 20% – most of whom are highly promiscuous.
I personally know quite a few women in their 20s who are in the 7-9 range. The sluts pick up guys in bars, have sex, then get bummed when they find out how many women they’ve been with, or that they’ve just bedded another player. Most of them would secretly love to land a boyfriend, though their strategy sucks. The women who have a low number, have had sex only in committed relationships (which does not make them a slut) reject manwhores.
I’ve written in the past about one couple I know. They have known each other all their lives, and they are both extraordinarily good looking, at least 9s. They’ve been good friends, but she’s been with only 2 men in relationships, and he’s been with at least 100 women. He recently confessed that he has been in love with her for 8 years and suggested that now that they’re out of college, he’d like to try it for real. She rejected him because of his number. She just can’t get over the idea that he’s had his dick in that many women. It grosses her out, and she believes that he will be unable to be monogamous in any case. She’s right about that.
Honestly, I’m finding it just fascinating that the men don’t want me to put down manwhores. As if that’s a noble life purpose.
@Grindl: atta girl, use the definition that makes girls comfortable with the term instead of seeing reality.
You’re not “put[ting] down manwhores” at all though, Susan, you’re trying to make a case for why it’s not rationally optimal to be a manwhore. If you simply said “it’s wrong to rack through girls without offering commitment” no one would bat an eyelid, because it’s a moral argument. But your tack is that men receive diminishing returns by slutting around, and it’s just totally ridiculous, it’s an awful and barely-defensible position (do you really think a “manwhore” would complain that he isn’t getting as much attention as he’d like from women?)
I can’t address your claims about what type of girl would or wouldn’t touch a “manwhore”: it’s all far too vague for me to make sense of your claims. But I’m tendentious because you have this habit of seeing things as you’d like them to be: so these “long term relationships” common to women are all founts of commitment and deep love (and so nothing questionable at all), “good” women totally reject manwhores and so on. As I have to stress so you won’t misinterpret what I’m saying again, none of this would be risible if not for the fact that you’re trying to call this reality, rather than the reality you’d like to come into being (i.e. a moral instruction).
The women talk a big talk but I don’t see them follow it up with actions. Two of the biggest mansluts in my social circle just had two good girls moving across country to try to be with them as they’re so smitten. Try, because those guys aren’t committing at all and are dating other girls, one’s still living with and banging his ex. Other guys trying to date those girls have all been LJBFed. The two mansluts make no secret of their plays with other women, and everyone else knows exactly what kind of men they are. I’ve seen supposedly good Christian girls, who’ve blown off friends of mine for trying to be sexual too soon (only friggin’ second base) yet are drawn to those “mansluts” like moths to flame.
I’m not at their level but I’ve dated quite a few. Some of the girls I’ve banged knew my history, and even expressed some kind of false indignation at how many girls in the same social circle I’ve gone through, but they’d sleep with me on that very same night, after saying some kind of cliche like “I don’t want to be like just another girl you’ve been with in {our social circle}” or “I’m not a bad girl like the ones you dated”.
Meanwhile, I’m still failing to get my friend, a good beta boy who has everything going for him, to get pass second base with any of those girls. His problem? He’s still a virgin, and obviously Gameless.
Susan, I think any guy who’s swallowed the Red Pill will have troubles believing what you just said.
And i’m sure most girls would say the same about the cads that burned them, remember the very basics of human interactions, objectively evaluate their actions, not their words.
@108spirits
I think the answer is in the degree of sluttiness. When guys here talk about sluts, some will use that term to mean every woman who isn’t a virgin. Others will say 10 partners. I’ve been called a slut by both men and women in the blogosphere. Some guys don’t get nervous until a woman goes over 25 or so. Alphas who get a lot of women are generally more tolerant of sluttiness, at least in the short-term, than betas who don’t get a ton of sex.
A guy can be a player, possibly even a cad without being a manslut. There is a point, however, at which a guy has had sex with so many women, that his social proof is seen as a marker of a poor relationship prospect. Obviously, not all women make good decisions – I wouldn’t be writing this blog if that were the case, and I don’t write for sluts. Any of us can probably name quite a few examples of nice girls falling prey to mansluts.
But you’re mistaken if you think a “nice girl” moving across the country to be with a guy who is living with and banging his ex is typical. BTW, I don’t know much about evangelical Christian women, but between your comment and Solomon II’s stories, there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of “slut on the inside” women in that population.
I think we (especially beta guys like my friend) would all love for you AND other women to put down manwhores, as they’re our biggest competitors, but the reality just doesn’t match what we read here.
In your example of the extraordinary hot couple, I’d say it’s the fact that they’ve known each other their whole lives that, to the woman, it feels icky to think of his penis in her. It’d be like banging her brother to her, maybe. Very rarely what women say as the reason why they don’t date some guy is actually the truth. Precious few women could articulate their desire for a man or lack of it.
Preselection value doesn’t decline at all, it’s all about the quality of the preselection, for example a guy with high partner counts of 7′s will get preferential access to 7′s but not to 9s or 10s, but a guy with consistent success to 9′s and 10s will have it way easier with other high level women, see Leo DiCaprio’s dating history for an example.
@Anonymous
No, but I’d question which women he’s getting attention from. Super hot women do not sell themselves cheaply to manwhores. We know that manwhores are generally having sex with 5s and 6s – that’s their stock and trade. What I have seen happen is that some SHBs will agree to be the gf of a very high status male, even though he gets around. For example, all of the lax players that Karen Owen had sex with were in relationships. The gf’s didn’t get monogamy, but they got high status, which they were willing to take in exchange for being #1.
As far as seeing things the way I want to, I don’t see any of this first-hand. My knowledge of manwhores comes via readers, stories from my focus groups, and the media. It sounds like it’s been quite a while since you were in college. And as long-time readers here know, I don’t care about the morality of promiscuity, just the strategic impact on the SMP. Morality is not my niche.
Getting with a manwhore is terrible strategy for a young woman. Why is it so hard to believe that some percentage would figure that out?
BTW, the spam filter is catching you because it doesn’t like “Anonymous” types, and you’ve linked.
Nah I don’t believe for a second that those manslut-chasing girls are nice, but they are definitely not sluts. I was arguing against your point that mansluts only nail sluts. That’s so not true in my experience.
Christian girls of all types are the same as non-Christian if you push the right buttons, just that evangelicals are easier.
For some reason, I usually end up dating (& banging) Christian girls despite me being somewhere between atheist and agnostic, while my virgin friend would date the same girls and get told no sex till X years into relationship or till marriage, with the extra condition that he must convert.
I’d like to think I’m more tolerant of numbers than the typical manosphere guy. In fact, I rarely use the word “slut” unless I’m in one of these discussions. It holds no particularly strong shaming connotation in my mind. The only time a girl’s number truly reviles me was when this American chick proudly told me she lost count and couldn’t be fucked keeping track of it after #60. It’s not quite the number, it’s the attitude behind it.
