undefined | Better HN

0 pointspotatolicious11y ago0 comments

"Slut" is a derogatory term, it has connotations and meanings well beyond the most literal definition of "promiscuous person".

Calling Tinder user "sluts" is no more appropriate than calling my Chinese users "chinks", or my gay users "faggots".

It seems intentionally obtuse to pretend that the term doesn't have a gigantic truckload of derogatory connotations behind it.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

hueving11y ago· 4 in thread

What are the negative connotations? I thought the only reason it was considered a bad term was purely because it was considered bad 60 years ago for a woman to be promiscuous. I.e. The insult was calling them promiscuous.

potatoliciousOP11y ago

The same negative connotation of "faggot" and "chink" - i.e., that being promiscuous/Chinese/gay/etc is intrinsically bad.

I can't speak for the whole world, but in North America at least I've never seen the word "slut" used in everyday speech that wasn't intended to be derogatory.

Side note: "purely because it was considered bad 60 years ago for a woman to be promiscuous"

I don't think that's 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure that's still today. Maybe not as bad, but the general perception of promiscuous women is still deeply negative.

waterlesscloud11y ago

While I'm pretty sure it was used derogatorily in this case, I've certainly seen it used in a non-derogatory manner. Usually to indicate a sort of unapologetic lover of whatever field.

See- http://www.bookslut.com/

1 more reply

cb311y ago

that being promiscuous is intrinsically bad.

And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least.

Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1]

Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages?

Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are associated with higher rates of divorce.[2]

It is kind of crazy how in a certain segment of the population's rush to rectify past wrongs they overlook the fact that maybe some things were as they were for sound reasons. You can even surmise that if there is any genetic component to the typical monogamous relationships of human societies then men have a genetically encoded aversion to sluts when seeking a mother for their children.

The normalization of sluttiness is always going to be a losing battle if our civilization is to survive and thrive.

What exactly is the improvement feminists think they are after by trying to normalize sluttiness?

So we've seen, on average two parent households produce "better" children, better children produce better societies, and a higher sexual partner count for a woman prior to marriage produces a higher incidence of divorce.

Anyone care to articulate any reasons why promoting sluttiness is beneficial for the future of humanity?

[1] "Children from two-parent families are better off emotionally, socially and economically"

http://archive.azcentral.com/families/articles/0913marriageh...

"divorce tends to double a child’s risk of a serious negative outcome."

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/singl...

[2] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAO...

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-d...

And two articles from a site with 'hooking up' in the url.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/01/22/hookinguprealities/...

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/01/29/hookinguprealities/...

4 more replies

bootload11y ago

"... What are the negative connotations? ..."

Shame ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/search/query?keys=shame&x=0&y...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse