# ****-shaming?



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

I've been hearing this term a lot this year. 

What exactly is wrong with labeling sleeping around while married as whoring or acting like a ****?

Is being accused of "****-shaming" a way to neutralize the negativity associated with the behavior?


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

michzz said:


> What exactly is wrong with labeling sleeping around while married as whoring or acting like a ****?


You are getting it mixed up. 

The entire point of the term was generated as a response to women being made to feel bad about their sexuality. Hence, the ****shame. A lot of times it is used just when women sleep with a man. If a woman feels any sexual desire at all or has slept with a man, sometimes people will call her a sl*t or a wh*re. It's a double standard in society. A societal restraint women have experienced for eons now.

Madonna/W**** complex is a perfect example.

There is a recent thread on TAM about "Boudoir pics" -asking if women have ever taken any before. One male poster in there asked, "What are Boudoir pics? Is that the same as s****y pics?"

Prime example. 

Same thing. It's the idea that Sexuality and women = bad. That women are not good or pure or clean if they have any sexual desires or do anything sexy. *S**t" is a word meant to demean.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

So the mere fact of women wanting to be sexual is what kicks off that term?

I thought it was about someone behaving promiscuously then turning that around defensively by accusing someone of "sl**-shaming".


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Also, to add, I notice you posed this question in the CWI section which relates to infidelity, affairs, and betrayal.

That term was not started as having anything to do with infidelity at all whatsoever.

'It's about the general climate that women have to deal with when owning their sexuality or just being put in a female box. (Gender roles that constrain).

This term is actually better related to and more fitting for the Ladies Lounge.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

michzz said:


> So the mere fact of women wanting to be sexual is what kicks off that term?
> 
> I thought it was about someone behaving promiscuously then turning that around defensively by accusing someone of "sl**-shaming".


Bingo. That's why I said you misunderstood what the term meant and why it was even started.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

It's the double standard that's applied to women and not to men. I do not know of a comparable derogatory male term for a male who revels in his sexuality and is keen to share his sexuality with partners of like mind. Do you?


----------



## warlock07 (Oct 28, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> It's the double standard that's applied to women and not to men. I do not know of a comparable derogatory male term for a male who revels in his sexuality and is keen to share his sexuality with partners of like mind. Do you?



Creep..

Another equivalent would be how guys are shamed for a sex drive in some marriage..


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> It's the double standard that's applied to women and not to men.* I do not know of a comparable derogatory male term *for a male who revels in his sexuality and is keen to share his sexuality with partners of like mind. Do you?


Exactly. There is nothing that carries the same kind of connotation for men that that term does for women. Nothing. It's a vile word.

Men get celebrated. Women get shamed.

Hence, S**T SHAME!


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

warlock07 said:


> Another equivalent would be how guys are shamed for a sex drive in some marriage..


Nope. Apples and oranges. In those cases, men are painted as being sexually neglected.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Yea I don't think anyone is shamed for wanting to have sex but not. Even being provocative versus promiscuous seem to get different labels. Provocative usually get's a "acting like" before the word or a "ty" on the end of where promiscuous get labelled with the noun as in "she is a ****". Yes the word "she" was intentional because let's face it, there's a double standard in what it means depending on the gender of who's being called it.

About that double standard? I think it's innate. How else does it become this way at every middle and high school in existence? Girls **** shame other girls and guys **** shame girls. It's in the human DNA unfortunately.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Player seems to fit.

I think mich is correct from the responses. If a woman has a lot of sexuality and expresses it with men of like mind, they are the same. Is it good or bad? I don't think it's a question of being good or bad. Prostitutes who can choose to work in the profession do the same thing, male or female. They express their sexuality with others of like mind. 

So, the problem is generally with those who cannot or choose not to express their sexuality with others of like mind? 

Compatibility seems like a better term to describe this problem. Some will enjoy being very expressive with others of like mind. Some will want to save that expression for those few that are of like mind. So, it's generally shaming because those who share more feel as if they have done something wrong or outside of the norms of society. 

It doesn't make the shaming right. It does seem to explain the issue when we realize everyone is different and we all need to be accepted for who we are. We also need to understand that not everyone will accept as readily, the expressive or the inexpressive sexuality. Each will be considered sub-standard by the other.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

I suppose I should have put placed this in the ladies lounge, but not being a lady, and given my possible misunderstanding of the term, I posted here.

Is there a term called "post-shaming"?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> Exactly. There is nothing that carries the same kind of connotation for men that that term does for women. Nothing. It's a vile word.
> 
> Men get celebrated. Women get shamed.
> 
> Hence, S**T SHAME!


