Katie Roiphe has published an article at Slate: It’s Not Just Rush: Liberals slut-shame just as much, in which she decries the pervasive slut shaming in our society:
These judgments, about women who sleep around or sleep with the wrong people or fail to settle down, these vicious or catty bursts of rage, or calm-holier-than-thou reflections on other people’s sluttiness or condescending screeds about how pathetic or sad or distasteful or lonely or sleazy it is to live so outside of conventional life, persist through all age groups and social strata, in big cities and small towns, on television news programs watched by millions, and on liberal blogs.
What can I say? I find this development encouraging. I’m never quite sure what to make of Katie Roiphe. She’s the daughter of an ardent and famous feminist, but in 1994 she burst on the scene with The Morning After: Fear, Sex and Feminism, a book that held women accountable for choices that served to put them in danger of sexual assault. From an article at the New York Times:
One of the questions used to define rape was: ‘Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?’ The phrasing raises the issue of agency. Why aren’t college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? A man may give her drugs, but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naive, then they should be responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs. “If a woman’s ‘judgment is impaired’ and she has sex, it isn’t always the man’s fault; it isn’t necessarily always rape.
Obviously, this view put her squarely at odds with sex-positive feminists, infuriating Katha Pollitt and other prominent feminists of the time. One imagines she wouldn’t be welcome, or interested in attending a local Slut Walk.
In a 1997 book review a writer for the LA Times criticized Roiphe for not embracing the Sex as Empowerment Scam:
For Roiphe, who is 28, the sexual revolution of the ’60s had nothing to do with a desire to create a more erotic and more egalitarian society. Instead, Roiphe focuses on “bikinis from France, and the Pill, and nudity in movies, and honest and open marriages, and no-fault divorces” and then notes that “paradise” mysteriously failed to materialize. She is like the theatergoer who takes her seat during the second act and then loudly whispers to everyone around her that the plot makes no sense.
Mistakenly, Roiphe believes that the sexual revolution consisted simply of “having sex with as many people as you could.” She is oblivious to the fact that the sexual revolution–at least for many women–was less about mindless promiscuity than about finding newer, truer, less sexist and more ecstatic ways of being sexual. It was about the experience, not just the numbers; about creating something, not just getting lucky.
Fifteen years later, we all know that few found “newer, truer, less sexist and more ecstatic ways of being sexual.” They found ways of being sexual that were risky, superficial, awkward and unsatisfying. The sexual double standard is as prominent as ever, being biologically determined and therefore immutable. If anything, men have become hypersensitive to female promiscuity, warily inquiring about a woman’s number before investing one ounce of emotional energy.
So why is Katie Roiphe suddenly writing in defense of sluts?
In fact the trope of “sluts” is perpetuated in liberal circles as well as conservative ones, and there is a much more widespread tendency to judge women for their sex lives than we like to admit. There is a great deal of unacknowledged, uninterrogated contempt for women who are perceived as promiscuous, floating around even in right-thinking, fashionable, urban, blue-state pockets of the world.
…The slut is not a mythical creature on college campuses, a unicorn or dodo bird, vanished from the vernacular, in other words. The girls talk about being sluts or feeling like sluts or other girls being sluts, and if this seems exotic or surprising to us, we can think back to our own college lives, or to yesterday, when we heard someone expressing something very much like that over coffee about someone else for a sexual encounter, or sexual style or sexual existence they don’t approve of for one reason or another.
I can’t explain Roiphe’s mysterious mid-life conversion to sympathy for sluthood at the age of 44, but I can note that female promiscuity is not a problem “for one reason or another.” It is directly responsible for the near disappearance of fulfilling and intimate cross-sex relationships among young people in college, the mistaken and tragic sense that most college students have of themselves as sexual “losers,” the rapid rise of sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S., and the creation of a “spinster class” of women now in their 30s and 40s.
If liberals are willing to shame promiscuity, that’s a good thing, a rare example of people working effectively across the aisle. Let’s not forget the manwhores while we’re at it, OK? The sooner the casual sex culture gasps its last breath, the sooner we can begin to repair the harm to our young women and men, as well as the most important societal institutions of marriage and family.
{ 1398 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 8 9 10
deti,
I did–in comments #590 & 645.
Gorbachev – “By and large, both men and women who complain are often the ones who got cheated on. But it has to be asked: How serious were they about the relationship, *really*?”
How serious? First LTR lasted four years from 16 to 20 years old. Second LTR lasted 4.5 years until I was around 25. Got married at 26 and stayed that way for 13 years. I’m currently on my shortest LTR at 2.5 years, but I’m hoping this one breaks my previous record. In each case I intended to marry my SO at some point, but I was too young for the first, she was too young in the second, and the third was the charm, that eventually led to a divorce.
Serious enough for you?
OK shame is Plain Jane. Banning now.
JM:
I don’t see those as calling me out. I just see it as legitimate disagreement. You weren’t raking me over the coals in those comments in the other thread like you were yesterday on this one.
“I agree – since we’re all sinners, you should perhaps tread lightly on the condemnation of female nature or behavior. And we should go easy on you, which is what I have recommended.”
“Jesus isn’t saying your argument is wrong because you cheated – that would be ad hominem. He’s saying your credibility is questionable. That’s very different.
Ad hominem may be overused in debate, but so is the declaration that it’s being used.”
Perhaps. But I think now for some commenters here, it’s less about legitimate disagreement and more about schadenfreude, cutting me down to size, and serving up a heaping helping of comeuppance. Perhaps it’s all deserved, but whether it is or it isn’t, I can’t comment anymore here.
From here on out, every time I say anything here, someone will make me and my personal credibility the issue. No matter how valid my argument ON THE MERITS, someone will always seek to invalidate it by “deti has no credibility because he confessed to cheating on a couple of LTRs more than 20 years ago.” And that will succeed, as it did yesterday, because in today’s climate, claims of an opponent’s hypocrisy carry a great deal of weight with any blog’s readership. Charges of hypocrisy shut down and silence opponents, and render opponents bereft of credibility.
I still think if I’m a hypocrite, then so is everyone else. But if that renders me incredible, it renders everyone else incredible too. The only difference is that I illustrated mine for the purposes of legitimate debate; and inadvertently became the issue yesterday.
That detracts from the quality of the debate at this site. That shouldn’t happen, because regardless of anyone’s agreement or disagreement on the merits of particular issues, I still think this blog serves a useful purpose.
Thanks for hearing me out, Susan.
Sue,
Yes: pot and kettle. But this also went back to Tim. Deti wants to give men behaving badly a pass by falling back on “human nature”, while focusing only on the personal responsibility of promiscuous females–to the point that even when a woman is taking responsibility and trying to change her behavior, he wants to keep needling her about the consequences of her past.
So ultimately I’m trying to make two very distinct points:
1. Tim should be held accountable for his actions. He’s currently involved in some morally ambiguous behavior and I think it’s fair to evaluate his relationship fitness based on that behavior (in the same way that we judge promiscuous women for their behavior). It’s unfair to HUS reader girl to tell her that he’s a good catch and that his behavior can be explained away by “human nature.”
2. Though we all need to take responsibility for our actions, we can transcend our pasts. Tim can become more “fit” for a relationship by making better decisions in the future. Deti, a bad bet for a relationship back in the day, went on to become a faithful husband. Emileigh, a bad bet for a relationship atm, can change, in fact wants to change–a point that Deti seems unwilling to acknowledge, having chosen instead to harp on the consequences of her past behaviors–consequences we’re all aware of already.
deti,
And I’m not raking you over the coals in this one. Ted was the one questioning your character. And others were saying you got what you deserved. I’ve always said you got shafted by your wife and that I think you handled your relationship admirably since.
I’ll tell you where I think some of the backlash is coming from. You painted yourself as a simple, wide-eyed boy who thought women were innocent, selfless, and altrustic, and who got tricked into marrying a lying, hypergamous, carousel rider as a result. And you fall back on that naivete anytime you want to criticize female “nature”. But you couldn’t have been been as naive as you make out if you were pumping and dumping, cheating and being cheated on, etc… Your story sounds a bit disingenuous.
“I’ll tell you where I think some of the backlash is coming from. You painted yourself as a simple, wide-eyed boy who thought women were innocent, selfless, and altrustic, and who got tricked into marrying a lying, hypergamous, carousel rider as a result.”
This was my take on it. I wasn’t trying to rake anyone over the coals. Like I said, I made assumptions about Deti based on his posts that were not correct. My bad.
@Deti
First, I don’t think that will happen. We’ve all weathered debate losses here and kept on going. I’m already getting fuzzy on the details of the argument. Second, I know it feels personal but I don’t think anyone has it out for you. I think some, including me, find your general negativity about women rather trying at times, and finding out you’re just as flawed as the rest of us is a bit of an eye opener. Third, I won’t allow your arguments to be dismissed in an illogical or emotional fashion.
I agree. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite, generally speaking. I do think it’s understandable that people have some feelings about what you shared, though I believe Malia in particular was way out of line.
And one more point about moral equivalency – degrees of wrongdoing always matter, as does intent. If you paint everyone with the same broad brush, you’re claiming that Bernie Madoff and the Admin. Asst. who steals a pen share the same degree of guilt. I have no idea how wrong your actions were because I don’t know the context, or how you resolved those relationships. I do believe that by virtue of your confession of wrongdoing before marriage, your behavior doesn’t hold a candle to Mrs. deti’s highjacking of the truth. But that’s just my personal judgment. I’m not offering tacit approval of either behavior.
though I believe Malia in particular was way out of line.</i.
Really?! Malia?! Out of line about someone?! Color me surprised…not.
@Jesus
I agree with both your points. In general, I’m personally likely to lean toward the “second chance” school of thought, but I understand that everyone has the right to make their own judgments about what they want or need in a life partner.
As someone who hit double digits myself, I’m keenly aware of the potential hypocrisy in my judging a woman or man solely on their number, or their behavior when they were young and immature. Of course, we all draw the line somewhere, and that will vary by individual. There’s no right or wrong, it’s personal.
@sassy
“I don’t feel comfortable talking about the more extreme things that I like sexually. I don’t know if I should go there.”
Whisper it to me, and I’ll let you know if you should say it outloud.
And one more point about moral equivalency – degrees of wrongdoing always matter, as does intent. If you paint everyone with the same broad brush, you’re claiming that Bernie Madoff and the Admin. Asst. who steals a pen share the same degree of guilt.
This is a really difficult position to take because there’s the action and the impact of that action. If I step on your foot and you’re wearing steel toe boots, that’s rather harmless. If I step on your foot and you’re barefoot, that’s going to cause pain. If I step on your foot and you have a recovering broken or sprained toe, that pain may be excruciating, but the action was the same in all three circumstances.
Point is, it’s not for the person who is performing the action to say how bad or wrong their actions were because people are almost always self- serving in downplaying their actions, even when egregious. The real litmus test is how much damage did it cause, and you have to get that straight from the horse’s mouth (the person who suffered the harm).
This is why even with apologies and being forthcoming, it’s hard to give a pass because people never really know the damage they have done to another person, especially when they part ways after the revelation is made.
So if you have done wrong to someone and you downplay the fallout for that, somewhere you should have some consideration for continuing to harp on the wrong someone did to you, no matter how you judge the severity or relative severity of the actions.
If I were in a situation like Deti, it would give me cause for pause and reflection and I would be assessing if I got that wake up call because somewhere along the line I devastated someone in a way that I didn’t pay attention to. I truly believe everything happens for a reason and that when something so fundamentally shifting happens, it’s for a reason.
In short, it’s cool to continue to say who was worse, but for me, that misses the bigger picture.
So to circle back, the Madoff vs Assistant is one of those situations where the difference between acts is so extreme that it’s ridiculous to have an argument about equivalency. You have to get in the gray area and get down and dirty by putting two scenarios on the table that could be close, depending on perspective. You gotta compare Madoff to someone like Richard Fuld to have a REAL conversation that gets people to really question where they stand and how firmly they have built that foundation upon which they base their beliefs.
Gees business gets in the way…I missed a good debate.
I seem to judge only the super sluts when it comes to promiscuity
Anyone over a ten orr fifteen year period could easily reach 10 to 20 partners if they don’t find a good relationship. I’ve said this before if a person can have 6 partners they could have 20 over time if not finding a LTR.
As for shaming? Not necessary because sluts both male and female are a very small portion of the population and have little effect on theoverall picture. Some effect…..sure.
“If that is your list of “dirty” sex/things, I’m glad I haven’t gone into specifics of what I like. My list is about 4 times worse than that, no joke.
Like I said earlier, some of the things I like to do would scare some people. I figured it would be best if I didn’t do a full run down.
Heaven help my next boyfriend.”
Same here:)
I have found that people, or at least women, are highly maleable when it comes to this. I have very quickly made women do stuff (with great enthusiasm) they would never have dreamt of. I don`t know why that`s so easy for me. I think it might be some sort of frame/frame control thing I picked up before learning about game where I am so non judgemental comforatable and leading/dominant when in bed they just go along with what I want or feel open to whatever.
@Malia
I’ll use the analogy of the justice system again. I don’t know much about the law – maybe Munson can correct me if I get this wrong.
For a specific harmful action, there are guidelines for punishment, and the judge takes various things into account, including the impact on the victim. So that’s a fair consideration, although there will still be a different guidelines for premeditated crimes than crimes of passion. As I said earlier, intent and context are important.
Neither you nor I have either of those pieces of information wrt Deti. Without that I am unwilling to pass judgment, and definitely not inclined to make any comparisons to a totally different action as perpetrated by his wife. In any case, your point seems to be that people of low character tend to pair off. There is some evidence that promiscuous people tend to pair off, but I have no data on whether people pair off based on traits like honesty. That is pure conjecture. I do agree with Gorbachev that good vs. bad behavior can often be explained by simply looking at opportunity and motive.
@Malia
I’ll use the analogy of the justice system again. I don’t know much about the law – maybe Munson can correct me if I get this wrong.
For a specific harmful action, there are guidelines for punishment, and the judge takes various things into account, including the impact on the victim. So that’s a fair consideration, although there will still be different guidelines for premeditated crimes than for crimes of passion. As I said earlier, intent and context are important.
Neither you nor I have either of those pieces of information wrt Deti. Without that I am unwilling to pass judgment, and definitely not inclined to make any comparisons to a totally different action as perpetrated by his wife. In any case, your point seems to be that people of low character tend to pair off. There is some evidence that promiscuous people tend to pair off, but I have no data on whether people pair off based on traits like honesty. That is pure conjecture. I do agree with Gorbachev that good vs. bad behavior can often be explained by simply looking at opportunity and motive.
Without that I am unwilling to pass judgment
You and I differ on that, because I consider cheating wrong regardless of the circumstances. And FTR I define cheating as giving one or more persons the false impression of sexual monogamy, either through lying or omission. I have a good friend just diagnosed HIV+. That kind of situation will rock you to your core on the feeling about cheating. It’s all fun and games to look at someone like Cela/Celia/whatever and say she’s a “slut” for cheating. Throw HIV into the mix and it’s not funny anymore.
Therefore, I can unilaterally say cheating is wrong.
