NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm honestly curious. Where's your cutoff for "slut"? How much sex, or how many partners, makes a "slut"? Do the rules apply equally to men and women? How about with gay experiences?

I doubt I'm typical, but pretty much no level of sexual activity for men or women qualifies as 'sluttish' in my eyes.

Well I personally beleve that sexual relations should be preserved for marriage, but that's a bit unrealistic for most people in modern society, so I have adopted the following criteria for defining a slut:

I think anybody that has sexual relations with somebody they are not in love with is a slut. I can understand one or maybe two temporary lapses in judgement, but three meaningless "encounters" is where I will use the term slut without hesitation.

I don't have a cut-off, as I don't judge people that way.

Then again one of my straight friends did call me a slut once, but he was just unaware of how much sex is available to gay men. Now that he does know, he probably thinks I'm some sort of prude, which is probably closer to the truth than I care to admit.

This is a difficult question.

I must say that my definition of a slut varies from person to person and is often applied unfairly.

I am less likely to consider a man a slut than a woman, and that goes for gay men as well.

I think there is a reasonable level of sexual activity that must be passed before I would consider a person a slut, but I cannot decide where the threshhold is. I do know that I am a hypocrite on this topic and do not hold myself to the same standards as I hold others.

I think anybody that has sexual relations with somebody they are not in love with is a slut. I can understand one or maybe two temporary lapses in judgement, but three meaningless "encounters" is where I will use the term slut without hesitation.
I have had sex with people I was not in love with (as I have only ever been in love once but have had sex with more than one person), but I have never had meaningless encounters. How does that fit in to your definition?

I think anybody that has sexual relations with somebody they are not in love with is a slut. I can understand one or maybe two temporary lapses in judgement, but three meaningless "encounters" is where I will use the term slut without hesitation.

Oh, dear. That is so naïve.

Just to be fair, here's the definition I use:

For me, it's not about how many partners you've had, nor about how you feel about those partners. For me, it's about how you view your sexual self. If you give sex away like candy, if you let yourself be used, if you have no respect for yourself or ask none from others, that's slutty to me. If you have sex because you think you have to, because you want to be cool, because you feel you aren't worth anything more, then you are a slut. Sex doesn't have to be about love, as far as I am concerned, but it has to involve a good measure of mutual respect. Without the respect, you're just slutting around.

Oh, dear. That is so naïve.

I don't think so. I would agree.

I think anybody that has sexual relations with somebody they are not in love with is a slut. I can understand one or maybe two temporary lapses in judgement, but three meaningless "encounters" is where I will use the term slut without hesitation.

I have never had a sexual incounter that I assigned any meaningfulness to. I don't know that I could ever assign any meaning to sex. I enjoy it, I have fun with it, I respect my partners, and I am responsible, I do not, however, understand the significance that is placed on sex these days.

I don't think I have room to call hardly anyone a "slut".

I'm honestly curious. Where's your cutoff for "slut"? How much sex, or how many partners, makes a "slut"? Do the rules apply equally to men and women? How about with gay experiences?
I saw this one coming! :)

I've heard slut applied to men, but usually with the addition of the word "male," as in "male slut." I've also heard "male whore," "man whore," etc.

My personal take on the term "slut" when used in reference to the feminine gender is that it is largely based on the ( primarily ) male double standard. Many men seem to think that it's ok for them, and other men, to sleep around, but not ok for women to do so, particularly when they think they have a "proprietary interest" in a woman ( girlfriend, wife, sister, etc. ).

I have also known women who atually preferred to be called "slut," especially at certain moments.

I never use the term except in jest directed at other men, or if my female partner gets turned on by it.

I don't think so. I would agree.

So you too are of this sort of naïve opinion that sex and "love" are supposed to be linked?

I have also known women who atually preferred to be called "slut," especially at certain moments.
heh

I saw this one coming! :)

*hangs head in shame*

I lose 10 coolness points for being predictable.

So you too are of this sort of naïve opinion that sex and "love" are supposed to be linked?

Naïve! It's been agreed by just about everyone whose opinion gives a damn that sex and love are linked. And you're calling me naïve!

Naïve! It's been agreed by just about everyone whose opinion gives a damn that sex and love are linked. And you're calling me naïve!
I hope I get to count as one of the "just abouts." I don't believe it is healthy to equate sex with love (or vice versa), nor to automatically link the two in your mind. I believe sex is most enjoyable when accompanied by love, in the same way that a great meal is best when accompanied by a fine wine, but i believe both love and sex can be enjoyed individually as well.

heh
How inexpressably eloquent! :D

Naïve! It's been agreed by just about everyone whose opinion gives a damn that sex and love are linked. And you're calling me naïve!

Yes, I am. Unless you actually read what I wrote.

*hangs head in shame*

I lose 10 coolness points for being predictable.
Nahh. You get 20 for having the guts to start a thread like this! :)

How inexpressably eloquent! :D
That was one of those *smiles knowingly* heh's. ;)

Naïve! It's been agreed by just about everyone whose opinion gives a damn that sex and love are linked. And you're calling me naïve!

I don't know if it is possible for an opinion to give a damn, but for the record just who has these opinions?

And would you say that you have never been sexually aroused by someone who you were not in love with?

I hope I get to count as one of the "just abouts." I don't believe it is healthy to equate sex with love (or vice versa), nor to automatically link the two in your mind. I believe sex is most enjoyable when accompanied by love, in the same way that a great meal is best when accompanied by a fine wine, but i believe both love and sex can be enjoyed individually as well.
Often not an easy thing to do.

Nahh. You get 20 for having the guts to start a thread like this! :)
Wootage! +10 net coolness points!

I did try to take one for the team, in terms of starting this thread. Another page-1 thread right now seems to be touching on this issue indirectly, so I figured there would be other people asking the same sort of question. However, I am also drinking this evening, and I'm watching Tomb Raider with some buds, so i sort of have sex on the brain. I beg forgiveness from all of you, and hope you will understand that rum and Angelina Jolie will do things to a person...