Sadly "virgin" is the derogatory equivalent for men.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't see this thread producing any sort of civil dialogue. Banhammers inc!


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

michzz said:


> So the mere fact of women wanting to be sexual is what kicks off that term?
> 
> I thought it was about someone behaving promiscuously then turning that around defensively by accusing someone of "sl**-shaming".





Jellybeans said:


> Bingo. That's why I said you misunderstood what the term meant and why it was even started.


I'm pretty sure "wanting to be sexual but abstaining" is looked at very differently and not as a negative.


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

I think its part of a social transition that we are experiencing where women are leaving the position of "protectors of virtue" and "gatekeepers of sex". Those trying to hold on to those "traditional" themes continue to apply the double standard and the derogatory terms. This touches on several issues.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Sadly "virgin" is the masculine synonym.


I agree in respect to the negative connotations applied to either terms.

People have tried to use "player" but it doesn't have the same negative associations with it in the real world as slvt or wh0re does. In TAM CWI perhaps. 

In real life a promiscuous man is lauded. He's a stud, an alpha and a hero in the locker room. A chaste man is not exactly highly lauded socially except maybe in church. 

A "stud" is the guy that can bag a bunch of chicks... but pity be the girl who he happens to bag. He's cool but she's just a stupid slvt for giving it up too easily.

You hear it a lot, especially in hip hop/rap culture "play on playa'" or "don't hate the playa', hate da' game"  The players are the "cool guys" getting all the "h-es" and "b!tches".


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

Miss Taken said:


> I agree in respect to the negative connotations applied to either terms.
> 
> People have tried to use "player" but it doesn't have the same negative associations with it in the real world as slvt or wh0re does. In TAM CWI perhaps.
> 
> ...


For sure, it is an unfair double standard.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Maybe ti's just one of those things that if you aren't a woman, you will never really understand. 

There is a thin line to walk as a woman a lot of time. Don't be too this, don't be too that. 

Miley Cyrus at the VMA awards show--everyone exploded about what a sl&t and wh*re she was; Robin Thicke, the older married man grinding his d!ck into her ass onstage in front of millions of viewers did no at all face the same backlash.

I'm not saying either of them behaved in a very classy way but that is another good example of it.

Women get sl*t shamed. Men don't.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

In a perfect world sl#t would apply to "irresponsible sex" and would be gender neutral.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

I imagine that slvt-shaming is mostly done by guys who unsuccessfully pursue women. It's not so much that they're angry that these women are screwing around, but more that they aren't screwing around with THEM. 

But hell, I don't know, I may be mistaken.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Jellybeans said:


> Miley Cyrus at the VMA awards show--everyone exploded about what a sl&t and wh*re she was; Robin Thicke, the older married man grinding his d!ck into her ass onstage in front of millions of viewers did no at all face the same backlash.


Not to quibble, but his wife left him over it.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Actually, per the reports she left him when he cheated on her.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I don't know, Miss Taken. When I was called a player, it really hurt me. I do think it depends on the individual's life experience(sexual).


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

michzz said:


> So the mere fact of women wanting to be sexual is what kicks off that term?
> 
> I thought it was about someone behaving promiscuously then turning that around defensively by accusing someone of "sl**-shaming".


Slvt shaming is how a group of women try to keep hotter women from poaching their men and lowering the market value of sex.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Somehow I just knew that, at some point, Mach would come in and break this sh*t down to biology and evolution.

BOOM!


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Promiscous women reduce men's need to marry to get sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Machiavelli said:


> Slvt shaming is how a group of women try to keep hotter women from poaching their men and lowering the market value of sex.


Mach is right. Most slvt-shaming is perpetrated by women. Women who express their sexuality are seen as not 'playing fair' by other women and therefore representing a threat. 

I read an article recently that said it also has a lot to do with social status. A study done in a US college showed that high-status (rich) girls who sleep around are less likely to be slvt-shamed by their peers than low-status (poor) girls who sleep around. Even when a given rich girl has had many more sexual partners than a given poor girl.

It is a nasty little world used to try and keep women in their 'place'.


----------



## Gabriel (May 10, 2011)

Another derogatory term only used to describe men is Pig.

A guy who admires a woman's physical features and is caught doing so = Pig

A guy who gets around = Pig

But I will acknowledge is MUCH worse for women.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

At some point this is going to devolve into a discussion around the "C word".

I mean seriously... I cannot stand rampant _commercialism_.


----------



## renascent (Jun 11, 2014)

IMO shaming is a mostly feminist tactic that is_ much_ more commonly used as a weapon to oppress men rather than vica versa. The standard play is to accuse men of 'whining' or reviling men to 'suck it up' when dealing with oppression, discrimination, or injustice.

