Slut an archaic term
- Thread starter Terranova
- Start date
-
Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.
FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.
Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.
For more information see this thread.
I think it's one of those things where people will just use the word no matter what. Or if anything, they'll just use a replacement word instead.
I know lots of people have different ideas of things like what even makes someone a slut to begin with, and I think that's what will keep the word going. Like, some people are fine with sleeping with random partners all the time, and some people will call that person a slut or whore for it.
But like Terranova said, as long as the person is safe about it, I really don't think other people should really be bothered by how much another person has sex, or who it's with.
I know lots of people have different ideas of things like what even makes someone a slut to begin with, and I think that's what will keep the word going. Like, some people are fine with sleeping with random partners all the time, and some people will call that person a slut or whore for it.
But like Terranova said, as long as the person is safe about it, I really don't think other people should really be bothered by how much another person has sex, or who it's with.
I mean slut is an offensive term, it is meant to be. It describes a pattern of behavior towards sex and relationships with the opposite sex, (or same sex as the case may be). Monogamy is respected for a reason. It is an attitude towards relationships that speaks of trust and fidelity. I do not think that is ever going to go out of "style". A woman might be attracted to a man who has been with a lot of women but she won't trust a man who has cheated on her. A man might want to have sex with an "experienced" woman but he will not want a serious relationship with a woman who "sleeps around" with other men. Certain offensive behaviors attract certain offensive labels. I see it as simple as that.
You can have trust and fidelity with one person no matter how many sexual partners you have had before them. As long as that stops once that relationship starts. Some in fact have open relationships and are quite happy to have other sexual partners again as long as sefe sex is practiced. My main point is having a lot of sexual partners isn't a negative thing in itself nor should it be allowed for one sex but not another as often happens for females.
So as far as i'm concerned sleeping around outside of a relationship is neither here nor there but I'm just not sure we should continue to use a word that can mean both someone that has many sexual partners and at the same time someone that cheats on their partner. They are different things.
Well I do agree there is a difference in the present or past tense usage of the word. For example:
She/He is a slut.
and
She/He was a slut
Although similar those sentences have distinctly different meanings. Yet no matter how you cut it those meanings are not complimentary. Nor, IMO, should they be. Being monagamous is considered a virtue and virtues are the overcoming of temptations. Being virtueous in any area is not considered to be an easy task. It is a trait to aspire to and a trait to be respected. No matter how you spin it, our choices in life define us. This is not to say we can not change or evolve, we must, for such is the way of life. But we cannot change are past actions, they are written in stone, these we are accountable for. Our past is something we must live with and it is for others to accept that part of us or not. Some may not. Right or wrong, this is just a fact of life.
She/He is a slut.
and
She/He was a slut
Although similar those sentences have distinctly different meanings. Yet no matter how you cut it those meanings are not complimentary. Nor, IMO, should they be. Being monagamous is considered a virtue and virtues are the overcoming of temptations. Being virtueous in any area is not considered to be an easy task. It is a trait to aspire to and a trait to be respected. No matter how you spin it, our choices in life define us. This is not to say we can not change or evolve, we must, for such is the way of life. But we cannot change are past actions, they are written in stone, these we are accountable for. Our past is something we must live with and it is for others to accept that part of us or not. Some may not. Right or wrong, this is just a fact of life.
Thought as complimentary by whom? I see no reason why one cannot be 'virtuous' and have many sexual partners they aren't mutally exclusive. No more than having sex before marriage.
This really depends on culture. To Terranova's point most cultures accept an experienced man, and some even seek an experienced man. I don't know of any that readily accepts an experienced woman. I would gladly settle for a woman who's had 20+ partners and is bi-sexual , she'll make life more interesting.:joker:
I agree being virtuous and having multiple partners are not mutually exclusive. I consider myself virtuous, and have been known to try anything & almost anyone sexually:joker: The interpretation of 'virtuous' is a different matter. I believe the virtue of monogamy is a red herring. In my opinion, open relationships will be the way of our future.
erfectplan:The usage of the word 'slut' though is not going to disappear.
Similar threads