Often not an easy thing to do.
Very true. I should add that honesty is a key part of my philosophy; I think it is ESSENTIAL to make sure all parties involved are aware of the emotional side of any sexual (or non-sexual) relationship. Most problems arise when people have different expectations or different interpretations of sex/love, and these problems can be devestating. That's why respect is so key for me. I may not be in love with the people I have had sexual contact with, but I care about them and respect them, and I would never do anything to hurt them. Sex should be fun and happy and mutual, and I never want anybody to regret having snogged me :).

To lonely desperate men and lesbians, there are no such things as sluts. Only goddesses.

id say a slut is not defined by how many or how often this could just be a misguided young male/female who thinks they are in with everey other perso. it has happened before. what counts is the attitude of the person if its some one who has sex simply satisfy lust then they are a slut but if its because the feel for someone however misguided this be they are not

Isn't the word 'slut' a bit twencen.

At any rate, I always thought a 'slut' was a woman who wouldn't sleep with you while she was quite happy sleeping with other people. Whereas a lesbian was a woman that just wouldn't sleep with you, and didn't sleep with other people.

Of course, there is always the other catagory 'whore'; where you know why she is not sleeping with you, but still sleeps with someone else, but you understand exactly why this is happening. And indeed there is the reverse, the 'man whore' who is also known as 'lucky bastard'.

'Slut'-ness is all about attitude.

And indeed there is the reverse, the 'man whore' who is also known as 'lucky bastard'.

lol so true

Judge not, lest ye be judged.


I've often wondered about people who don't believe love and commitment should come before sex and how they deal with marriage.

If you are married and you decide you are 'not in love' does that make it OK to sleep with other partners?

Whats the differance between commiting adultery and divorcing someone because you want a physical union with other partners?

To me a slut is somebody who sleeps around with lots of people but doesn't date. If you come home with a different person on your arm each night, then yes, you're a slut. Or at least that's my definition.

Then again, I wouldn't necissarily call a slut a bad person. I know some people who could be called sluts, and for the most part I genuinely like them. I've never met a person who's bad or evil just because they're a slut(or man-ho).

And would you say that you have never been sexually aroused by someone who you were not in love with?

I have been yes, but I was ashamed of it. Being aroused by and having intercourse with are two completely different things. I think that sex should only be had with on partner because of the psycholoical effects it has on a relationship. Other partners can cause a lot of jealousy. I certainly wouldn't want to sleep with somebody who's been around the block a few times. It's only fair that I show the same courtesy. A lot of other people feel the same way.

Well I personally beleve that sexual relations should be preserved for marriage, but that's a bit unrealistic for most people in modern society, so I have adopted the following criteria for defining a slut:

I think anybody that has sexual relations with somebody they are not in love with is a slut. I can understand one or maybe two temporary lapses in judgement, but three meaningless "encounters" is where I will use the term slut without hesitation.

Wow, you sure didn't leave yourself much room if things don't go according to plan. Please tell, is that three meaningless encounters on your part? The other party's part? Or, a combination of the two?

... rum and Angelina Jolie will do things to a person...
Ohhhh, yeahhh! :D

Judge not, lest ye be judged.


I've often wondered about people who don't believe love and commitment should come before sex and how they deal with marriage.

If you are married and you decide you are 'not in love' does that make it OK to sleep with other partners?

Whats the differance between commiting adultery and divorcing someone because you want a physical union with other partners?

If you are married and you ever decide you're no longer in love, then you probably shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Just because people are willing to have sexual relationships before marriage does not mean they don't take marriage and the commitment to their partner seriously. Nothing makes it OK to sleep with people's behind your partner's back, weather they are you're partner in marriage or just a relationship.

That was one of those *smiles knowingly* heh's. ;)
Yes. I noticed. :)

I don't think people are sluts based on how many they sleep with. I think you get to be a slut based on WHO you sleep with.

I mean, you sleep with fifteen different people, and I still think you're less of a slut than someone who only sleeps with, say, Paris Hilton once...

I have been yes, but I was ashamed of it. Being aroused by and having intercourse with are two completely different things. I think that sex should only be had with on partner because of the psycholoical effects it has on a relationship. Other partners can cause a lot of jealousy. I certainly wouldn't want to sleep with somebody who's been around the block a few times. It's only fair that I show the same courtesy. A lot of other people feel the same way.

I would say that you shouldn't feel ashamed. Lust is a completely natural thing, and to rebel against it is to suppress a part of yourself that shouldn't be suppressed.

Other than that I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but by my question I wanted to show that love is by no means a prerequisite to sex.

Q. - What's the difference between a "slut" and a "bitch"?

A. - A "slut" will fuck anyone. A "bitch" will fuck anyone...except you.

:D

I don't think people are sluts based on how many they sleep with. I think you get to be a slut based on WHO you sleep with.

I mean, you sleep with fifteen different people, and I still think you're less of a slut than someone who only sleeps with, say, Paris Hilton once...
ROFL! One can only dream! :D

Q. - What's the difference between a "slut" and a "bitch"?

A. - A "slut" will fuck anyone. A "bitch" will fuck anyone...except you.

:D
ROFL! Um ... well, I suppose that makes me a "bitch" in your eyes then! :D

ROFL! Um ... well, I suppose that makes me a "bitch" in your eyes then! :D
Man.. you're only 50 posts away from the big 10K. :eek:

if you let yourself be used, if you have no respect for yourself

Hmm.... I've never quite understood what people mean when they say stuff like "no respect for yourself" and "letting yourself be used".

When you say that someone has no respect I am assuming it's what you define respect to be. Suppose some woman is doing a bukake film and 50 guys splurge on her... but she enjoys the experience - it's a way she gets off. How exactly, is she "not respecting" herself? If you step back from cultural norms and analyze things from an objective point of view all that happened is a woman had a sexual encounter with multiple partners, at the same time. I fail to see where respect comes in.

The only times I can see a woman "letting herself be used" would be in cases of prostitution, and even then that depends on the exact events surrounding why she is a prostiture and what her exact situation is.

As far as the actual question asked:

My definition of a slut would be a woman who has sexual encounters on a regular basis without much attachment. A woman who's had a few one night stands, and then gets a boyfriend and doesnt cheat on him, I would not classify as a slut.

I would say that you shouldn't feel ashamed. Lust is a completely natural thing, and to rebel against it is to suppress a part of yourself that shouldn't be suppressed.

Other than that I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but by my question I wanted to show that love is by no means a prerequisite to sex.

Very well. :fluffle:

Man.. you're only 50 posts away from the big 10K. :eek:
I am? [ looks at post count ] Oh yeah. Didn't notice that.

Hmm.... I've never quite understood what people mean when they say stuff like "no respect for yourself" and "letting yourself be used".

When you say that someone has no respect I am assuming it's what you define respect to be. Suppose some woman is doing a bukake film and 50 guys splurge on her... but she enjoys the experience - it's a way she gets off. How exactly, is she "not respecting" herself? If you step back from cultural norms and analyze things from an objective point of view all that happened is a woman had a sexual encounter with multiple partners, at the same time. I fail to see where respect comes in.

The only times I can see a woman "letting herself be used" would be in cases of prostitution, and even then that depends on the exact events surrounding why she is a prostiture and what her exact situation is.

As far as the actual question asked:

My definition of a slut would be a woman who has sexual encounters on a regular basis without much attachment. A woman who's had a few one night stands, and then gets a boyfriend and doesnt cheat on him, I would not classify as a slut.

If she enjoys it then that's cool. If she is only doing for money, to get people to like her of because of low slef-esteem [i.e. doesn't think she deserves any better] then perhaps she isn't respecting herself as much as she should, even if it's a more simple sexual act. Though this all depends on how much importance you actually attach to the physical act such as sex or getting 'splurged' all over.

When a person uses sex as a tool for profit [not just monetary] i'd call them a 'slut' more than someone who fit the above description. An evil slut too.

A slut is somebody that doesn't have standards. A person who sleeps with a lot of people of the type that they find decidedly desirable isn't a slut, they're skillfully promiscuous. Somebody that screws anything willing to screw them while not caring how they act, what they look like, what they think, or anything else about them other than that they're willing to "get nasty" is a slut.

Standards vary from person to person of course, but you gotta at least *have* standards.

Hmm.... I've never quite understood what people mean when they say stuff like "no respect for yourself" and "letting yourself be used".

When you say that someone has no respect I am assuming it's what you define respect to be. Suppose some woman is doing a bukake film and 50 guys splurge on her... but she enjoys the experience - it's a way she gets off. How exactly, is she "not respecting" herself? If you step back from cultural norms and analyze things from an objective point of view all that happened is a woman had a sexual encounter with multiple partners, at the same time. I fail to see where respect comes in.

The only times I can see a woman "letting herself be used" would be in cases of prostitution, and even then that depends on the exact events surrounding why she is a prostiture and what her exact situation is.

As far as the actual question asked:

My definition of a slut would be a woman who has sexual encounters on a regular basis without much attachment. A woman who's had a few one night stands, and then gets a boyfriend and doesnt cheat on him, I would not classify as a slut.
Some people are turned on by being "used." Some people are turned on by "using." "Self-respect" is strictly an interior feeling. Having multiple sex partners, whether serially or simultaneously, will only affect your self-respect if you felt that it was wrong but did it anyway.

Standards vary from person to person of course, but you gotta at least *have* standards.
Why?

"Self-respect" is strictly an interior feeling. Having multiple sex partners, whether serially or simultaneously, will only affect your self-respect if you felt that it was wrong but did it anyway.

Well said!

Well said!
Thank you. :D

After I complete my Ph.D., I'm going to compile them all into a book: The Collected Wit and Wisdom of Dr. Horn! :D

Some people are turned on by being "used." Some people are turned on by "using." "Self-respect" is strictly an interior feeling. Having multiple sex partners, whether serially or simultaneously, will only affect your self-respect if you felt that it was wrong but did it anyway.

What if you do that, and feel okay at the time about it, but then later on because of some life changing experience come to regret it?

What if you do that, and feel okay at the time about it, but then later on because of some life changing experience come to regret it?
Then I would think it shouldn't affect your self-respect. All of us change and grow as we continue through life. As we learn more about ourselves and the world around us, our views on things will usually change. Regret and self-respect are not the same. I regret not having saved more money when I was younger, but it affects my self-respect not one iota.

Just to be fair, here's the definition I use:

For me, it's not about how many partners you've had, nor about how you feel about those partners. For me, it's about how you view your sexual self. If you give sex away like candy, if you let yourself be used, if you have no respect for yourself or ask none from others, that's slutty to me. If you have sex because you think you have to, because you want to be cool, because you feel you aren't worth anything more, then you are a slut. Sex doesn't have to be about love, as far as I am concerned, but it has to involve a good measure of mutual respect. Without the respect, you're just slutting around.

Ah, but slutting around can be so much fun. :D

Then I would think it shouldn't affect your self-respect. All of us change and grow as we continue through life. As we learn more about ourselves and the world around us, our views on things will usually change. Regret and self-respect are not the same. I regret not having saved more money when I was younger, but it affects my self-respect not one iota.

Well, not saving money is one thing, it's not really a huge violation of the general social mores.

I am just saying, that sometimes people do ill-considered things -which at the time seem shits and giggles - and later on they come to not only regret it, but respect themselves less from it.

All I am saying is that a lot of actions have unconsidered consequences later, and there is more to the analysis than just 'does it feel good, and am I okay with it right now.'

That said, I am totally playing devils advocate; I don't really give a fuck what other people do.

Some people are turned on by being "used." Some people are turned on by "using." "Self-respect" is strictly an interior feeling. Having multiple sex partners, whether serially or simultaneously, will only affect your self-respect if you felt that it was wrong but did it anyway.

Well said. :cool:

Of course, Annie Lennox also put it well:

Sweet dreams are made of this who am I to disagree
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

;)

Anyone who's had sex with more people than me. :)

WHY am I posting this? I don't even know. Too much damn Mario Golf and sugar...Ok, so it's about 1:30 in the morning here and I had the patience to read through about half (up to page 2) on this thread. Now, I believe someone posted this:

So you too are of this sort of naïve opinion that sex and "love" are supposed to be linked?

NO, I DON'T quite understand how the quote sytem works. Anyways, it's not important WHO said it, it's what was said, and how I have to be a stubborn jackass like I always am and stand up for what I believe in.

Naive is not the word to use here. Possibly "this sort of opinion that is in the minority" or something along those lines. This I would say is more appropriate in that the definition of naive is this: Inexperienced. Now, personally, I look at saying the opinion is "naive" is saying the person is a virgin. Not so with my case, even though I am of this "sort".

Secondly, PLEASE do not put love in quotations, to me, that's offensive. Love is very important to me. It is of the UTmost importance to me. My entire goal in life is to find a wondrous, intoxicating love. Go ahead, say my view is naive or even be pessimistic and tell me I'm being unrealistic, but PLEASE don't put love in quotations. It makes it sound like it doesn't exist, and you're mocking it.

Finally, let me explain something of my beliefs, so that one does not become confused while reading this. Do I believe sex and love are intertwined? No. Do I believe they should be? Yes. Do I believe sex and love can coexist? Yes. Do I believe they can exist seperately? Yes, but in the case of sex, I do not view it as healthy to. Love can exist without sex, sex can -but in my humble opinion, shouldn't- exist without love. Basically, love is very important to me, and sex is something that is...more of a sideline attraction in my mind. Not the main course, as some -if not most- see it to be.


P.S. As to what qualifies as a slut, I'd have to agree that three or four meaningless encounters qualifies one as a slut, but as you've seen, my view on love highly influences that. Why am I such a romantic? I have no idea, really. All I know is I am Me and no one can take that away, no matter what.

Well, not saving money is one thing, it's not really a huge violation of the general social mores.

I am just saying, that sometimes people do ill-considered things -which at the time seem shits and giggles - and later on they come to not only regret it, but respect themselves less from it.

All I am saying is that a lot of actions have unconsidered consequences later, and there is more to the analysis than just 'does it feel good, and am I okay with it right now.'
True. My point was that there is ( IMHO ) no valid reason why a decision made at one point in your life which you later came to regret, should affect your self-respect at a later point after you concluded your decision was a bad one. All you did was make what you now consider to have been a bad decision; it had little or nothing to do with your current self-respect, or lack thereof.

Anyone who's had sex with more people than me. :)
Most of the people on the planet are sluts??? :eek:

Anyone who's had sex with more people than me. :)


Better than the most common (but not admitted) definition: someone that is willing to have sex, but not with the one calling him/her a slut. :)

Well said. :cool:

Of course, Annie Lennox also put it well:

Sweet dreams are made of this who am I to disagree
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

;)
Heh! Good song! I use to love that ... my ex use to hate it! There's a moral there somewhere but I'm damned if I can put my finger on it! :D

I've often wondered about people who don't believe love and commitment should come before sex and how they deal with marriage.

I believe that love is more important and complicated than sex, and that to truly love somebody (in the romantic sense of the word) you must make every effort to know the complete person...this includes knowing their sexual self, though it is also much more than that. I believe it would be dishonest and dishonorable to get married to somebody without coming to know their sexual self, since that is a part of who they are and I should make every effort to know them before I promise them my life. I am much more selective about who I love than about who I have sex with, because I believe love is far more important. I would rather be a sex-type slut than a "love slut."


Whats the differance between commiting adultery and divorcing someone because you want a physical union with other partners?
Committing adultery is dishonest, as you are deceiving your partner and breaking your word. Being honest about your relationship, and admitting that you no longer feel fulfilled by your marriage, is not dishonest. I would far rather have my partner divorce me (if I were married) than have him/her cheat on me or lie to me.

True. My point was that there is ( IMHO ) no valid reason why a decision made at one point in your life which you later came to regret, should affect your self-respect at a later point after you concluded your decision was a bad one. All you did was make what you now consider to have been a bad decision; it had little or nothing to do with your current self-respect, or lack thereof.
Exactly--what else is youth for but to be a dumbass and build up stuff to regret later in life? Besides, I figure it's better to regret stuff you've done than to regret not doing stuff you wish you'd tried. Sin at length, repent at leisure--that's my motto. :D

True. My point was that there is ( IMHO ) no valid reason why a decision made at one point in your life which you later came to regret, should affect your self-respect at a later point after you concluded your decision was a bad one. All you did was make what you now consider to have been a bad decision; it had little or nothing to do with your current self-respect, or lack thereof.

Well, I suppose my general point is that I find your attitude too permissive. Some decisions cannot be taken back. I don't think that you can walk through life with the assumption that 'there is no valid reason why a decision made at one point in your life which you later came to regret, should affect your self-respect'. Some decisions that people make, they should be ashamed of. The trick is to parse out what is, and what is not blameworthy.

Probably, you and I would agree along general factual lines about what constitutes harmless error, and what does not. But I could not in all good conscience subscribe to the 'if it feels good now, do it' ethic.

And you are older than me. Go figure. I sound like the fuddy-duddy.

I believe that love is more important and complicated than sex, and that to truly love somebody (in the romantic sense of the word) you must make every effort to know the complete person...this includes knowing their sexual self, though it is also much more than that. I believe it would be dishonest and dishonorable to get married to somebody without coming to know their sexual self, since that is a part of who they are and I should make every effort to know them before I promise them my life. I am much more selective about who I love than about who I have sex with, because I believe love is far more important. I would rather be a sex-type slut than a "love slut."


Committing adultery is dishonest, as you are deceiving your partner and breaking your word. Being honest about your relationship, and admitting that you no longer feel fulfilled by your marriage, is not dishonest. I would far rather have my partner divorce me (if I were married) than have him/her cheat on me or lie to me.

Your first point is well taken, but I have a few comments on your second.

Would you consider it dishonest if a person with whom you were deeply in love ( and who you thought loved you ) suddenly stopped having sex with you? Would that be considered "cheating" or "lying," or something else?

Better than the most common (but not admitted) definition: someone that is willing to have sex, but not with the one calling him/her a slut. :)

I posted that def. earlier.

'tis well known.

Your first point is well taken, but I have a few comments on your second.

Would you consider it dishonest if a person with whom you were deeply in love ( and who you thought loved you ) suddenly stopped having sex with you? Would that be considered "cheating" or "lying," or something else?
As long as he/she was willing to discuss why the sex stopped, I wouldn't feel deceived. I also would make it clear that I like sex, and I wouldn't be okay with a celebate life, so if he/she wasn't going to have sex with me then I would look for it in other places. I don't pull punches with those I date; if something isn't going right, they know about it, and they know what to expect from me.

I can be in love with one person and have sex with somebody else (provided that my love-partner is aware of and okay with this arrangement), and I would be okay with my love-partner also having sex with somebody outside our relationship. All I ask is honesty and safe sex.

Well, I suppose my general point is that I find your attitude too permissive. Some decisions cannot be taken back. I don't think that you can walk through life with the assumption that 'there is no valid reason why a decision made at one point in your life which you later came to regret, should affect your self-respect'. Some decisions that people make, they should be ashamed of. The trick is to parse out what is, and what is not blameworthy.

Probably, you and I would agree along general factual lines about what constitutes harmless error, and what does not. But I could not in all good conscience subscribe to the 'if it feels good now, do it' ethic.

And you are older than me. Go figure. I sound like the fuddy-duddy.
LOL! No, you don't sound like a "fuddy-duddy" ( whatever that is! ).

I certainly don't subscribe to the "if it feels good right now, do it" ethic either. I've always advocated applying logic to the decision-making process ( although there were times I left it at home! ). :D

I tend to associate "regret" with the clarity of hindsight, but "self-blame" with feelings of guilt. There is a vast difference between "feeling guilty" and being, in fact, "guilty."

We can allow others to make us feel guilty about things without actually being guilty of anything. The same can be said of ourselves: we can make ourselves feel guilty about virtually anything without having been in fact guilty of anything.

Self-respect is entirely under our own control. If I do things I know to be wrong at the time, perhaps my self-respect should indeed suffer. If I did things that I thought were right at the time, yet later decided they were not, I can decide to not allow my self-respect to be affected.

This sounds a bit like verbal gymnastics, but there are important truths here:

* My feelings are MY feelings, no one else's. I own them. I am responsible for them.

* I can choose to feel or not feel virtually any way.

* Guilt cannot exist as a thing unto itself. Guilt must refer to that which is knowingly committed, and within a frame of reference: religion, law, mores, folkways, etc.

1. As long as he/she was willing to discuss why the sex stopped, I wouldn't feel deceived. I also would make it clear that I like sex, and I wouldn't be okay with a celebate life, so if he/she wasn't going to have sex with me then I would look for it in other places. I don't pull punches with those I date; if something isn't going right, they know about it, and they know what to expect from me.

2. I can be in love with one person and have sex with somebody else (provided that my love-partner is aware of and okay with this arrangement), and I would be okay with my love-partner also having sex with somebody outside our relationship. All I ask is honesty and safe sex.
1. What if you were married to them?

2. [ repeat question number one ] There is no such thing as "safe sex." At the very least you run the risk of falling in love after having sex with someone you admire. ;)

Why?

Without standards, a person is nothing. If somebody doesn't have standards towards a specific subject (such as sexual partners) then they obviously don't care and have no business participating in it. Standards can be well defined and demanding or they can be a general idea, but without a destination you might as well not bother putting gas in the tank.

1. What if you were married to them?

It would depend on the terms under which we married. When I marry, I will make sure we have an understanding about sexual matters like these, and I will abide by whatever deal my partner and I agree upon. I would be okay with an "open" marriage, but only if my partner agrees and is comfortable with it. If my partner requests a completely monogamous relationship, and if I agree before we wed, then I will abide by that and expect him/her to do the same.


2. [ repeat question number one ] There is no such thing as "safe sex." At the very least you run the risk of falling in love after having sex with someone you admire. ;)
By "safe sex" I mean safe medically. There are always risks with sex, just as there are always risks when getting behind the wheel of a car, but I believe in taking every available safety measure possible. I expect no less from my partner. As for falling in love, I am no more or less likely to fall in love with somebody after having sex with them. If my partner falls in love with another person, whether before or after having sex with them, I would want my partner to be honest with me about it so I could choose what I wanted to do with the relationship. I would do the same.

Without standards, a person is nothing. If somebody doesn't have standards towards a specific subject (such as sexual partners) then they obviously don't care and have no business participating in it. Standards can be well defined and demanding or they can be a general idea, but without a destination you might as well not bother putting gas in the tank.
Says who? ( I'm really not trying to be difficult here, just wondering on what you base your conclusions. )

It would depend on the terms under which we married. When I marry, I will make sure we have an understanding about sexual matters like these, and I will abide by whatever deal my partner and I agree upon. I would be okay with an "open" marriage, but only if my partner agrees and is comfortable with it. If my partner requests a completely monogamous relationship, and if I agree before we wed, then I will abide by that and expect him/her to do the same.
But suppose you didn't clarify that issue, since you assumed it wasn't necessary to clarify it? I'm not referring to an "open marriage" here, I'm referring to a partner changing their mind about whether to have sex or not within the confines of your marriage. What if it was "understood" that both of you were to be together for life and totally faithful to each other? Would the total cessation of sex be considered "unfaithfulness?"

But suppose you didn't clarify that issue, since you assumed it wasn't necessary to clarify it? I'm not referring to an "open marriage" here, I'm referring to a partner changing their mind about whether to have sex or not within the confines of your marriage. What if it was "understood" that both of you were to be together for life and totally faithful to each other? Would the total cessation of sex be considered "unfaithfulness?"
I would never enter into a marriage under those conditions, so I cannot answer that question. I think it would be stupid for anybody to do so.

I would never enter into a marriage under those conditions, so I cannot answer that question. I think it would be stupid for anybody to do so.
I did.

Iwouldn't call a person a slut based on how many sex partners he/she had. I would rather base it on the way he/she found sex partners in the first place and how he/she treated them.
I have a large number of friends I would have to call sluts otherwise, as they all had many sex partners so far, some they were in love with, some they weren't. But none of them would be found hanging around dirty bars on saturday evening looking to get laid, none of them would start a longer relationship with somebody who is married...
Well, looking at my last statement here, I'm afraid I'll have to call myself a slut :(

I posted that def. earlier.

'tis well known.

You sure did.

As I said, it is common. :rolleyes:

But here's a cookie for your royalties. ;)

Says who? ( I'm really not trying to be difficult here, just wondering on what you base your conclusions. )

This is my opinion, so "says me." The base of this opinion is that I believe quite firmly in the idea that people shouldn't judge other people as being "wrong" as long as their actions don't harm others. I reserve the right to disagree with anybody and expect that people will disagree with me, as long as they at least agree with themselves.

Basically, if you're going to do something then do it right. "Right" in this case is up to personal interpretation, but if you don't have a concept of the way you think something should be done then you have no business doing it because you don't care. If you don't care about something then you are very unlikely to benefit yourself or anybody else by taking part in it and it would probably be better for all if you just kept your nose out of it.

Things should only be done by those who have motivation and a desired outcome, and therefor somebody without standards for the issue at hand shouldn't be doing it.

As to this referring to sluts, it seems true. Despite their obvious experience, those without standards tend to be less than skillful in the sexual acts. If you just settle and know that you'll be screwing somebody else later then why bother trying to do it right? I'll only have sex with somebody that I want to do so with on mroe than one occasion so I'll do my best to make it enjoyable for both of us, and that seems to result in better sex. "Do it right" in this case results in "if you do me right then I'll do you right." So far this has kept me happy and I've yet to get any complaints, only compliments. :D

This is my opinion, so "says me." The base of this opinion is that I believe quite firmly in the idea that people shouldn't judge other people as being "wrong" as long as their actions don't harm others. I reserve the right to disagree with anybody and expect that people will disagree with me, as long as they at least agree with themselves.

Basically, if you're going to do something then do it right. "Right" in this case is up to personal interpretation, but if you don't have a concept of the way you think something should be done then you have no business doing it because you don't care. If you don't care about something then you are very unlikely to benefit yourself or anybody else by taking part in it and it would probably be better for all if you just kept your nose out of it.

Things should only be done by those who have motivation and a desired outcome, and therefor somebody without standards for the issue at hand shouldn't be doing it.

As to this referring to sluts, it seems true. Despite their obvious experience, those without standards tend to be less than skillful in the sexual acts. If you just settle and know that you'll be screwing somebody else later then why bother trying to do it right? I'll only have sex with somebody that I want to do so with on mroe than one occasion so I'll do my best to make it enjoyable for both of us, and that seems to result in better sex. "Do it right" in this case results in "if you do me right then I'll do you right." So far this has kept me happy and I've yet to get any complaints, only compliments. :D
I suspect you make several unwarranted assumptions here.

Sex is an art and like most arts, can be learned. An encounter between two "artists" can be a most profound experience when both are performing at the peak of their skills. My "standards" ( to use your term ) take this into account. Unfortunately, there are some who misrepresent themselves as "artists." So far as I know, there is only one way to separate the true artists from the self-deluding "wannabes." Make sense? :)

I did.
It would depend. Is your wife not having sex with you because you did something wrong and she wants to manipulate you? Is it because she's no longer attracted to you? Is there some other reason? Either way, I wouldn't view it as "unfaithfulness", but if it's the first one, being manipulative isn't something I think too highly of a person for doing.

(I know that question wasn't directed at me, but I felt I'd put my two cents in.)

My definition of a slut is based on both a length of time and the number of sex partners the person has. If someone has 10 sex partners in their lifetime, then they wouldn't be a slut, but if someone has 10 sex partners in a day, then they would be. The definition is the same for both men and women.

I'm honestly curious. Where's your cutoff for "slut"? How much sex, or how many partners, makes a "slut"? Do the rules apply equally to men and women? How about with gay experiences?

a "Slut" in my eyes, is someone who defines the entirety of who they are, by who or what they sleep with.

"Slut" is not a part of my vocabulary.

Anyone (male or female) who says they love you in order to manipulate you (and they don't love you at all - it's a complete lie), and uses sex to reinforce the lie, is a slut.

No matter how few partners they have.

Especially if they do this and feel no remorse about doing it.

I did.
Bummer :(. I think it's important to discuss such details before committing one's life to another human being. I hope things worked out for you, anyway, but I don't think it's responsible to take chances with life-long pledges.

I think that a slut for a woman is someone who works her way through the telephone book until she comes apart at the seams....

someone on here told a story about how his steady girlfriend turned out to be having one night stands on the side without his knowledge. i thought that made her a slut. still do. if you are unable to stop yourself from fucking other men (or women) even when you know you are being unfaithful and deceitful you are a slut.

if you are otherwise unattached and enjoy being sexually adventurous, then thats a different story. you are a libertine. it has a price, but then so does chastity. it doesnt make you a bad person.

otherwise its not the number of partners but the quality of those partners. a slut is someone who has meaningless sex with many men (or women) who i find creepy. if the thought of having sex with that person makes my skin crawl then anyone who jumps into bed with him/her is a slut. (as opposed to the poor fool who falls for a creepy person and has an ongoing sexual relationship with him/her)

yes, i think any man having sex with paris hilton is a slut-- because i find her creepy. although i think she has a steady beau (also named paris) so he wouldnt be a slut, just a fool.

Hmm.... I've never quite understood what people mean when they say stuff like "no respect for yourself" and "letting yourself be used".

When you say that someone has no respect I am assuming it's what you define respect to be. Suppose some woman is doing a bukake film and 50 guys splurge on her... but she enjoys the experience - it's a way she gets off. How exactly, is she "not respecting" herself? If you step back from cultural norms and analyze things from an objective point of view all that happened is a woman had a sexual encounter with multiple partners, at the same time. I fail to see where respect comes in.

It's all about your personal opinion of yourself and your sexual activity. If you have lots of wild sex, or if you enjoy being submissive in the bedroom, or if you like doing things that are traditionally considered "slutty," then that's your choice. I don't think that makes a person a slut, nor do I think a person would be necessarily lacking in self-respect if they enjoyed such things.


The only times I can see a woman "letting herself be used" would be in cases of prostitution, and even then that depends on the exact events surrounding why she is a prostiture and what her exact situation is.

Indeed. I believe prostitution should be 100% legal, since I see nothing wrong with a woman or man choosing to exchange their sexual favors for money. I object to people being victimized in the sex industry, but only because of the issue of consent. I don't think a person is necessarily a slut if they choose to sell their body.


As far as the actual question asked:

My definition of a slut would be a woman who has sexual encounters on a regular basis without much attachment. A woman who's had a few one night stands, and then gets a boyfriend and doesnt cheat on him, I would not classify as a slut.
I don't see attachment as necessary at all. In fact, I have far less respect for "serial lovers" than I do for sexual "sluts." As I have said before, I believe it is far more shameful to be a "love-slut."

someone on here told a story about how his steady girlfriend turned out to be having one night stands on the side without his knowledge. i thought that made her a slut. still do. if you are unable to stop yourself from fucking other men (or women) even when you know you are being unfaithful and deceitful you are a slut.

I disagree. I would consider such a person to be an asshole. You can treat someone horribly by sleeping around on them, but as I do not define sleeping around as "sluttish", it does not make you a slut. Regardless of your relationship status, one night stands are fine by me, and I would never judge someone for having them. Cheating on someone is pretty low, but cheating on someone by having one night stands is not the worst manner of cheating, to my eyes. If you fall in love with another person after you have made a committment to someone, that is romantic or emotional cheating. If you are also having sex with them, then it's physical and emotional infidelity.
If I have entered into a romantic and exclusive relationship, I expect to be the only current object of my partner's affection. I can more readily accept that my partner would be sexually attracted to other people than I can accept that they might love another. I would prefer to be cheated on (I will state the lesser of two evils; I would prefer to not be cheated on at all) sexually rather than emotionally. I would hope that the sex would be "meaningless".

someone on here told a story about how his steady girlfriend turned out to be having one night stands on the side without his knowledge. i thought that made her a slut. still do. if you are unable to stop yourself from fucking other men (or women) even when you know you are being unfaithful and deceitful you are a slut.


My first wife did that. After several hundred partners, she lost count.

Now, the whole time, she's telling me she loved me, and at the end, she finally admitted that she had never really loved me - I was just a good home base and a source of funding for her adventures.

After I complete my Ph.D., I'm going to compile them all into a book: The Collected Wit and Wisdom of Dr. Horn! :D
My God, they're going to let you attach a "Doctor" to your name? :eek:

My first wife did that. After several hundred partners, she lost count.

Now, the whole time, she's telling me she loved me, and at the end, she finally admitted that she had never really loved me - I was just a good home base and a source of funding for her adventures.
What an evil bitch!

What an evil bitch!
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.

She wasn't honest enough with herself to admit that she didn't really want to be married in the first place.

And doesn't place enough value on herself to realize that she's only acting as a semen receptacle.

So you too are of this sort of naïve opinion that sex and "love" are supposed to be linked?

Why is that a naive opinion? It is a personal opinion, yes, but I see nothing naive in it. For some of us, sex must be linked with love to be meaningful and enjoyable. All sexual contact may not be so linked, but many of us feel that it is appropriate to save actual intercourse for a committed, loving relationship. What is so wrong with that?

It isn't as if either of the posters admonished you to do the same, and that is something I would not do either. Much like the decision to have sex at all, the amount of value you place upon it is an individual thing.


As for me, I try to avoid the term slut - because I think it is automatically derogatory. If I had to place a line, it would be more of an attitudinal line close to Bottle's than a number line. Of course, I think many who would then fall under the "slut" category would fall there because of low self-esteem - which would be why I would certainly try to avoid the term.

As for differences between men and women, I don't really make a distinction. I can respect the views and practices of anyone who takes their partner's (and their own) safety into account and is honest with their partner or partners. I would not choose to have sex in many situations that others might, but that is my choice and they have theirs. I have little respect for anyone who is deceitful in order to get sex, or who is intentionally unsafe.

So you too are of this sort of naïve opinion that sex and "love" are supposed to be linked?

If that is what is promised, yes. If it is not promised, no.

People usually should agree up front what things are going to mean.

So, if both agree that this is sex without love, then that's what it is - no big deal.

And if they agree that this is sex with love, then that's what it is - no big deal.

But, if they agree that this is sex with love, and that the love is exclusive, then if either fucks around without first terminating the relationship (i.e., having the common decency to state facts), then the fucker is a slut.

I have had sex with people I was not in love with (as I have only ever been in love once but have had sex with more than one person), but I have never had meaningless encounters. How does that fit in to your definition?

i'm gonna puke. :(

O.K.

its good for one man too have lots of sex-because he's considered to be "getting it" and is therefore more widely respected in social circles.