In any case, your point seems to be that people of low character tend to pair off.
In a general sense, though, I think it’s a fair statement. And even if you’re unwilling to make that declaration yourself, society seems to veer in that direction. Listen, there’s a difference between being blindsided by someone and knowing upfront what you’re dealing with and generally speaking, people who are more accepting of past transgressions are usually so because they have past transgressions of their own.
When you look at the women who marry prisoners like rapists and death row inmates, isn’t that what people usually think? And I know that’s an extreme example, and before anyone goes there I am not comparing that with Deti, I’m just showing you how even though you may be unwilling to SAY it, most people THINK it.
And for the record, I’m not going to classify Deti as low character because he has grown and matured. But what I CAN say is that if you are in the position of having to say “this is how I have treated people”, you have to be eyes wide open that only certain types of people will be okay with that. I know a couple women who would accept a reformed cheater (even a current one) and you know, they just aren’t the type from whom I’d expect total relationship honesty. And her tactic of throwing it in his face, yeah, totally expect that from them. Totally subject to consistently using emotional manipulation, and a few other things.
Just saying…
Malia said:
“Point is, it’s not for the person who is performing the action to say how bad or wrong their actions were because people are almost always self- serving in downplaying their actions, even when egregious.”
____________________________
Ah.
Is this why you’re so strident about someone like Deti being “as bad as” Mrs Deti? It’s not your friend with The Hiv, either.
There’s something else driving your behavior, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Nobody is as gleefully accusatory as you were yesterday without another motive.
Are you willing to share?
@ deti
“From here on out, every time I say anything here, someone will make me and my personal credibility the issue. No matter how valid my argument ON THE MERITS, someone will always seek to invalidate it by “deti has no credibility because he confessed to cheating on a couple of LTRs more than 20 years ago.” And that will succeed, as it did yesterday, because in today’s climate, claims of an opponent’s hypocrisy carry a great deal of weight with any blog’s readership. Charges of hypocrisy shut down and silence opponents, and render opponents bereft of credibility. ”
Thats exactly how I feel. I’ve stopped presenting anyt ype of serious argument because every time it goes back to my character.
Hypocrisy might make me an asshole but it doesn’t invalidate my argument. I wonder how many of these people tell their fat doc he is a hypocrite and therefore wrong.
Hypocrisy = I don’t like you argument.
Lok:
I just won’t bother anymore.
For what it’s worth, Deti, I’m on your side about this.
You were honest, Mrs. Deti was not. She got to evaluate the situation with accurate information and make a choice. You were not afforded the same opportunity.
That’s fucked up.
Full disclosure:
I stole a box of orange Tic Tacs from Walmart when I was nine years old. It’s the last thing I’ve ever stolen from a store. This may invalidate anything else I say here, forever, because I am, after all, an admitted thief.
I stole a box of orange Tic Tacs from Walmart when I was nine years old. It’s the last thing I’ve ever stolen from a store. This may invalidate anything else I say here, forever, because I am, after all, an admitted thief.
I stole a chocolate bar from a supermarket when I was 12. Just to see if I could get away with it (I did) and if I will feel guilty (various days not sleeping and weeks of feverish and obsessively thinking some poor employee got fired for my crime and his/her family starved. If he was a man he ended up dead because he had to steal to feed his sick kid, his name was Juancito, yes he had a name, and if it was a woman she ended up prostituting herself and caught AIDS because she needed to feed her little girl Marianita and then both kids ended orphans because of ME!!!!) I never did it again but I think you need to know that to color all my opinions.
Ana, you are a horrible person. I will see you in Hell, perhaps in the waiting line on the shores of the Lake of Fire.
That TicTac thing did get me in trouble a decade or so later.
I was getting a particular military security clearance, one where they send out federal agents to talk to people who’ve known you. They talk to coaches, middle school teachers, neighbors – everyone.
Then, the feds sit you down, hook you up to a polygraph, and ask you questions about all kinds of things. I had to admit to that theft, since one question asked was,”Have you ever stolen anything?”
That interview was four hours long, and at least half of it was talking about the goddamned Tic Tacs. I don’t even like the orange ones.
Still got my clearance, though.
Interestingly (or perhaps not), if I’d lied about it, I could have been thrown in jail and prosecuted.
It’s not necessarily what you’ve done in the past, it’s why. It’s also important how honest you are that is the most important thing.
Ana, you are a horrible person. I will see you in Hell, perhaps in the waiting line on the shores of the Lake of Fire.
Pfft my blasphemous ways already won me a house in hell with a pool of fire included, I don’t need to make a line, but you can visit me there.;)
@Lokland
That’s facile.
To me, the question is whether a person has a right to stand in judgment of a behavior, issuing blanket condemnation of individuals who may have behaved a certain way, when they themselves have engaged in the same or similar behavior.
That’s the case for both you and deti. You can present any argument you want except any argument having to do with women’s ability to be monogamous or faithful. For example, arguing that a woman’s finding a celebrity hot would be a dealbreaker for you is unacceptable because you don’t hold yourself to the same standard.
That’s hypocrisy.
I think Malia is the only one arguing otherwise at this point and I suggest we ignore her and move on.
DogSquat – “I stole a box of orange Tic Tacs from Walmart when I was nine years old. It’s the last thing I’ve ever stolen from a store. This may invalidate anything else I say here, forever, because I am, after all, an admitted thief.”
I get the idea you jest here, at least I hope so. Of course it doesn’t invalidate your opinion, but *I* would call you on the carpet knowing you stole if I ever saw you reaming someone else out for the exact same behavior. Your “opinion” of stealing is valid, your criticism of others who steal is not.
Susan – “To me, the question is whether a person has a right to stand in judgment of a behavior, issuing blanket condemnation of individuals who may have behaved a certain way, when they themselves have engaged in the same or similar behavior”
This is exactly MY issue here. It isn’t that Deti, Lokland, or anyone else has no right to an OPINION on any subject, but I certainly WOULD NOT take their judgment of other people’s behavior as valid being as they both participated in similar behavior. By all means, they should enlighten us on what they learned from it, but I believe judgment can only come from those who are not guilty.
I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about this simple concept. EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion. But, judgment is a totally different matter. Call it conflict of interest if you want. In areas I know I’m guilty, I keep my judgments to myself.
I’d like to clarify one thing. Everyone is entitled to make judgments of others anytime they want, regardless of past behavior. Judging people is how we learn who we can trust, and who we should ignore. However, those guilty of bad behavior should probably not voice their judgments of others doing the EXACT SAME THING.
To counter that, I would closely listen to the opinion of someone that once did something and learned from it, as that is valuable information to keep others from making the same mistake.
But I can damn well tell you that if someone who was guilty of X 10 years ago tried to tell me what a terrible person I am for doing X last week, I would pretty much tell them to fuck off.
Sue,
Well, I think deti can say that cheating is wrong. Just like I think Dogsquat can say stealing Tic Tacs is wrong, or you and I can say promiscuity is wrong (Lokland is a different story, since unless I missed something, he’s still sleeping with women other than his fiancee). It’s this part:
that I think is objectionable.
I like what you said here:
The double standard is rooted in biology (and actually, I think, is just another expression of female hypergamy vs. male hypogamy). So if the former player wants a LTR with a more chaste woman or the virgin girl tingles more for the erstwhile cad, fine. As you said, we all have that right. But you can’t use the SDS as an excuse to make contradictory judgments about the intrinsic worth of men and women. And you can’t hide behind the SDS when you want to justify your own past mistakes while condemning someone else for hers.
Ted @ #s 1378 & 1379
JesusM @ 1380
————–
Cosign, well put.
@Jesus:
Just orange Tic Tacs. That is horribly wrong.