The ironic double standard is that feminism feels victimized when the tables are turned on itself. Read: it's ok for me, but not ok for you.

I guess everybody is equal but some are more equal than others.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Here we go.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NotLikeYou (Aug 30, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Same thing. It's the idea that Sexuality and women = bad. That women are not good or pure or clean if they have any sexual desires or do anything sexy. *S**t" is a word meant to demean.


I think that this is a very stereotypical viewpoint expressed, here.

Jellybean, a woman, perceives that women who express their sexuality by having sex with numerous other people, are called slvts and are thought poorly of.

They are labeled as slvts, which is demeaning to them.

I would like to point out that there are A LOT of guys out there who, when told "so and so is a real slvt," will pay said female more attention and treat her nicely.

Because if they have a slvt label, they may give it up easier.

So I guess I find this whole "offended on behalf of slvts' self esteem" mindset to be rather hypocritical.

Guys LOVE slvts! Guys just don't want to MARRY slvts. And since slvts by definition have sex with multiple men, it's not like they really want to be married, either. I dream of the day when women can release their inner slvt, and not be judged, nor falsely defended, by other women.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Machiavelli said:


> Slvt shaming is how a group of women try to keep hotter women from poaching their men and lowering the market value of sex.


You clearly don't understand the term either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

NotLikeYou said:


> *Guys LOVE slvts! Guys just don't want to MARRY slvts. *And since* slvts by definition have sex with multiple men, it's not like they really want to be married*, either. *I dream of the day when women can release their inner slvt*, and not be judged, nor falsely defended, by other women.


So, only women are doing the shaming? Surely, you jest. 

You said men don't want slvts (women who have been with multiple men) then you say you dream of they day they can embrace it. So which is it?


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

"I thought it was about someone behaving promiscuously then turning that around defensively by accusing someone of "sl**-shaming"."

I think the big difference here is whether the woman is M or in a monogamous relationship,

If a woman is single, she has every right to embrace her sexuality in any way she wants...and people who want to judge her for that should keep their own feelings and insecurities to themselves as it is none of their business.

If, on the other hand, a woman in M or in a monogamous relationship and she is betraying the person she has promised to love, then I have no problem with the terms.

Traitors shouldn't be treated with sensitivity and deserve any negative comments/labels directed at them.

For example, I have no problem labeling a POS male who cheats either...there may not be specific terms in the language for men as there are for women, but I would never hesitate to call a cheating man a d*ckless coward who didn't have a single clue on how to be a real man.

Basically, I despise traitors and liars, regardless of sex, and have NOTHING good to say about any of them as long as they refuse to try to change into better people.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> It is a nasty little world used to try and keep women in their 'place'.


And what 'place' might that be?


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> You clearly don't understand the term either.


I didn't get an 800 on the reading SAT for nothing.


----------



## NotLikeYou (Aug 30, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> So, only women are doing the shaming? Surely, you jest.
> 
> You said men don't want slvts (women who have been with multiple men) then you say you dream of they day they can embrace it. So which is it?


I liked it better when you just said I didn't understand the term, either.

Okay, let's go to internet search results, and I quote from Wikipedia:

"**** shaming (also hyphenated, as ****-shaming) is a concept in human sexuality. It is a neologism used to describe the act of making a person, especially a woman, feel guilty or inferior for certain sexual behaviors or desires that deviate from traditional or orthodox gender expectations, or that which may be considered to be contrary to natural or religious law. Some examples of circumstances where women are "****-shamed" include: violating accepted dress codes by dressing in sexually provocative ways, requesting access to birth control,[1][2][3] having premarital or casual sex, or being raped or sexually assaulted.[4]"

So according to Wikipedia, which is the end-all, be-all totally factually correct source of information (okay, sarcasm off, for now)....

****-shaming means calling girls names and hurting their feelings for blah blah blah.

Jellybeans, you seem to have missed my point, but I'll answer you as follows.

"So only women are doing the shaming? Surely you jest."

No, plenty of men participate in ****-shaming. However, when a woman calls another woman a slvt, its pretty much as hard of an insult as girls can trade. Maybe the women are best friends and just talking smack, but, usually, if one woman calls another a slvt, its meant as a bitter insult.

There is considerably more latitude in intent from guys. If a guy calls a girl a slvt, it can be because of anything from "she won't have sex with ME" to "had more men in her than an attack submarine."

Guys may find a "slvt" disgusting, or intriguing, in the sense of, again, "easy." If none of this makes sense to you, well, actually, that's not my problem.


"You said men don't want slvts (women who have been with multiple men) then you say you dream of they day they can embrace it. So which is it?"