A girl who has lots of sex is considered a slut, and often abused in social circles-simply because they are considered to "give it up" to men too easily, or maybe in more feminine groupings (i'm a boy......man......i'm male.....)
its considered making it too easy for the men too get sex, breaking the "unwritten rules" of the game.

since we no longer use the alpha male (or "dominate") in our society (simply because we out evolved it...and the strongest dude, isn't nessacarily the smartest, etc.) in natural cycles, the alpha male picks a mate, and then the rest of the pack or herd goes after him (not on the same animal....they pick different ones-its like prison, you know-"you're my bitch" kinda philosiphy)n anyway, since we don't use the alpha male thingy anymore, we simply pick who we want too mate with...(meaning anyone)...although, NO OTHER SPECIES EXCEPT our own, homo sapien, mates for plesure (DON'T quote me on that-i haven't researched it, its just i haven't heard any)

getting to the piont (which started several paragraphs above) I PERSONALLY would NEVER label a female person a slut-i'm an honourable man, and people shouldn't do it anyway, for the effects it has on society........(besides, i'm in love)

so, this concludes your reading. no, please stop wasting your time reading my pointless posts, and.....' :sniper:

I have had sex with people I was not in love with (as I have only ever been in love once but have had sex with more than one person), but I have never had meaningless encounters. How does that fit in to your definition?

As long as you were honest with everyone, you're OK.

I've had sex with women for fun - but it was an up front idea that we weren't in love.

If I'm promising love and a monogamous relationship, then that's what she gets.

A slut is really just a liar.

i'm gonna puke. :(

right; that's not fair-also, its a bit personal.

consider this. you have a FEMALE dog-now, she can't have puppies, but she CAN have sex. several male dogs mount her over the course of....lets say in 2 days, your dog has sexual realtions with 10 other dogs. thats 5 in one day, for those who want it broken down.

the question is, is your dog a slut? NO! simply becasue the term doesn't apply-animals don't love each other when they mate, it is NATURE, and they are simply doing what is written in to thier genes. so, i say......LET the women do what they want-after all, if ever the human race was "going down the toilet" it would be up to them solely to save us.....and frankly, i hope they'd say NO becuase bigots like you and others in this forum would brandish them as SLUTS, becasue, lets face it, you are uneducated simple farmers-or close to it......(anyone can use spell checker)

so, this question is.........is that personal enough for you? well? exactly; in the words of a great man "please frame your insults in the form of a question" :D

Self-respect is entirely under our own control. If I do things I know to be wrong at the time, perhaps my self-respect should indeed suffer. If I did things that I thought were right at the time, yet later decided they were not, I can decide to not allow my self-respect to be affected.

I have to say I agree here. I associate feelings of "regret" or "guilt" with whether or not I feel that, given the exact same information, I would make the same decision.

My first lover was definitely a mistake. I do hold to the idea that sex should be reserved for a loving relationship - and I did love him, and believed he loved me. I think he even believed it, but was deceiving himself. In hindsight, I can say it was a mistake. However, put in the exact same situation, with only the knowledge I had at the time, I don't think my decision would or should be any different, so I don't regret it.

I don't really care how the word "slut" is defined, but I think a possible definition could be someone who values quantity of sexual partner more than quality.

I used to have a very low opinion of people who I considered sluts. I thought they they were immoral, unfeeling people who just used others to get themselves off (male or female, gay or straight, didn't matter, a slut was a slut). In retrospect though, sometimes when I was really lonely and getting fed up of waiting for "Mr Right," anyone who was having more sex than me was a slut, and when that's the basis of your judgement you're not being moral so much as you're just jealous.

When I finally got totally sick of being the "good boy" and trying to set an example for my peers I decided to get in "the game" with a vengeance and spent a while as a self-professed slut, not sure even of how I felt about myself for it. I was having a blast, but wondering if I had just caved to peer pressure from my community and had become a lousy person.

Then I read a wonderful book, called "The Ethical Slut," and in it was a wonderful definition. I'm paraphrasing but it was something like "for the purpose of this book we use the term slut to describe any person who lives by the belief that sex feels good, and pleasure is good for you." As long as you're honest about your intentions with everyone involved, and you always practice safe sex, and you don't set out to use sex to objectify, exploit, or otherwise harm the other person, then what is wrong about sharing a pleasurable experience? Who's harmed by the sharing of pleasure? What makes an intimate physical encounter with one person "better" than if you have it with many?

Things can definitely get tricky if you have more than one regular sex partner and you fall in love with one (or more) of them, or they with you. Love unfortunately leads a *lot* of people to jealousy. But then, if love is so wonderful, why is just one love better? What law of biology or physics says that a person can't be in love with more than one person at a time? And if you love two, or three, or however many people, provided everyone involved can overcome their jealousy-- which, really, boils down to feeling like another person is "yours", like you own them and are entitled to protect them from being taken from you (kind of like they're your posession or slave)-- why shouldn't multiple love & sex partners by possible?

From personal experience (having had two sex partners concurrently and having fallen for them both) I know it isn't easy. It's nothing like easy, because jealousy is very hard to overcome. One of the guys I was with couldn't, and asked me to choose him for a monogamous relationship. Well, I did, and I'm still very good friends with the other guy (*just* good friends), but I have no moral reservations about the situation I was in, and still intellectually consider multiple relationships (whether just sexual, or involving love) to be possible and valid. I'm just not practicing it right now.

Since then, I use the word slut mostly endearingly with friends. Sometimes jokingly. But I don't use it in a derogatory way. I have been a slut in the past, and I have no regrets about it now. And if my partner and I (who are monogamous) ever break up, I'd have no qualms about being a slut again.

It all comes down to that great idea, really. Live and let live.

I don't really care how the word "slut" is defined, but I think a possible definition could be someone who values quantity of sexual partner more than quality.

Sex is kind of like food.. some people have a big appetite and arent very choosy about what they choose to fill it with.. and some people have more discerning tastes and make a conscious decision about everything they put in their mouth.

The first person probably eats fast food for lunch everyday and and goes to the bar a couple of times a week. The second probably eats leftovers from dinner the night before all week, then has a nice night out on the town with friends or family during the weekend. Person A might be in the dark about the was person B goes about their business, but some people do prefer working on a 6 pack over the week to a couple of cocktails at the end, you know? So really, being a slut is more about knowing what your sex ideology is and holding to it. If you like filet mignon and order a chop steak to save five bucks, thats when you've short changed yourself and have crossed into skank territory.