Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #81
He's kinda right when he says that it implies that.
The study didn't take men into account - it only focused on women. It paints a bad image on girls who do choose to have sex at a young age, further reinforcing the backwards social belief that women shouldn't have or want sex (or lots of it).
-
-
exactly, and if you DID do such a study, what conclusion could you come up with? that african americans rape more white women? but how would you know if they did it any more than usual if you didn't study other people that raped white women?
-
Were you expecting me to say "Racist"? Because I won't, that's not at all racist.
-
We have to think about what misogyny means. Does it mean, as the literal definition of the word, "hatred of women", i.e. thinking women are inferior?
But we have to actually expand the definition a lot to get the usage of people on this forum. The people doing this study might have had the belief that teenaged sex among women makes them more likely to be unviable marital mates later on. However is that due to society, or due to them thinking women suck?
Edited:
Well actually I don't know if that was the perfect example, because the study I imagined produced numbers for one group of people (African Americans), and the actual study produced numbers for promiscuous and non-promiscuous girls.
-
-
Is it that impossible that it's a combination of selection explanation and causal explanation?
It seems unlikely that the sexual experiences in themselves would have no effect later on.
-
Studies have to have parameters.
This one was about women. Someone else will probably do one about men.
They probably didn't have enough funds to do this dumb study about both sexes.
Why are you so upset about it, Jeremy?
Edited:
The article doesn't refer to women as sluts.
I added that to make the HEADLINE more SENSATIONALIST.
Try reading.
Edited:
SENSATIONALIST HEADLINES
Edited:
This.
-
I've been called a slut.
:saddowns:
-
I think of women who sleep around a lot the same way I do men who play World of Warcraft 24/7. They have no self control.
-
Whats new? You shit before you wipe?
-
This means 90% of American females will be divorced ... lol
-
so you're perfectly okay with men who "sleep around a lot," I assume? I'm also assuming that you're an upper-middle class straight white kid
-
Sounds like someone got rejected.
-
Only by SLUTTY WHORES and their FILTHY PROSTITUTE VAGINAS.
-
You know that's bad right? What you're essentially saying is that even desperate people wouldn't bang you.Only by SLUTTY WHORES and their FILTHY PROSTITUTE VAGINAS.
-
i think he's trying to be funny
-
The problem here is that men are afraid of women who express their sexuality, (which is against "the norm") and therefore label them derogatively.
It might help to stop teaching girls that they're a whore if they ever have sex and to stop teaching boys that they're a loser if they don't have sex
It's always funny when i'm out with friends, there's a random dude who comes by, asks a girl out, and if she says yes she's a slut for accepting it directly and she's a slut if she says no.
Double standards! :allears:
I think it boils down to an idea that sex is something that women are supposed to trade for a relationship, and men are supposed to trade a relationship for sex.
Traditionally, women are "supposed" (which is dumb) to value relationships over sex, and men the opposite (which is also dumb). So when a woman "gives" sex away without getting a relationship, she's perceived as having failed - either she wasn't "worthy" of a relationship, or she didn't have a strong enough sense of her own worth to hold out on sex until there was a relationship.
I think you see something similar in the whole "friend-zone" phenomenon. Men who "settle" for a sex-free relationship with a woman (ie, a friendship) are seen as losers or wimps - either they couldn't get the girl to have sex with them or were too gutless to try. Very similar to the way women who have sex without a relationship are seen.
-
I still think it goes back to natural urges that have been around since we were simpler animals.
-
This study just tells you to not get married because everyone doesn't believe in god and marriage is a (obvious) joke.
Thanks for telling me the sun rises from the east and the sky is blue too.
-
That stereotype is so outdated where I live.
-
My problem lies with over-sensitive fucks that think that everything is degrading to women.
EDIT: Box and run, fuckers. Box and run.
-
Ahem.
Let whoever fuck whatever whenever so long as it is consensual.
I would much rather enjoy one female partner wanting constant sexual stimulation than multiple females who all want a small amount. The only issue is when the female's sexual needs outstrip the male's, in which case leads to unfaithfulness and things of such nature.
Which leads us to the topic. Women who need constant sexual stimulation may turn to multiple males for stimulation in the event that her needs outstrip that of his. Women who do this are branded "slutty", though this need for stimulation is out of their control. In fact, this case leads to the problem where both partners cannot sexually compensate for one another, leading to a dysfunctional relationship, and then more unfaithfulness as a result. One cannot pin the blame on the other, it's simply that they -in a relationship- are not meant for each other.
It's possible that the OP is joking, is an ass, or has had a relationship in a case similar to that above.
Everyone, please take into account that with every behavior comes a cause for it, one which can be either physical, psychological, or both. One cannot say that these behaviors are because such a person is "slutty", since this is not only a rash generalization, but also a blatant ignorance of fact and reason.
-
It's not. He's just stating what was implied.
-
Uhh
Yeah of course
Any equivalent terms for men (player, etc) are praises, while slut is an insult
-
Honestly? I don't exactly have a six pack but i've had one or two women. You just need to dress well, groom and stop deluding yourself that "She's out of my league" and she'll be yours providing you don't have a shitty personality/you're anti-social.
-
Or, better advice, be yourself so you find someone you actually enjoy spending time with instead of someone that's only with you because your jeans cost more than her car
-
You know I thing we should have equality when it comes to derogotary terms. I propose we use the term "Sexual Beast" instead.
Edited:
Dress well doesn't imply you need to spend alot, there are so many places where you can buy yourself a decent outfit on the cheap. Honestly do you think the average woman will want to go out with a man who has long greasy hair, a band t-shirt and tatty jeans? Personality is the most important though of course.
-
Not really, in fact I find male sluts to be far more annoying then females.
-
Ah but is this because you have a predisposition to see sluts as being females only? Thus you pay more attention to a male slut?
-
hey now
my hair is not greasy
you take that back
-
But you can blame them for going around their partners back instead of ending the relationship.
-
Who'da fucking thunk it
-
Ok i'll frant you that
-
Of course, though many fail to see that there are greater reasons for their unfaithfulness. Instead most will opt to calling them sluts, whores, doctors in the field of suckdickology, and so forth.
Still their fault, but its not because they are in any way prostitutes.
-
No, male sluts are just more obnoxious and think they are better then anyone who doesn't fuck as many women as them.
-
statistics...
-
What I'm saying is:
If somehow the word "slut" applied to both men and women, but had the same general meaning, would you still think it was an ignorant word like "faggot" or "nigger"?
And if you answer "yes" to that, is the issue with the word MAINLY that it applies only to women?
-
you know your argument is weak when you start pulling nonsensical hypothetical situations out of your ass
-
I'd still think it's stupid to insult someone based on the amount of sex they have but the term wouldn't be inherently misogynistic anymore
I think that's pretty straightforward
-
Yeah I know, but is the misogyny the main problem with the word today?
The way you phrased this question made it seem like you were saying just that:
Agree x 3
Dumb x 1
Informative x 1
Winner x 2
Funny x 2