No, I said plenty of men DO want slvts, just for easy sex, as opposed to long term relationships. This is not a revolutionary concept.

If you go back and read what I said, rather than what you want to think I said, I wrote 

"I dream of the day when *women* can release their inner slvt, and not be judged, nor falsely defended, *by other women*."

See, Jellybeans, we live in a society where we're told that women are equal to men, and the women throw tantrums and get all offended if you don't pretend like it really is this way.

I was saying that it would be great if women collectively had the intestinal fortitude (in men, this is called "guts") to express their sexuality as they saw fit, whether that meant being a one-man kinda girl or servicing the entire football team. And further, I was saying that it would be great if those same women had still more intestinal fortitude, such that THEY DID NOT CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT OF THEM. 

They didn't care if other men and women thought they were slvts. Or prudes. Or anything else.

And if that came to pass, then even if everyone decided that a woman was a slvt, she wouldn't care what other women thought of her. And since she didn't care, she wouldn't need other women saying "don't JUDGE her, you slvt-shamer, you- you ought to be ASHAMED of yourself for trying to slvt shame her!"

Now. Your job is to cherry pick this post, misinterpret one or more statements, and feel all smug and superior in your followup post.

Hurry- After you reply, I'm going to declare that you won the internet today.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

NotLikeYou said:


> And since she didn't care, she wouldn't need other women saying "don't JUDGE her, you slvt-shamer, you- you ought to be ASHAMED of yourself for trying to slvt shame her!"


NLY wins the internet today.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

michzz said:


> I've been hearing this term a lot this year.
> 
> What exactly is wrong with labeling sleeping around while married as whoring or acting like a ****?
> 
> Is being accused of "****-shaming" a way to neutralize the negativity associated with the behavior?


If women $lut-shamed a man for being indiscriminate where he lays and inserts his private parts, and calls him "nasty", a "*****", "low morals", etc I don't think the rest of the women would feel that her analysis is out of context.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

There was news article about a study that asked men and women what there regrets were. Men typically answered that they regretted not having taken more of the opportunities that they had to sleep with women.

In contrast, women wished they had been more selective and not have sex with certain partners.

This attitude is perhaps cultural but it is certain in line with the differences between male and female mating strategy.

As for slvt shaming, well everybody warns their daughters not to have webcam sex because the boyfriend who loves her may spread her around. In fact, many men would not feel damaged if they appeared in hot video with a beautiful woman. For women being naked on the Internet hurts their chances of marriage.

That Duke University porn actress will no doubt find men who want to marry her, but they many not have been the men among whom she wanted to choose.



> In 1991, artist Jeff Koons married Hungarian-born naturalized-Italian pornography star Cicciolina (Ilona Staller) who for five years (1987–92) pursued an alternate career as a member of the Italian Parliament. After seeing her picture in two European magazines, he had flown to Rome, watched her perform, and gone backstage to suggest that they collaborate on what he then thought would be a movie. She agreed.
> 
> A series of strenuous photographic sessions became the basis for the "Made in Heaven" paintings and sculptures, in various media. The movie never got made, but Koons and Staller fell in love. He courted her through an interpreter—she spoke very little English, and Koons, who spoke about four words of Italian, kept trying to communicate directly by speaking English with an Italian accent. The interpreter had to be let go, because she fell in love with Koons.
> 
> ...


Koons, a feminist?, tried to marry a slvt. It did not work. Maybe the failure was his.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

NotLikeYou said:


> Now. Your job is to cherry pick this post, misinterpret one or more statements, and feel all smug and superior in your followup post.
> 
> Hurry- *After you reply, I'm going to declare that you won the internet today*.


Thank you.

But I win the internet every day.


----------



## 6301 (May 11, 2013)

I think the problem is that for eons women were told to act like ladies and be primp and proper.

Then one day, some woman said the most important question she ever asked, "Why". How come a guy can screw his eyeballs out and all is well and when I want to have sex, there some dude in a black hood standing over a fire with a branding iron with a large W on the end of it ready to burn it on a woman's forehead.

Honestly, I think a lot of guys miss the big picture when you have a woman who is willing to be your partner in bed where she doesn't insist that the lights be off, her eyes closed shut and asking him to hurry but now you can be with one that will give as good as she gets and leave you sweaty and out of breath and feeling pretty damn good.

IMO, I like the level playing field. I'm too old to enjoy it now but in my younger days when that woman and others like her said why.................that was a good day.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

Just wondering..what if men just have a preference for marrying women with more limited sexual experience. Just like women have a preference toward dating and marrying taller men? Just a preference right?


