Comments on: The Taming of the Slur http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/ In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:18:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: Nathanael Nerode http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54801 Nathanael Nerode Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:31:29 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54801 So, um, having responded too fast to finish reading the comment I was responding to -- VK, your logic was entirely correct. There are a small number of women with a huge number of partners, just as you concluded there had to be. So, um, having responded too fast to finish reading the comment I was responding to — VK, your logic was entirely correct. There are a small number of women with a huge number of partners, just as you concluded there had to be.

]]> By: Nathanael Nerode http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54800 Nathanael Nerode Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:26:49 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54800 "So who are the men sleeping with? Much older women? Each other?" Believe it or not, the last study I read about which looked into this had a conclusion. Sorry I don't have a cite. There was a regular survey done *very* conscientiously, in the manner which eliminates reporting dishonesty to the greatest degree: double-blind questionaires, etc. -- and which also involved a separate even more detailed study to identify the reporting dishonesty rate when people were asked questions about sex. Reporting dishonesty was not sufficient to explain the numbers. Then someone had a bright idea to do a separate survey of (female) prostitutes (who were completely unsampled in the regular survey). They had extremely large numbers of sexual partners (obviously). Sure enough, applying the best estimates for the number of prostitutes in the country, this accounted for all the extra sexual partners the "average" man had over the "average" woman. :-P “So who are the men sleeping with? Much older women? Each other?”

Believe it or not, the last study I read about which looked into this had a conclusion. Sorry I don’t have a cite.

There was a regular survey done *very* conscientiously, in the manner which eliminates reporting dishonesty to the greatest degree: double-blind questionaires, etc. — and which also involved a separate even more detailed study to identify the reporting dishonesty rate when people were asked questions about sex. Reporting dishonesty was not sufficient to explain the numbers.

Then someone had a bright idea to do a separate survey of (female) prostitutes (who were completely unsampled in the regular survey). They had extremely large numbers of sexual partners (obviously).

Sure enough, applying the best estimates for the number of prostitutes in the country, this accounted for all the extra sexual partners the “average” man had over the “average” woman.

:-P

]]> By: Feministe » The Numbers Game http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54789 Feministe » The Numbers Game Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:51:48 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54789 [...] ;s column Saturday riffed off “The Taming of the Slut,” which Jill wrote about here. For centuries, men divided women into good girls and bad girls. [...] [...] ;s column Saturday riffed off “The Taming of the Slut,” which Jill wrote about here. For centuries, men divided women into good girls and bad girls. [...]

]]> By: lhveypgaq http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54701 lhveypgaq Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:15:03 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54701 <strong>mdyohwbito</strong> qumftgvbluw nqyovzelkwe kwidackw mdyohwbito

qumftgvbluw nqyovzelkwe kwidackw

]]> By: Barbara Preuninger http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54639 Barbara Preuninger Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:58:29 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54639 FoolishOwl, I think reclaiming the word slut is useful, even if it is only among "friendly" people, so to speak. Because then, when you hear it "for real", it just sounds more funny than insulting. Like if someone decided to call you a "poopy-head" in a serious way - it would reflect far worse on them then it does on you. The word slut has power only if the double-standard has power. ("Poopy-head" has power among toddlers because poop is a big issue for toddlers.) BTW, I also find that using "bitch" in a positive or neutral way reduces the hurtful power of that word considerably. FoolishOwl, I think reclaiming the word slut is useful, even if it is only among “friendly” people, so to speak. Because then, when you hear it “for real”, it just sounds more funny than insulting. Like if someone decided to call you a “poopy-head” in a serious way – it would reflect far worse on them then it does on you. The word slut has power only if the double-standard has power. (“Poopy-head” has power among toddlers because poop is a big issue for toddlers.)

BTW, I also find that using “bitch” in a positive or neutral way reduces the hurtful power of that word considerably.

]]> By: FoolishOwl http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54518 FoolishOwl Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:47:01 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54518 You can't reclaim slurs. As pointed out above, they never had positive meanings to begin with. Furthermore, the negative usage will remain the dominant usage. The only people who will understand that you've "reclaimed" the word are people who already accept that the slur was wrong to begin with -- making the entire exercise pointless. On the "numbers" issue: yes, men will exaggerate their numbers, in part because there are many women who will reject a man who doesn't at least pose as more experienced and more confident than she is. Part of the toxicity of gender roles is that they are reciprocal: someone who really MUST be a manly man will insist his partner MUST be a womanly woman, and vice versa. You can’t reclaim slurs. As pointed out above, they never had positive meanings to begin with. Furthermore, the negative usage will remain the dominant usage.

The only people who will understand that you’ve “reclaimed” the word are people who already accept that the slur was wrong to begin with — making the entire exercise pointless.

On the “numbers” issue: yes, men will exaggerate their numbers, in part because there are many women who will reject a man who doesn’t at least pose as more experienced and more confident than she is. Part of the toxicity of gender roles is that they are reciprocal: someone who really MUST be a manly man will insist his partner MUST be a womanly woman, and vice versa.

]]> By: atablarasa http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54487 atablarasa Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:53:42 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54487 Late to the dance, but a couple comments. I use the word as a self-description when talking about my own willingness to have sex with anyone interested in me (which, at this point in my life, is entirely hypothetical outside my marriage), and, as used above, talking about anyone and anything "easy" as in belly-rubs for dogs or shoulder rubs for people. The other comment is that there's a link between being a slut and being chattel, in the eyes of many. The British version - "slovenly" - isn't so far from uncared-for. By being a slut, a woman devalues herself, in this paradigm. She's not worth anything to her family or her husband if she's soiled goods. She's cheap. (I know I'm lecturing the faculty here, but I'm ranting, so bear with, please!) And yes, the idea is that a small sub-set of women are supposed to have a huge number of partners so that men can be studs, and that's supposed to skew the stats. Apparently, those women are martyrs, sacrificing themselves for their virgin sisters. I personally agree with the poster who said experienced is better. And cheap and easy are not the same things. I'm easy, but never cheap! Late to the dance, but a couple comments. I use the word as a self-description when talking about my own willingness to have sex with anyone interested in me (which, at this point in my life, is entirely hypothetical outside my marriage), and, as used above, talking about anyone and anything “easy” as in belly-rubs for dogs or shoulder rubs for people.