Ozy wrote:
That’s only true for women. Guys often unwittingly cockblock themselves with the wrong attitude.
Aunt Susan,
You know men are not sluts, they are only conquerors. But do I have a story for you.
Btw just to add, I’m in my late 20s but I date girls of university / college age (18 till late 20s, i.e ugrad to pgrad) and my social circle is full of them due to various things I’m involved with.
Ah. You see, it is true that very few young women are in relationship with manwhores. The reason is not what you think though. It’s rather simple: manwhores, being their namesake, don’t really do relationships. However, ask any young woman, nice or not (only if you ask the right questions) and pretty much every one of them has had an experience with (as in, getting “fooled” once or twice or thrice or more) by a manwhore. That’s how they “learned”. That’s how manwhores rack up their numbers. I believe that’s what the guys here are disagreeing with you about. There’s no shortage of nice young girls coming of age who make a mistake or two with manwhores that a few who have “learned” their lesson the hard way swearing against manwhores don’t really matter.
Besides, a girl who says no manwhore is like a girl who puts “no jerk / no player” in her online dating profile. It’s just screaming out to others what her true preferences are.
do we know this? How would you even begin to form the basis for such a claim?
Here’s an idea to prove my point, compare Brad Pitt’s history to DiCaprio’s (and Leo’s hasn’t been updated to include Bar Rafaeli), Pitt’s began on 7′s and worked his way up, DiCaprio on the other hand got a huge start with Liv Tyler and kept it consistent, also note this are just the women on their own level of income and fame i’m sure both have plenty of numbers on the fangirl level.
I will take a stab at rational conversation here, even though I can tell this is a “butthurt” emotional reaction and likely to fail.
No man actually believes this, save for a few religious kooks. If this a “traditional defintion” then I’m sure you’ll be able to point me to untold articles that promote this view. I’d love to see it.
What is true, is sometimes men will use slut pejoratively (“Jane, you ignorant slut!”) which really has nothing to do with sex, but getting a rise out of you. Just like it’s possible to say “fuck you” to anyone, it’s possible to call anyone a slut. I have never done so, neither any of my male friends, not behind a woman’s back, and not to her face. I know countless women who say it to themselves and to other women, though. Funny how that goes.
In my experience, low promiscuity girls with 1-2 partners do avoid players of all types, if they know he’s a player. Of course, a man who is a big enough player will either have a reputation or give off a strong player vibe.
Girly girls, very attractive and feminine, will be cautious but still date a player. The few low promiscuity girls who are also girly girls will be married before their mid 20s.
Among girly girls, their propensity to date players will be directly related to their looks. Mildly cute girls will often fuck players, but not date them. Red hot girls will date players.
The Pepys quote could be posted in certain stores at the typical mall…some moms would surely feel it was vindicating their wardrobe choices for their daughters…
@SW
From my experience, the only time preselection starts declining in value for players is when chicks find out about some marginal girl you were with.
The only times I have ever been accused of being a player or a manwhore are when a good looking girl, fully aware of who I am beforehand and totally ok with it, finds out about one or two of the mistakes I’ve made taking back marginal girls.
Girls are willing to forgive, nay secretly like, that I have banged girls of their equal or hotter.
If you play the hotties, you’re a lothario like VI says, and therefore girls are willing to look past the many notches, not to be confused with player and manwhore, which, as you’ve sort of noted, are terms for men of no discretion.
But yet, the lothario is still a player. Preselection still has tremendous value if you keep it high class.
@Unfortunate Rake
Typing the same things at the same times, great minds think alike.
Strange how out of all the quotes in your article, Camille Paglia’s is the only one that makes any sense at all. Lesbians know women better than anyone else.
Feminism is such a comforting ideology for elite women, where the Corporate State fulfills the role of the Alpha Protector.
@esca
I’m all ears.
Christian girls of all types are the same as non-Christian if you push the right buttons, just that evangelicals are easier.
For some reason, I usually end up dating (& banging) Christian girls despite me being somewhere between atheist and agnostic, while my virgin friend would date the same girls and get told no sex till X years into relationship or till marriage, with the extra condition that he must convert.
Isn’t this possible be a matter of target audience? If he is only interested on women looking for a relationship chances are they are not going to put out unless what you mean is that this women your friend is interested in are having sex on the side? Possibly with you?
I agree completely, that’s exactly what’s happening. Note that use of the word “fooled” implies deceit. So manwhores are man of bad character. I will say that some men are such notorious manwhores that other women witness their deception, pumping and dumping of other girls, especially freshmen. These guys are viewed as wolves, and many more than the women they’ve used stay away. For example, the frat at Duke that has all the lax players is routinely ignored by the “core four” sororities. No high status woman wants the public humiliation of falling for their BS. Women don’t really care to be cautionary tales for other women. That frat gets its supply of girls from outside the Greek scene – athlete groupies. It’s a relatively small number of women who have sex with as many team members as possible. Karen Owen was one of those girls, and the sorority girls had no idea who she was when the story broke.
@Anonymous
@Mule
Agreed. I actually found it painful to type out Marcotte’s quote, and the excerpts from Friedman’s speech. These women can’t string a coherent sentence together, much less a speech.
@Aunt Sue
This will be comign in e-mail
Especially in Social Circle Game, a man can handicap himself with attractive women by sleeping with too many ugly women. While an isolated drunken lapse will be forgiven, if it is known that he mates with ugly women routinely, he lowers his value to their level. And an attractive woman will feel that her value is being lowered to that level if she sleeps with him.
On the other hand, it doesn’t matter how many women a man is known to have slept with if they are all 8s, 9s and 10s in looks or have high status (such as a celebrity). Virtually all women who meet this man will be incredibly curious about him, and biased toward the belief that there must be something about him if all these exceptional women wanted a piece of him. His real number could be 10 or 80 or 800. It doesn’t matter if the women connected to his reputation are of high quality.
For a man, social proof can work in either direction: You can prove yourself to be a man who can only get low-value women, or prove yourself to be a man who can get high-quality women and limits himself to those women.
For a woman, social proof doesn’t work this way. The quality of her lovers is mostly irrelevant. If a guy knows that a woman has slept with 50 guys, it doesn’t matter if they are all heads of state or homeless men. She’s still a slut.
One woman says to another, “She fucks a new guy every week, and they’re all losers.”
To a man overhearing this, only the first part registers. If the woman being talked about is attractive, he’ll still want to sleep with her (and only that).
“She sleeps with a new guy every week, but they’re all pretty hot.”
Still the second part won’t register with a man. He’ll feel exactly the same way about her: If she’s attractive, he’ll want to sleep with her (and only that). He won’t feel that his own value is somehow raised because she tends to sleep with high-value guys.
With regard to partner count, the only way a woman can increase her value is by being perceived to have a low number. In contrast, a man benefits by having a higher number, so long as the women are of high quality.
If there’s any male corollary to slut, it’s something like the term trash dick. A guy who often goes well below his SMV.
@ white boy and the rake
You both are right on the money. BTW krispy, I love the name.
Because the secret truth nobody wants you to know is that, using nearly any definition, there’s nothing wrong with being a slut. Not a thing.
___________________________
She is, of course, right………
However, some men will not give a woman of experience a chance at a relationship. (as some women will not give a male slut a chance)
Personal preference or narrow thinking…you decide
@ Abott
slut [sluht]
–noun
1. a member of a sexual minority group
2. an poorly parented woman who deludes herself as desirable by seeking validation through the sexual satisfaction of always ready and willing men.
3. an aid for men who wish to delay commitment
______________________
Abbott what is this womans definition?
A woman who has occational sex with men of her choosing, always includes condoms in her sexcapades,does not have sex for self validation purposes, loves sex, and is not ready for a committed relationship at this time.
Susan:
That video you say is about you has been marked private. What can you tell us about what it said?
Susan Walsh:
Would you say the status of the Duke Lacrosse team has changed for the worse since the false allegations in 2006? I ask, because many newspaper and magazine articles at the time painted the team as very high status and having their pick of groupies..BMOC that sort of thing? Or was it something else?
Yes, there is something wrong with being a slut. The sluttier you are perceived to be, the further you get away from the ideal that a high-value man will be looking for in a relationship partner.
If you truly don’t want a romantic relationship with a high-value man, then I suppose there’s nothing “wrong” with being a slut. But how many single women does that describe?
But I hasten to add: There’s nothing wrong with being a slut with me.
Isnt the observation of who actually is a slut, a matter of perception?
To someone with similar tastes as Abott, a woman with 3 or maybe 5 past sexual partners would be a slut.
To other men it might be 7 or 10/15 is perfectly fine. To some men it doesnt matter at all….
A west coast friend of mine said in Califorina, 30 sexual partners is pretty common for women these days.
Personal prefrence comes into play. So does insecurity. So does character.
In my opinion, I still say,” All sluts are promiscuous, but not all promiscuous women are sluts.”..To me if a women is constantly trying to seek men out sexually to verify to herself her own desirability, she has problems, and could be a slut….However, a woman who has confidence and self esteem and seeks out men on occation to satisfy her sexual needs, to me is only displaying promiscuous behavior..I personally can live with that.She probably has the rest of her life in order too.
I know to many men, it doesnt matter how or why a woman has had multiple partners,it is all the same and it turns him off. Fine… but is the mental opinion he has of her due to her activities, or due to his tolerance level? And what determinds his tolrance level? Moral influence from a religious background? Insecurity?
Ehh, Susan, I think you’re off on this one. Will is on target.
A slut is a sexually promiscuous woman.
The description you offer for a “manslut” or a “manwhore” is actually a player or PUA.
Anything else is, I think, an attempt at moral equivalence which serves only to dilute the term, eviscerate its meaning, and detract from the moral and social issues the term “slut” raises.
Do “players” and PUAs and their lifestyles raise social and moral issues? Maybe. But those issues aren’t in play in this discussion.
This:
a girl that less openly-promiscuous girls get to look down on.
Plus this:
A whore has sex with anyone; a slut has sex with anyone but you.
Seems kind of silly to debate a word and what it means as a label. There are people who would call me a slut…and sometimes I even like it. Most of the time though? I don’t really care. If you’re looking at me through such a narrow lens that you need to rely on inflammatory words to describe what you see, then we probably won’t have much to talk about.
@ Whiteboykrisby
The only times I have ever been accused of being a player or a manwhore are when a good looking girl, fully aware of who I am beforehand and totally ok with it, finds out about one or two of the mistakes I’ve made taking back marginal girls.
Girls are willing to forgive, nay secretly like, that I have banged girls of their equal or hotter.
_________________________
Dude you think having sex with any women who is not a complete hottie is a mistake? Good god you how shallow that sounds? So what some hot slut thinks you are a manwhore if you did a 6. You ARE a manwhore even if you did 20 tens…Being a manwhore has nothing to do with the caliber of woman you slut around with…
@ Rake
If you truly don’t want a romantic relationship with a high-value man, then I suppose there’s nothing “wrong” with being a slut. But how many single women does that describe?
But I hasten to add: There’s nothing wrong with being a slut with me.
____________________
Most women are realistic.. Most women are not “hot” therefore they know they will never marry the good looking top exectutive…. There are plenty of good looking betas that will look the other way to get a “decent looking” woman who tears his ass up in bed.
Cowardis the only term for a man that is as degrading as slut is for a woman. Men are not valued for their chastity nor looked down on for their lack thereof. Men are valued for their bravery & willingness to stand for whatever is perceived as right in their culture/time. For women the exact opposite is true. No one looks down on a woman who lacks courage, she isn’t required to have it.
Alpha males are the ones who are the least afraid, or a least show no fear.
@ Aldonza,
Seems kind of silly to debate a word and what it means as a label. There are people who would call me a slut…and sometimes I even like it. Most of the time though? I don’t really care. If you’re looking at me through such a narrow lens that you need to rely on inflammatory words to describe what you see, then we probably won’t have much to talk about.
_____________________
But aldonza darling, you must know by now ALL women of experience are viewed as women who are not worthy, could NEVER be good girlfriends, good wives, good mothers, good teachers, good Doctors, good executives, and will always cheat on their significant other.
Well, you are right, it is a very narrow minded view by mostly uninformed, insecure men. Many on the hypocritical side to boot.
A woman of character is no more likely to cheat on her man, reguardless of her sexual expriences than any other woman.
@ Maura
Cowardis the only term for a man that is as degrading as slut is for a woman. Men are not valued for their chastity nor looked down on for their lack thereof.
_____________________
Sluts are geneally looked down on because it is said they lack self control(complete BS by the way)
However, men sluts may display the EXACT supposed lack of self control (and they are praised by it?) The Sheeple here just kill me.
There are plenty of people who believe that. And that’s their right. But what does that have to do with me or my life?
Bullshit. Unless a man is only fucking fuglies, his promiscuity is not due to a lack of self-control. It’s due to his SKILL at seducing women.
This is a very good point, although, I think “creep” is far more damaging. A coward can live alone in peace. A creep gets arrested for flirting, and placed on sex offender registries, and is reviled.
@Tom & others
I don’t think anyone is championing or encouraging promiscuous guys, we’re just pointing out that a good majority of the time young girls will look the other way. Society would be in better shape if they didn’t, but that just doesn’t happen often.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a girl call a guy gross because of his reputation, only to eventually have sex with him… well then I’d have a shitload of nickels.
@offTheCuff
Yes, I agree that creep is proabably as inslting to a man as slut is to a woman
Ok i had my doubts about Tom but i’m joning the Stephanie Rowling camp on that topic, no man would just talk like that, sweetie, sweetheart maybe, but darling no, i don’t even think a really conservative brit would use that.
cuff,
.
can a guy get arrested for flirting?
.
“im sorry sir, come with us, that pick up line was just too lame….”
.
I wonder how many guys who have been done with sexual harrassment came up with
“but I was only flirting your honour!”
“but her ass backed into my hand”
“I thought she wanted me to follow her into the ladies”
.
mmm
Tom sounds like Edwina from “Ab Fab”…
I liked the Urban dictionary definition the best, but I would rephrase it:
A slut is a woman with the morals of a man with low morals.
So a slut is like what a common joe, the “I would fuck any woman that would fuck me” kind, if he was in position to cash on that.
So a female slut is a woman who doesnt screen properly or doesnt screen at all, and is taken by the swing of the moment too frequently and with too many people. And that is usually linked to similar behaviors with drinking, drugs, lack of self esteem, etc. Addictive personality.
And all of that because for a slut to happen, she only has to open her legs and let it happen = like a leaf to the wind. As opposed to the regular men slut, which involves a lot of work, and therefore a different personality traits.
The female slut is comparable to the male virgin omega in a lot of checkpoints, with the female slut being more sociable.
I know a bunch of girls who suck one dick at the bathroom, make out with the bartender, rub against some other dude, and go home with another one, and thats a regular “friday”. Some other girls who have had mini short relationships with every guy I know. Female sluts are like butterflies.
There are quite fewer men-sluts or manwhores, and the social scene happens around them. The social scene rarely happens around the female sluts, so the female sluts go in groups and crash the scenes and try to grab some fish.
jess, sexual harassment is ridiculous, until the law starts prosecuting women who flirt and tease and play sexual games to get favors everywhere
Rake and Crispy are right
Well jess, if you can get arrested for “placing a hand inside a girl’s clothing in a way that suggests a sex act” even if it was consensual or by “eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor” then i’d say yeah, that’s not as far fetched as it sounds.
Exactly, like treacherous butterflies…
Mariposa traicionera ♫
Ozymandias has a cute post about when she lost her virginity:
http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com/
Yohami, et. all:
It’s not even so much that “one can get arrested” for such stupid acts. More often it’s one can lose one’s job -with a black mark against employment in the same industry- due to a sexual harassment lawsuit. Those lawsuits operate on expansive, undefined concepts of SH , such as “hostile environment”. They are conducted via civil, not criminal standards of evidence, thus it’s easier to get a conviction. And the fines for a company can be immense.
And, sadly, if she’s a slut, she’s probably experienced so much alpha that her new beta boyfriend just won’t get the fireworks going, as much as she may wish he did. Then again, a beta male is pretty much the only choice she has for a long-term mate, because no man with lots of options will willingly choose to enter a committed long-term relationship with a slut.
And bedroom skills are not a plus. Ever. An alpha male has no problem getting his woman to satisfy him in bed. She doesn’t need to have given 1,000 blowjobs before. Or any, for that matter. There are few men on this planet who love to be reminded how many other cocks his girlfriend has ridden before. And an extensive repertoire of bedroom tricks will be just such a reminder.
Any slut who thinks that all that cock experience she’s getting is somehow adding any significant value is fooling herself.
rake- expereince
.
on the contrary i have heard men say how women sex skills vary a lot and can be a deal breaker.
.
some guys dont like inexperienced girls because they lack passion, just lie there, are not imaginative, can have trouble having orgasms.
.
there may be other men like you, but you are making a sweeping generalisation that simply isn’t true.
.
also alpha guys are not always great in bed- another falsehood being pushed around here.
jess:
For maybe the first time EVAH I’m going to agree with you.
Rake overstated his case or else has an extremely limited view of what women should be like in bed. The fact is, JUST FOR THE SEX (ignoring long term considerations) experienced enthusiastic girls are the best. And if she’s not experienced, she better at least be enthusiastic. Who wants to hump a dead fish?
@ Tom:
Dude you think having sex with any women who is not a complete hottie is a mistake? Good god you how shallow that sounds? So what some hot slut thinks you are a manwhore if you did a 6. You ARE a manwhore even if you did 20 tens…Being a manwhore has nothing to do with the caliber of woman you slut around with…
In today’s SMP, neither men nor women call a guy who has done twenty 10s a manwhore.
Men call him a hero. Men call him alpha.
Women call him. And get with him. And screw him.
You might not like it. But them’s the facts.
what on earth are you all on about???
.
being in a playground without a minor… um…. guys should not be in playgrounds by themselves… that should need no further explanation. as to why 2 women were ticketed is because the law cannot be seen to be hostile to men so treats everyone equally.
So why not just warn them? becuase by ticketing a lone guy in a playground his details get on a data base for child protection. See? not so barmy after all is it? Only today british news is full of Millie who was kidnapped and murdered.
.
putting your hand inside a 15 yo’ blouse- in a photo.
it does seem harsh to charge the guy but this is a tricky area- he was 17 so statutory rape issues loom. what if it was 18 yo guy and a 14 yo girl? – is that ok? the rule is- dont put your hand inside the blouse of a child in a photograph- its not that difficult to avoid surely?
.
‘hostile environment’- you make it sound like guys can say hello to a girl and get charged with SH. This is scare mongering.
.
A girl likes to be asked out or flirted with. But if she gives you the cold shoulder you back off. its that easy.
.
i have had a few guys come on too strong when i was at work a few years ago- its a common thing for women to experience.
.
I was polite but firm in my rejection but a couple of guys kept inviting me out, leaving messages and even bringing flowers. when i eventually got a male friend to intercede in consecutive situations they were really pissed off. A hostile environment was very tangible. My car was vandalised in the car park for example when no one elses was. I probably could have pressed sexual harassment charges but i just braved it out- it wasn’t nice though and without my colleagues support it would have been awful. Again, not such an unfair protection in the law is it?
And since when experienced and enthusiastic are mutually inclusive? she can have near zero experience and still enjoy it and personally because she enjoys it i enjoy it, would it be better if she knew “tricks”?, sure but id’ prefer she learned those WITH me. And before someone twists my words, would i reject a girl with more some history? no, but between 2 girls equal on all aspects but partner count the lowest count one is preferable.
Does anyone else detect the clear radfem hypocritical double standard here or is it just me?
I did
Dunno about the post itself but the tags are cracking me up
jess:
I suggest you do NOT MESS WITH ME on this.
I know quite a bit about SH law in the USA and you do not.
Do you want me to make you look stupid? And yes, the laws here are so vague that SH policies in corporate can literally be read as making one guilty until proven innocent.
So c’mon little girl. Dare me. Otherwise keep your “scare mongering” accusations to yourself.
blues
.
well of course, no 2 humans are identical. i suppose if there were 3 versions of my partner and one had 1 ex, another had 10 ex’s and another had 30 exes I guess I would plump for the middle guy but its not something I would consider important and would barely register in my head.
.
It bemuses me that a guy could fall for a girl, adore her mind, soul and body and then say “you slept with 10 guys!- get lost”.
.
just sounds too far fetched to be a common thing. Im prepared to accept it goes on but thankfully as far as I am aware, its not a super common.
.
and i dont think anything is mutually exclusive- I was pointing out that your blanket statement was only true for some men.
.
look, i used to have, (and perhaps still do – modesty forbids) a bit of young innocent look. I had big eyes, long hair, and was and still am very skinny. I did attract guys who thought i was an innocent little angel. One guy even called me that. Of course when I opened my gob (and i was a pretty political feminist back then) they were soon disabused of the misconception. Some guys were intimidated I’m sure. But the guys I did hook up with or have relationships with didn’t seem the slightest bit put off. In fact some guys said it made them feel good they could please me when my experience meant I was in a position to be a judge of such things. A male ego thing Im sure and girls don’t see sex as sport in quite the way guys do but nonetheless, me not being a virgin was not a turn off.
.
The only guy who perhaps prized my innocence was my 1st partner who i was with for 12 years who took my virginity. But I don’t think he had any frame of reference either.
.
I have known guys say they dumped pretty girls for being sexually boring or that they had no chemistry connection. I have also known guys stay with girls but complained to others that things werent great in the sack. Of course I have known girls do that to. I guess people are different and its a complex pattern here.
Oh c’mon!
That paragraph about the BJ and how it was the greatest thing in the history of ever and then the next paragraph how she didn’t know she was supposed to move her mouth…cute. Funny. Very human.
“Slut”
To a woman: another woman who has sex without a level corresponding male commitment that is required (by the woman making the judgment) for sex, thereby potentially lowering the commitment required from other men.
To a man seeking a LTR: a woman who has had sex with a sufficient number of partners that he will feel free floating and unexplainable anxiety over her sexual past. This number will depend upon several factors, including his number of partners and how much she convinces him during sex that he makes her cum like no other man.
To a man not seeking a LTR: A cool chick with a great attitude – if her standards are low enough to include him. Otherwise, a stuck up bitch.
@Clarence: Granted, the post was hella fun, i just felt a little cheated to find out it was oral virginity, not virginity virginity, i don’t like to be played with like that, i have expectations and standards for my erotica too, ya know what i mean?
[/drama lama]
Gives Blues an old Smokey Robinson record, and a hanky
clarence- dont mess with me
.
why, wot u gonna do?
kick my sorry cyber ass?
you sound so cool- honestly I feel myself drawn to your masculine and masterful prowess…..
.
on a serious note- I have had to liasise with Human Relations Depts regularly in all of my past jobs.
.
True, I only know the UK laws well but I doubt very much these terrible injustices are occurring at the hands of the american courts. Hey- I watch Judge Judy- she seems perfectly sensible to me.
.
US law is developed with case law just like the UK. So if you have a case with a terrible injustice then I would happily read it. Give a link or an idea where to look and I’ll spend some time reading up on it.
.
I know some companies have a no relationship rule for workers but there are reasons for that.
.
In the scenario of a guy asking a girl for her number or to go for a drink no one is going to convict on sexual harassment.
.
If however, there is physical stuff, suggestive jokes, brushing up, groping, malicious texts, inappropriate emails, then all staff, male or female shouldn’t have to endure that. Is that not fair, proportional and reasonable?
.
what some people consider as a joke or harmless fun can be very upsetting for others. its a simple respect thing.
@Susan
.
Honestly, I’m finding it just fascinating that the men don’t want me to put down manwhores. As if that’s a noble life purpose.
.
“Manwhores”, and for sake of argument I’ll say that is 50-100+ to me are like competitive eaters….you know… the guys that can eat like 70 hot dogs in 5 minutes or 10 pizzas. Yes, absolutely, there is ***nothing*** noble about it, nothing to be held up as a role model, but in a sense, there is something impressive about it. It is an accomplishment in a twisted kind of way.
.
Fact of the matter, is it takes serious chops to bed that many women especially if you aren’t scraping the bottom of the barrel. Because ultimately as the guy you have to approach, attract, comfort, and seduce. Alot of skill involved in getting from A to P in V. Again, for a woman, just a matter of being willing and going with the flow. See Yohami at 3:32 PM. I can’t say it any better.
.
To me though, trying to get that many women indicates something missing in the guy as to a greater life purpose. I’ll go back to my player alpha co-worker. Every story, every day is about going out, trying to meet chicks, game them, text them back and forth, work them, etc. Jeez, it is all-consuming. If I were single, I’d be too busy poring over stock charts trying to be successful and make money to waste that much time always trying to score new pussy. At some point, in my opinion it becomes pathological. I think men have a normal, natural drive for variety, and I think it is OK to indulge that to some extent while younger if you have the option to do it. But there is a point where it becomes a “sickness” IMO. I see it in this guy (who is up to 208). It is almost like greed. No matter how much you have it is never enough. That is warped. I think sluts (except for maybe a minority who are high T-male brain wired) are NOT acting out of a normal drive, but acting out of neediness for endless validation from high status males, so it is a warped lifestyle as well.
.
I’ve written in the past about one couple I know. They have known each other all their lives, and they are both extraordinarily good looking, at least 9s. They’ve been good friends, but she’s been with only 2 men in relationships, and he’s been with at least 100 women. He recently confessed that he has been in love with her for 8 years and suggested that now that they’re out of college, he’d like to try it for real. She rejected him because of his number. She just can’t get over the idea that he’s had his dick in that many women. It grosses her out, and she believes that he will be unable to be monogamous in any case. She’s right about that.
.
I can’t say for sure, but my guess is she would be the exception, not the rule, and as others have pointed out it is more about quality than quantity. I think 8-9 women are bothered if they find out you’ve been banging a bunch of 5-6s because it is insulting to them. WhiteKrispy has a kick-ass post about avoiding 6s…the reasons why…and the consequences if you don’t. I remember when I was bouncing (and thus had to stay next to the entrance door) I’d get these 4-5 overweight chicks who started congregating around me. It just wasn’t in me to be a dick, but I later learned that some of hot waitresses and bartenders were like WTF is he doing talking to them. The alpha bouncer who sort of took me under his wing explained it all, and basically said you’ve got to send them packing. You can’ t be seen talking to them and letting them flirt with you.
.
So, I think a guy can be with 20-30 8-9s and that isn’t going to hit his value with other 8-9s at all, but if he starts racking up to 100 and a good chunk of those are what those high status girls would call “skanks” his value is going to take a huge hit.
Especially in Social Circle Game, a man can handicap himself with attractive women by sleeping with too many ugly women. While an isolated drunken lapse will be forgiven, if it is known that he mates with ugly women routinely, he lowers his value to their level. And an attractive woman will feel that her value is being lowered to that level if she sleeps with him.
On the other hand, it doesn’t matter how many women a man is known to have slept with if they are all 8s, 9s and 10s in looks or have high status (such as a celebrity).
.
Yes
I think the answer is in the degree of sluttiness. When guys here talk about sluts, some will use that term to mean every woman who isn’t a virgin.
.
I think only a very, very, very, small minority guys use the term in that way.
.
Others will say 10 partners. I’ve been called a slut by both men and women in the blogosphere. Some guys don’t get nervous until a woman goes over 25 or so. Alphas who get a lot of women are generally more tolerant of sluttiness, at least in the short-term, than betas who don’t get a ton of sex.
.
IMO, the key factor is lots of casual, *non-relationship* sex, because to me it reveals a woman who is simply indulging because she can. In my book, a woman gets a few freebie mistakes with alphas she thought might be interested in something more then a pump and dump. But if she has made a routine habit/lifestyle out of quickly and easily giving it up to every higher SMV guy that spits game her way, then she is a slut.
I’ve written in the past about one couple I know. They have known each other all their lives, and they are both extraordinarily good looking, at least 9s. They’ve been good friends, but she’s been with only 2 men in relationships, and he’s been with at least 100 women. He recently confessed that he has been in love with her for 8 years and suggested that now that they’re out of college, he’d like to try it for real. She rejected him because of his number. She just can’t get over the idea that he’s had his dick in that many women. It grosses her out, and she believes that he will be unable to be monogamous in any case. She’s right about that.
And i think the bolded part is the real problem, it’s the same reason as to why it’s very rare for childhood friends to hook up despite what Hollywood wants us to believe, i wish i could link but i don’t have it and google didn’t help much either but i do remember The Red Queen did mention something about this near the end of the book.
Some men are players who get with girls and seduce them via deceit – they make her believe at least for a time that they are interested in a relationship.
.
This is true…my co-worker pulls this move often. That said, often the women invent/assume the relationship in their head simply because sex took place…and he just omits talking about other women.
@Tom
“Dude you think having sex with any women who is not a complete hottie is a mistake?…”
Reframe your strawman to “any girl 7+”- Yes.
“… Good god you how shallow that sounds? So what some hot slut thinks you are a manwhore if you did a 6….”
Shallow? Perhaps if it didn’t have real consequences. And I’ve written about these consequences before, it wasn’t pretty.
“…You ARE a manwhore even if you did 20 tens…Being a manwhore has nothing to do with the caliber of woman you slut around with…”
I disagree. Calling one a manwhore brings taste into the equation, and someone banging 10s has the utmost taste, and skill, with women. The entire difference between a manwhore and a lothario is the hotness of the women they get.
But you don’t actually have problems with promiscuous men per se, just the idea that they are celebrated while your reason d’etre- proclaiming the unchaste women of the world excellent for commitment- is laughed at.
Manwhore is a dirty word, so it’s obvious your intention is to bring down the dude who sleeps around, even if it is exclusively with hot chicks. But you defend to the death any promiscuous woman.The manwhore label is just one more shaming label pot shot in your war for equality of promiscuity.
You constantly beef with men who don’t like sluts, and rage at the screen when nobody agrees with you that there is nothing different about promiscuous women.
You try endlessly, like a broken record, to equivocate male and female promiscuity, despite all evidence- socially, psychologically, biologically- that a vast majority of men prefer chaste (or relatively chaste) women for commitment, and a vast majority of women are absolutely fascinated with men who have gotten around with high quality women.
Your agenda is clear, and I enjoy reading your comments as well as knowing that as soon as promiscuity become the topic, your batlight is shining in the night sky.
If you’ll permit me to ask- Are you a girl, possibly one of a promiscuous background? It would clear up so much.
Again, sorry to keep bringing up the reality TV examples…Bentley from the Bachelorette is a Mormon, and he attended BYU which means for sure he wasn’t banging tons of girls (if having sex at all). This dude was the definition of cad, one huge enough to break a girl’s heart, and all on television to boot.
In light of the rampant spread of sluttiness in America, here is the new single male agenda:
1) Assume all women are slut until proven otherwise. A slut is a women who has had sex outside committed relationships, this includes one-night stands, casual fuck buddies, sex while traveling, fucking and dating multiple men at the same time, etc. These women are riskier for long term committed marriages based on pair bonding, and a guy is at a higher risk of being cuckolded. If you are a guy who is the committed and faithful type, you would be amazed at the sluttiness of girls once you scratch the surface, I have dumped my share of chicks who demonstrated any signs of above behavior. If you are the player type, then you probably love sluts and you know what to do.
2) Do not marry period. If you want to have kids wait until you are in the mid-40s and find a girl in the late twenties, and have a child. But don’t sign the marriage certificate, you will only owe child support. Women have a finite shelf-life, men don’t, don’t let the feminists tell you otherwise. Don’t ever apologize for being attracted to younger women. The Western marriage laws, child custody, alimony, etc. are all stacked against men. Why bother with sexless marriages?
3) Don’t date women who are older than 35, the large majority of them are bitter and just not fun to hang around, their negativity in life will pull you down. The younger girls are generally more optimistic and have a more cheerful outlook.
4) Take care of your health, exercise(heavy cardio and compound weight exercises), eat well, cut back on alcohol or no alcohol, all this will raise your testosterone level naturally and will make your erections rock hard as well. The girls will thank you.
5) Learn how to please a women in bed, become a passionate lover, take care of your women and give her mind blowing orgasms.
6) Do well professionally at work and become financially independent. Have interests outside work, travel the world, and enjoy all the good things that life has to offer.
Aren’t you glad that you are a man?
“The fact is, JUST FOR THE SEX (ignoring long term considerations) experienced enthusiastic girls are the best.”
True, I should have emphasized that I was talking about the best strategy for attracting a man of quality to a committed relationship — in other words, making him fall in love with you. A high notch count and polished whore-skills will hinder that endeavor. But of course for casual sport-fucking a good sex athlete is desirable, not least because there’s not much time for training the girl during a one-night stand. If a girl desires to be a one-night-stand or drunk-dialed fuck buddy to an alpha, slutty behavior will not get in the way of that goal.
But I suspected that Tomgirl was trying to convince herself that a slutty history would not get in the way of capturing a man’s heart. It will. Sluts have to settle for the cock only.
However, just like “alpha,” “slut” is a perception. When beta men transform themselves into alphas using Game, they simply decide to change who they are — how they act, how they think of themselves, how they regard others. And they usually end up with a new social circle as a result, because their old friends still see them as betas.
A “slut” can do the same thing. She can decide to stop acting like a slut, change her appearance and behaviors, change the way she thinks about herself and others. She can become a new person and enter a new social circle, where she isn’t considered a slut because she never acts like one.
Ok i had my doubts about Tom but i’m joning the Stephanie Rowling camp on that topic, no man would just talk like that, sweetie, sweetheart maybe, but darling no, i don’t even think a really conservative brit would use that.
Actually this sentence is telling but not because of that, IMO. But the fact that she (and I’m calling you a she from now on Tammi) bulked together doctor and teachers as part of the slut shaming, something that no one here ever advocated. Hamstering that “Guys that don’t marry sluts, don’t hire sluts either” is such a stupid feminist reasoning that I really have no doubts at this point.
yeah what is unusual in Tom is the “stupid feminist reasoning”. Feminists guys at least make sense. Tom reasons like a woman: everything depicted logic or not based on his very own personal preferences.
like in: shaming a promiscuous girl is bad but shaming a promiscuous man is fine. I only see that kind of stuff happening in women. Add the womanish language and Tom sounds like a TomBoy.
But there are people who are born with the wrong gender and there are manginas and… who knows what else. Maybe Tom has the XY, but is using only half of his chromosomes
But there are people who are born with the wrong gender and there are manginas and… who knows what else. Maybe Tom has the XY, but is using only half of his chromosomes
I also entertain the possibility of Tammi being a trans, born a woman turned into a man, born a man that is turning into a woman. But I lean for woman faking to be a man, because…? Well I can’t see why really. But I can’t deny the evidence of a bitter woman bitching because she cannot get her cake and eat it too that calls herself Tom for mysterious reasons.
I have met a few of man to woman transgendered people and their reasoning and logic was still 100% male, so if Tom is a trans, he/she the other way around.
Aint it funny that we can smell gender in the screen
I have met a few of man to woman transgendered people and their reasoning and logic was still 100% male, so if Tom is a trans, he/she the other way around.
Mmm interesting data.
Aint it funny that we can smell gender in the screen
Had I mentioned that Shakespeare used to drove me nuts? The women acted and talked like men with boobs, it was a relief when I found out that this plays were written for men in drag, That explains it!
I usually have issues with males writing females characters they are usually so freaking wrong (the latest biggest offender for me are Priscilla Hutchinson novels), Of course there are exceptions Saramago for example had amazing women of all types… Anyway I’m used to this, just not with a clear intend though.
I have met a few of man to woman transgendered people and their reasoning and logic was still 100% male, so if Tom is a trans, he/she the other way around.
Agree. The MTFs I have met when I was younger were all (although I never would have told them this to their faces) quite male, still, in their thinking and expression .. and sexuality, sexual aggression and so on. I disappointed a couple of them, I think, because I’m not into men sexually, even quite feminine/attractive men (and some trannies are quite attractive visually if they have the proper body size and type and so on), but I enjoyed the talks because marginal cases are always interesting. Troubled folks, really, but an interesting conversation partner.
I usually have issues with males writing females characters they are usually so freaking wrong (the latest biggest offender for me are Priscilla Hutchinson novels), Of course there are exceptions Saramago for example had amazing women of all types… Anyway I’m used to this, just not with a clear intend though.
Franzen does a pretty good job with his female characters.
Franzen does a pretty good job with his female characters.
Reads his bio in Wikipedia, finds his rules for writing:
THAT is why I never get anything done nowadays. Taking this advice from now on. I also feel better about not liking to write 400 pages when I can tell my story in 150, maybe less. Of course no one will ever publish me like that but that is life.
He has some interesting writing habits — reminds me of a lighter version of Proust’s odd habits, although significantly less eccentric. His most recent book, “Freedom”, is well worth a read, and I think he gets the main female character quite well.
“Freedom”, is well worth a read, and I think he gets the main female character quite well.
Adding it to my list. Thanks! And for weird writing habits Stephen King is worst IMO. Is like 12 hours reading and 12 hours writing, eating and sleeping optional!
Well shit, i had not noticed that one, good call. Guess i still have stuff to learn.
@Clarence
That’s weird, it’s OK on my computer. I put up a clip where JF says that last summer, after she wrote a manifesto against slut-shaming, a “pearl-clutching blogger” living in Boston told her that if there were enough sluts, they would destroy the economy. That’s not actually what I said, but female promiscuity does have negative long-term effects on the economy and civilization.
@Clarence
The students strongly supported the players during the crisis, unlike the administration. However, being falsely accused doesn’t mean they’re a great group of guys. As I understand it, they have a very active groupie scene of their own, do their own thing. They reportedly regularly run trains, pass women from guy to guy, etc. They invite women to their parties in outrageous fashion – I ran a flyer in a post last Halloween where they invited all the sorority women on campus to their party, provided they were not overweight and were prepared to dress like whores for the occasion. So, total douchebags, total debauchery at SAE. That makes them BMOC in a way, but also so far beyond civil behavior, many women avoid them and their frat. They are really an example of what I’m talking about – too much shady behavior, too much hooking up with sluts. I guess you could say they “are not received in polite society.”
some men will not give a woman of experience a chance at a relationship
.
Does this somehow anger or create a disadvantage for WOEs? How so? If not, then no harm done and lets move on.
.
And what determinds his tolrance level? Moral influence from a religious background? Insecurity?
.
None of the above. Men avoid sluts for commitment simply because they can. Take away that option and just about every man including those being recast as “insecure” [a common propaganda campaign on this site] will embrace sluts. Of course that would stifle the slut pozzies and disorient sluts who walk.
For shits and giggles:
http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
I don’t think it is accurate though. I just ran a bunch of Aldonza and Susan’s comments as a check, and it keeps saying they are male.
@detinennui32
Thanks for pointing this out – I’ve been at a loss to figure out just what is rankling the men here. I don’t mean to make a moral equivalence – as I’ve said, I don’t take a moral view at all. I do think that female promiscuity is far more problematic than male promiscuity. But I’d be lying if I said it’s a good thing, or even a neutral thing, when men just get laid all the time with a variety of women
The last thing society needs is more Rooshes. He is what I call a UMOS – unproductive member of society. This is the problem with promiscuity in general, for either sex.
@VI
This is obviously true. However, there is no question that a man who seduces many women loses the ability to bond with one woman. From a societal standpoint, that is a bad thing. The real question is: what is the man’s mission? What is his purpose in life? If it is seducing women, well that’s a very shallow and meaningless life. He leaves no legacy, no shadow, no footprint. You could make an argument that such a life shows an inability to delay gratification, and perhaps even an inability to attach emotionally.
@Yohami
Brilliant summary, I like it.
Yes, this is my understanding at the college level. There are obviously some slutty acting women who have social status, but the truly shameless sluts who mindlessly bang every high status guy they can find usually gain access via crashing and initiating sex with a player immediately.
@Passer By
Another great definition of slut, and its various applications.
Hello Susan long time reader first time commentator i love your blog very informative must say. However, on the subject matter i must say that the word slut is very subjective considering that everyone has a different connotation of the word. Most people would consider the sluts to be women who sleep around alot. However my question is there a certain types of sluts. I mean if a woman genuinely likes sex and not doing it for the wrong reasons ( attention and validation) does that still make her a slut.
@Mike C
Yes, women are very frequently guilty of going along with, or even perpetrating, this “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Which is fine, if they’re willing to accept the risk. “Ask me no questions, I’ll tell you no lies.” If they get a nasty surprise, though, they don’t get to call the guy a jerk. This is why I have no problem with players – and am even quite fond of some of the players who comment here. Unless a guy is practicing outright deceit, he’s not guilty of misleading. Lying by omission doesn’t count – it’s the woman’s responsibility to ask the hard questions if she needs to know what’s going on.