I have no opinion on the theft of other flavors.
@My Man Ted D:
I actually did steal the Tic Tacs. I felt horrible about it, and have never stolen from a store again in my life. Honestly, I don’t fully understand why I did it. I guess a lot of the neighborhood kids were doing it, and I wanted to see what it was like. It’s one of many experiences in my life I wish I could take back.
I’d shake my head at a nine-year-old who was caught shoplifting, but I certainly wouldn’t think I was “better” than them at that age.
I get what you’re saying. I just see this issue as disclosure of personal history prior to commitment, and not cheating/promiscuity.
I realize there’s a ton of grey area here, and other people see various issues as inextricably intertwined.
Susan said:
“I think Malia is the only one arguing otherwise at this point and I suggest we ignore her and move on.”
___________________
Moving on, aye aye, Ma’am!
@ Dogsquat:
You must’ve missed this #1129
———————
deti:
“Even if you’ve so much as walked out of your boss’ office with a $1.29 pen, that makes you a dishonest thief, and you can never never never be trusted ever again.”
—————————-
Ted said:
“Point taken. But as far as it goes, I’m not interested in saving anyone’s character. I’m not even close to being pure as the driven snow, and never claimed to be. But, I don’t usually bash people for doing the exact same thing I did once upon a time. Or at least I don’t come across as trying to preach from the pulpit on issues I am guilty of screwing up myself. Surely I’ll throw in my situation to highlight what I did wrong, hoping someone else may learn from it. But, as someone who has walked out of the office with a corporate owned pen, I wouldn’t ever tell someone what a terrible person they are for doing it themselves.
If I even once ever cheated on someone, I would keep my opinions of other cheaters to myself. I might describe why/how I cheated in hopes that someone might avoid it. If I had ever ridden the casual carousel, I wouldn’t be so damning to people that currently do, but would possibly tell my story to stop them from making the same mistakes.
Everyone learns from their mistakes. But, learning from them does not erase them. And your character isn’t flawed because you screwed up, it is flawed because you rally against others that are doing the same things you did, with an attitude of “holier than thou”, which you don’t appear to be. I’m by no means free of sin or guilt, but I also don’t rub other people’s faces in the same shit I had on my own face at some point.
There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, learning from them, and fixing them. But I don’t feel its fair for those people to follow up by bashing others for the same behavior.”
“Anyone over a ten orr fifteen year period could easily reach 10 to 20 partners”
.
The current fad in certain select places is that by age 25. Gents will always do their best to pass these types over when its wifey time.
.
“if a person can have 6 partners they could have 20 over time.”
.
At that point, what’s 20 or even 35? Its just gets mind numbing and the bonding ability long long gone.
.
“sluts both male and female are a very small portion of the population and have little effect on theoverall picture. Some effect…..sure.”
.
Since they are easily outed and passed over by good men, the effect is laughable at best.
I’m proud to be a slut, and consider myself equal to men except for the obvious biological differences i.e not having a penis or being shorter, etc. I would gladly stop being slutty if men were required to follow the same standard. Just as they do not want to trust a promiscuous woman, we sure as hell do not want to trust a man-whore. In fact, I used to be very monogamous until I realized the men I’ve dated were not subscribing to this way of life, therefore I lost trust in men and decided to live as they do. When in Rome do as the Romans! I’m much happier now. I will only commit to a man if we are both allowed to do as we wish or an “open relationship”. No more sitting at home being cheated on while I miss out on the fun! I’ve now become very good at what I do it gets more fun all the time. Live and let live, don’t police my vagina, don’t shame me because I will quickly put you in your place.
@Femmefatale
Who are you? What planet are you from?
If this contrived and clichéd story of yours is actually true, it sounds like being constantly cheated on has seriously warped your brain…
@Megaman So according to “megaman”s super intellectual comment, I am “from another planet” and “brain warped” just because I’m sexually open. That’s funny! Don’t buy into this BS ladies. It scares men to see us have fun like they do. I’ve met plenty of men who got out of bad marriages or relationships and choose to stay single for many years and have fun, yet they would never be called “brain warped” or alien. Wanna come to my planet? Its called SOUTH BEACH, where the women are super hot and fun. Thank goodness since I’ve moved here I rarely experience any slut shaming, yay!
“Its called SOUTH BEACH, where the women are super hot and fun. Thank goodness since I’ve moved here I rarely experience any slut shaming, yay!”
It’s amazing seeing the gazelles walk up to the leopards and lions. In the pre-red pill days, I used to believe this was a blue moon rarity, but the reality is that this isn’t that uncommon.
“It scares men to see us have fun like they do.”
*Laugh* In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion doesn’t sleep tonight.
@Femmefatale
I knew it! You are from another planet. South Beach… land of hot bods, alcoholism, melanoma, and STDs. You’ve probably done more to convince young women to avoid the lifestyle than anything I could say. And advocating open relationships @HUS is truly barking up the wrong tree.
Femmefatale: I would gladly stop being slutty if men were required to follow the same standard.
Is what “men”, as a group, do, that’s important to you? What if you found just one man who held himself to that standard? would that be enough for you to become monogamous?
Just as they do not want to trust a promiscuous woman, we sure as hell do not want to trust a man-whore.
Can you find a man who’s not a man-whore? Or do you claim they don’t exist? (or exist only in negligible numbers)
In fact, I used to be very monogamous until I realized the men I’ve dated were not subscribing to this way of life, therefore I lost trust in men and decided to live as they do.
Has it occurred to you, that you have — somehow — systematically chosen to be with cheaters, when other kinds of men, ie trustworthy non-cheaters, certainly do exist? Do you have any idea why you’re attracted to cheaters, instead of trustworthy men?
Femmefatale is plain Jane. Reasoned arguments are troll food.
Actually, she isn’t. Reformed PUA is tho.
“I lost trust in men and decided to live as they do.”
.
Yeah by stroking their cocks with the interior of your body. Throughout history there has always been a small group of such service women. God bless em.
Look, i actually don’t have an issue with Femmefatale’s lifestyle. I really don’t. I think her sweeping generalizations against men are ridiculous and unfounded and obviously point to her being a victim of extreme apex alpha chasing and falling for the apex fallacy.
It’s obvious her choices of men in life were horrible and she equates to all men the sins of the alpha’s who didn’t find her worthy enough to stick around with. Maybe she didn’t cook n clean and felt like an entitled princess bitch. Who knows. Whatever reason, she ultimately decided to ‘go her own way’. I fully support it.
A woman has every right to be a slut. That’s what i told slutwalkers. I said blow that horn (figuratively) loud and proud! If these women have no intention of marriage or kids, then really, why should they be shamed. If they tell every man they meet their true number right out of the gate loudly and proudly, and how much they enjoy casual sex, giving the man every bit of info to make an informed choice then i say more power.
Sluts/Manwhores should always be proud of their conquests. I wish one could see a digital number hovering over someones head, how many ‘hookups’ they’ve had. That would be awesome. Like would attract like and the world would return to order! Sluts with sluts, all others for marriage/kids.
So femme is not wrong for living the way she does. But she is wrong for why she went down that path in the first place.
“If they tell every man they meet their true number right out of the gate loudly and proudly, and how much they enjoy casual sex, giving the man every bit of info to make an informed choice then i say more power.”
.
Funny how feminists state such pride but never tell other women to do the same. Lying about it at least gives them a crack at landing a sucker [man]. Biology as always is their own worst enemy.
.
“Like would attract like”
.
Actually, so-called manwhores are men and therefore would do the same as all men when it comes to mate selection.
“Reasoned arguments are troll food.”
The same could be said for a lot of regulars.
« 1 … 8 9 10
{ 1 trackback }