The other comment is that there’s a link between being a slut and being chattel, in the eyes of many. The British version – “slovenly” – isn’t so far from uncared-for. By being a slut, a woman devalues herself, in this paradigm. She’s not worth anything to her family or her husband if she’s soiled goods. She’s cheap. (I know I’m lecturing the faculty here, but I’m ranting, so bear with, please!) And yes, the idea is that a small sub-set of women are supposed to have a huge number of partners so that men can be studs, and that’s supposed to skew the stats. Apparently, those women are martyrs, sacrificing themselves for their virgin sisters.

I personally agree with the poster who said experienced is better. And cheap and easy are not the same things. I’m easy, but never cheap!

]]> By: Julie http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54474 Julie Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:06:39 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54474 I agree with Starfoxy, it really depends on who you are talking to. For instance, I was called a slut despite my having a grand total of one sexual partner, because I dared to have sex a) before I was married and b)with someone I wasn't really serious about at all. He was just a friend of mine at the time. Now 6 and half years later we've been married for 5 years, so I guess something went right, but I had a lot of people insinuate or outright call me a slut, including my own parents. They were just pissed that I was making my own decisions about sex. With the sex partners thing, I think you need to take into account that there are a lot more women who are shamed into not having high numbers of sexual partners, who are expected to wait until they are married, who are guarded over like they are hidden treasure as a teenager. In my family, the two of us who are sexually active at this point have both only had one partner and we'll both admit that a sense of guilt or not wanting to be a slut kept us from experimenting more or having sex earlier. On the other hand, my husband fits within the average mentioned above because he never viewed sex as anything but something fun you do with people you like. His numbers probably would've been a lot higher, but he was only 23 when we got married. I agree with Starfoxy, it really depends on who you are talking to. For instance, I was called a slut despite my having a grand total of one sexual partner, because I dared to have sex a) before I was married and b)with someone I wasn’t really serious about at all. He was just a friend of mine at the time. Now 6 and half years later we’ve been married for 5 years, so I guess something went right, but I had a lot of people insinuate or outright call me a slut, including my own parents. They were just pissed that I was making my own decisions about sex.
With the sex partners thing, I think you need to take into account that there are a lot more women who are shamed into not having high numbers of sexual partners, who are expected to wait until they are married, who are guarded over like they are hidden treasure as a teenager. In my family, the two of us who are sexually active at this point have both only had one partner and we’ll both admit that a sense of guilt or not wanting to be a slut kept us from experimenting more or having sex earlier. On the other hand, my husband fits within the average mentioned above because he never viewed sex as anything but something fun you do with people you like. His numbers probably would’ve been a lot higher, but he was only 23 when we got married.

]]> By: Deanna http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54469 Deanna Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:26:28 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54469 The biggest problem with trying to 'reclaim' the word slut is that the word has never had a positive definition. Mind you, originally the word had nothing to do with sex; it described a <strong>slovenly </strong>young woman, usually poverty sticken/low class. In fact, that's the Brits still tend to use it that way. I guess you can 'empower' the word by changing it to mean something positive, but reclaiming the original meaning doesn't stop it from being insulting. The biggest problem with trying to ‘reclaim’ the word slut is that the word has never had a positive definition. Mind you, originally the word had nothing to do with sex; it described a slovenly young woman, usually poverty sticken/low class. In fact, that’s the Brits still tend to use it that way.

I guess you can ‘empower’ the word by changing it to mean something positive, but reclaiming the original meaning doesn’t stop it from being insulting.

]]> By: Starfoxy http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54442 Starfoxy Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:21:19 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/13/the-taming-of-the-slur/#comment-54442 <blockquote>A slut is just someone who’s having more sex than the person doing the namecalling.</blockquote> I agree with Matt (#67), this statement just isn't true. I was a virgin when I got married and was called a slut by my ex-boyfriend's new female friends. They called me a slut because I was marrying a guy that he used to be friends with after breaking up with him. A slut is any woman who dares do something for herself in a relationship at the expense of a man. Have sex with more than one partner? She's less of a virgin and therefore has less 'value' as a conquest to any man she sleeps with. (ie it's not as impressive to his friends, which is all that really matters) Has sex eagerly? Again, less value as a conquest because she <em>wanted</em> to have sex, he didn't have to trick her into it. Leaves him? It means he's not man enough to keep her interested, or in-line. Sluts are women who fail to make a man look cool to his peers, which is among the greatest sins a woman can commit.

A slut is just someone who’s having more sex than the person doing the namecalling.

I agree with Matt (#67), this statement just isn’t true. I was a virgin when I got married and was called a slut by my ex-boyfriend’s new female friends. They called me a slut because I was marrying a guy that he used to be friends with after breaking up with him. A slut is any woman who dares do something for herself in a relationship at the expense of a man.

Have sex with more than one partner? She’s less of a virgin and therefore has less ‘value’ as a conquest to any man she sleeps with. (ie it’s not as impressive to his friends, which is all that really matters) Has sex eagerly? Again, less value as a conquest because she wanted to have sex, he didn’t have to trick her into it. Leaves him? It means he’s not man enough to keep her interested, or in-line. Sluts are women who fail to make a man look cool to his peers, which is among the greatest sins a woman can commit.

]]>