On the word "Slut"
I really don't like the word "slut". I was trying to explain this the other day to my officemates, but I'm not sure that I fully got my point across, so I feel like writing about it. This topic came up after one of my officemates mentioned the Priscilla Ball at HBS where "men are supposed to dress as women and women are supposed to dress like sluts". (I think my tirade against the word slut is similar to something Arathi wrote on Smita's livejournal.)
The reason I don't like the word "slut" is because there is no equivalent word for men. The word "slut" has very strong negative connotations applied to it and is used to describe a woman who has a lot of sex with multiple sexual partners. Generally, a man who falls into this category is thought of as "the man" or a stud. Regardless of what you think of such behavior, that opinion should apply to both men and women. The word "slut" epitomizes the double-standard that women should be as discriminatory as possible in their choice of sexual partners whereas men should just have as much sex as possible. I think it is offensive that society thinks that women should not want to have sex (clearly that would be bad news for the future of the human race from a population perspective) and that men who have a lot of sex with multiple sexual partners are just being men. This stereotype is an injustice to both men and women and leads to strained gender relations. I find it insulting that the English language has such a word in its vocabulary.
posted by Mango Kiwi @ 2:27 PM
10 Comments:
I went to the Priscilla Ball. Perhaps "slut" is a crude word, but word would you use? Whore, prostitute, very loving woman?
Whore and prostitute both mean someone who exchanges sex for money (which is fine because the words themselves used that way don't have a negative connotation). Whore can also mean the same thing as slut (which has a negative connotation). My point is why does there have to be word that literally means "sexually promiscuous woman" when there is no word in the dictionary for a "sexually promiscuous man".
There is... James Bond. Hehe. But you are right, he probably wouldn't be viewed terribly negatively. If anything he'd be a stud. His franchise has lasted long enough to prove that...
I disagree. I think 'slut' is becoming a gender neutral term - at least when it comes to behavioral definition.
'Womanizer' is a word that is applied to men. It has more evil undertones than 'slut' does, though isn't used as often.
i disagree with the anonymous person's post. i have rarely heard slut being used to describe men and in the rare cases i have it was in joking sense such as he-slut or man-slut (much like the term man-whore). i also don't think womanizer has as negative a connotation for men as slut does for women. society tends to condemn loose women more than it condems loose men.
Definitions (from dictionary.com because I am very bored):
slut (n): A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
whore (n): A person considered sexually promiscuous.
So the word slut may refer only to women, but the word whore refers to both men and women.
Heh, obviously you disagree with me, I started "I disagree." as in, "with you".. :)
As for slut being gender neutral, I agree that while it's more rare for men, it's still used (and becoming more and more common, which should make you happy). So as trends continue you will be forced to be less upset with the word.
And while I don't know how negative on an absolute scale 'womanizer' is when compared to 'slut' - 'womanizer' implies something much more evil and predatorial. That's all I was saying. I just mentioned it to show there are, in fact, negative words associated with the promiscuity of men. Underused though they may be.. :)
The societal attitude you mention is something I'll never argue against (so don't get that idea); I completely agree.o
okay, good (to you agreeing with the societal attitude). the word is representative of the societal double-standard which is what bothers me.
There's little doubt that society, both women & men, perceives women who have multiple sexual partners, more negatively than womanizers. The question is why is this so?
Thornhill and Palmer in their book "A Natural History of Rape" puts out a thesis that the investment of females in human reproduction is far greater than that of males, and hence from a utilitarian standpoint, it is beneficial for society to guard the sexual activities of their females.
Too bad their research backing their provocative thesis lacks depth, so this question in my mind remains unresolved. I wonder: what would human society be like if males & females have equal investment in the reproductive process?
That's a good point. To your question, "What would human society be like if males & females have equal investment in the reproductive process?" It might be impossible.. Since men don't physically have babies, they can't be forced to take the same sort of role. Women thus are given greater freedoms when it comes to reproduction (right to choose) and greater punishments for neglect and cruelty.
you should comment on the other blog entry that you sparked :)
Post a Comment
<< Home