@Anonymous
Newsflash: 83% of marriages between college educated people do not end in divorce. And most marriages are not sexless. If they are, it’s usually due to lack of male dominance – get on over to Athol’s blog. Successful marriages confer numerous benefits on a man’s physical and emotional health.
You can obviously choose never to marry, but I don’t allow that advice to be given here. I’m very pro-marriage. You just need to choose very, very carefully.
This cracked me up. I like the idea of using some chromosomes and ignoring others.
I think someone suggested once that “Tom” is actually real Tom’s promiscuous girlfriend. She has access to his Facebook account, and enough info about his past to give some data “proving” she is male. If this is the case, it’s very unfortunate. This woman is on here all the time arguing with determination and she’s not going to hear what she wants to hear. She must have regrets or even doubts about her ability to be faithful in the relationship, and seeks confirmation here that it will all be OK.
@chris b
Thanks so much for commenting! I think the answer to your question rests on the question of how selective the woman is. For example, a woman who loves and sex has it just for pleasure, frequently changing partners, having sex with strangers, for example, would most definitely fit the definition of slut because she has detached sex from her emotions. On the other hand, guys here say they love the idea of a woman being “their slut.” Meaning that they want a woman to love sex, love trying new things, mixing it up, etc. but only with them. That woman, being highly sexual in a monogamous relationship, would definitely not be a slut in the pejorative sense.
Haha, Aldonza and I are both on the analytical side for women – so I’m not surprised. I hope that doesn’t mean I’m high testosterone. :-/
On the other hand, it doesn’t matter how many women a man is known to have slept with if they are all 8s, 9s and 10s in looks or have high status (such as a celebrity).
Personal anecdote.
I already mentioned that when I was single in my country I had a lot of married men chasing me around, never hooked up with them (I’m not an idiot), but there was one that tried a lot, lets call him D.
D was obviously an experienced gamer and he tried pretty much every trick in the book, neg me, flatter me, ask me out, bitched about his wife “not understanding him”, he was my type (white and skinny) but I knew he was married (married/taken men = women to me), I felt a bit of pity for him because he tried so hard but still not pity enough to accept his advances.
Well we all were part of the same political association and I noticed that after a while, he started to insist in us visiting his house, like he mentioned it several times till we all agreed to go together. He specifically assigned me a role to make sure I was going to attend.
Well his wife was one of the most beautiful women I ever seen, long dark hair, big eyes, clear pale skin and if you look at her body you could hardly ever know she already had two kids (I consider myself a 6 I will rate her an 9 everyone remarked on how pretty his wife was so I’m probably right). He also lived in an apartment three times the size of the house I shared with my parents.
Well after the party I though that D was done with me given that no man will introduce me to his pretty wife and kids and then think I will want anything to do with him…Yeah I know I’m an idiot.
He totally tried even harder as soon as he could, my guess is that he was trying preselection with his wife and obvious higher social status, in case I had any doubts which I didn’t he had a nice car from the same year so I knew he was high status I didn’t knew how his wife looked though.
I went for mildly pity him to downright disgusted by him I totally ignored him from that day on, to this day is the only one of that circle of friends that I don’t speak to. I know that is probably the minority but really if normal girls are supposed to be more interested in a guy because they can pride themselves that you somehow got his attention away from someone hotter. I’m glad not to be normal, very very glad.
I just have to say I am so happy to see Brendan here. Such a treat.
@susan i understand but what if that is the woman’ choice sometimes people just want good sex and not the baggage that comes along with it by most people’s defition i could be called a manslut lol.
just want good sex and not the baggage that comes along with it
Err do you realize that the baggage that comes with sex it is called a human being?
Or maybe it just takes him a much greater woman for him to bond.
Or maybe it just takes him a much greater woman for him to bond.
Thats true blue.
@steph
Err do you realize that the baggage that comes with sex it is called a human being
If you not in a relationship with them you dont have to deal with their bull shit. You just get your nut and go i do this all the time with the girls i would never have a ltr with.
Man, I am doing this slut thing all wrong. Good thing, too, some of the women described herein sound obnoxious. I’ve never been so happy to be going to a liberal arts college without sports…
To be completely honest, perhaps I’m deriving men from a different sample than the commenters here, but most of the guys I’ve spoken with have either not cared about their girlfriend’s promiscuity (again, barring STDs) or actively desired a woman who’s slutty (because of high sex drive, knowledge of what gets him off, knowledge of what gets her off, etc.). (Also, this guy is very enthusiastic about his love for sluts.) I think it’s probably a bell curve here: a large group of guys in the center who don’t really care, or who mildly prefer a more chaste or more slutty woman, with a few at the extremes who actively prefer a slut or a virgin.
I’m also trying to work out whether my friend, who’s in a polyamorous relationship with her boyfriend and their girlfriend, her first two partners, counts as a slut or not. Very annoying.
To be completely honest, perhaps I’m deriving men from a different sample than the commenters here, but most of the guys I’ve spoken with have either not cared about their girlfriend’s promiscuity (again, barring STDs) or actively desired a woman who’s slutty (because of high sex drive, knowledge of what gets him off, knowledge of what gets her off, etc.).
.
Well….I think there are 2 factors at play here:
1. I think we’ve already established your tastes in men, and the men you hang with probably aren’t representative of the average guy. No offense, but I think you’ve pretty much said you exclusively target super-beta nerd boys.
2. Age – I think you are 19? At your age, with the guys you are hanging out with and talking too, marriage and being a potential marriage partner are off the table. They aren’t going to care about promiscuity in girlfriends who are temporary playmates, especially if they are guys just thanking their lucky stars to finally be getting laid consistently.
I agree with Mike chances are that your personal social cluster is not going to be affected with slutshaming Ozy.
I mean a lot of the issues men have is the fact that sluts are not honest about their attractions, they spent their youth banging guys for free that were not anywhere near their social market and then want to charge for the same service (or less) and they know by heart that this women are more likely to continue banging Alphas behind their backs or sponsored by alimony support after the divorce.
If you only date nerd types as long as you don’t show signs of wanting to keep pursuing other nerds after committing, chances are that they are just going to be sorry they didn’t meet you before than counting a large pool of other nerds. Or I am wrong guys?
Mike C: Oh, I target nerdy betaboys sexually, but I talk about sex with all sorts of people.
It interests me. And most men of my acquaintance seem to not regard it as that much of an issue or, as I said, actively favor promiscuity. It is true that my friend cluster tends to be more intelligent and interested in “geek culture” than the average, but they have a wide spread of personality traits, family backgrounds, etc.
The sense I had gathered from this thread was that the people here found promiscuous women less attractive for dating in college, not just later in life; was that mistaken?
Steph: So it’s okay to be a slut as long as I’m a honest slut?
That’s a relief.
I’ve never understood this notion of “charging” for sex. If I’m dating someone, I want the relationship to be fulfilling for both of us, not something he has to suffer through to obtain pussy.
1 2 3 »
{ 4 trackbacks }