----------



## Pandakiss (Oct 29, 2010)

The term for a guy who sleeps around and enjoys it is called a manwh0re. Most guys I knew just thought it was funny and kinda liked it. Men are.......interesting creatures....



*just making a funny men aren't creatures.


----------



## TryingToRecover (Dec 19, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> Thank you.
> 
> But I win the internet every day.


:smthumbup::lol:


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

michzz said:


> What exactly is wrong with labeling sleeping around while married as whoring or acting like a ****?


Absolutly nothing wrong with it whatsoever. If more people were judgmental and 'affairs' were truly stigmatized, instead of being treated as one of those things that just happen in life, there would be less of them. If a man/woman gets exposed and is stigmatized, then loses their friends and support network and is classified as a s**t or a pig .... that is an appropriate price to pay for their bad behavior. 



michzz said:


> Is being accused of "****-shaming" a way to neutralize the negativity associated with the behavior?


Absolutly, it's just another form of blame shifting. However, that wouldn't stop me from exposing anything and every thing about the affair, because shame is a powerful weapon I would never hesitate to use. And it shouldn't matter if your course is D or R, you still expose and shame to show the betrayer how serious you are.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> Slvt shaming is how a group of women try to keep hotter women from poaching their men and lowering the market value of sex.


:rofl: I hate to say it but back when I was playing the field and getting sl*t shamed I thought it was exactly for this reason


----------



## pidge70 (Jan 17, 2011)

Machiavelli said:


> Slvt shaming is how a group of women try to keep hotter women from poaching their men and lowering the market value of sex.


You obviously haven't seen the "slvts" in my area. Definitely *NOT *hotter.


----------



## pidge70 (Jan 17, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Thank you.
> 
> But I win the internet every day.


I knew you were pretty! Now, stay away from my man.......:rofl:


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

pidge70 said:


> You obviously haven't seen the "slvts" in my area. Definitely *NOT *hotter.


They're sometimes not and that's why pulling out the slvt trump card angers women who don't pull it out. That IMO is why women are not going to stop slvt shaming.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

TryingToRecover said:


> :smthumbup::lol:


Nice makeup. Who pays for your hair, nails and makeup?


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

I grew up in the era of "boys will be boys but girls will be pure". The double standard that exists today is nowhere near as severe as the one that once existed. But most males interested in a long-term relationship, and not just sex, are likely still going to judge a female by how many other males she's been with. That's why most females with a lot of partners usually are not out there bragging about their number like many males do. 

Females (and I'm one) often have trouble understanding the territorial thinking of males toward females. If it's just for fun, it's one thing. But if it's serious, it's usually a different matter. When I was a girl the saying was "She's not someone you would bring home to meet your mom". I don't believe that type of thinking has changed too much for most males. And it's not going to change no matter how much most females think it's unfair. It's just how most males are wired. They usually don't want someone long-term that everyone else has had. 

Females have the right to have as many partners as they wish. But they have to accept that they will be judged for it by many or even most. That's reality and it's not changing any time soon.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

pidge70 said:


> You obviously haven't seen the "slvts" in my area. Definitely *NOT *hotter.


A girl doesn't even have to be a slvt to be slvt shamed. They just have to be perceived as a social threat. think of the mousy girl in junior high who suddenly develops a bombshell body.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Hmm let me try this again without going on so many tangents. I do think this is 75% girl on girl violence  .

So for the promiscuous or flirty girl in question:
- Women shame her because she's in direct competition.
- Other women shame her because she reminds them of someone whose in competition.
- Non promiscuous men and women shame her because she questions their choices by being different then they are.
- Men shame her if she's not into them.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> Hmm let me try this again without going on so many tangents. I do think this is 75% girl on girl violence  .
> 
> So for the promiscuous or flirty girl in question:
> - Women shame her because she's in direct competition.
> ...


You might shame her for having a super high body count and also not believing how nasty some of the guys she beded where.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

Openminded said:


> When I was a girl the saying was "She's not someone you would bring home to meet your mom".


As Rick James put it:

She's a very kinky girl
The kind you don't take home to mother


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Openminded said:


> I grew up in the era of "boys will be boys but girls will be pure". The double standard that exists today is nowhere near as severe as the one that once existed. But most males interested in a long-term relationship, and not just sex, are likely still going to judge a female by how many other males she's been with. That's why most females with a lot of partners usually are not out there bragging about their number like many males do.
> 
> Females (and I'm one) often have trouble understanding the territorial thinking of males toward females. If it's just for fun, it's one thing. But if it's serious, it's usually a different matter. When I was a girl the saying was "She's not someone you would bring home to meet your mom". I don't believe that type of thinking has changed too much for most males. And it's not going to change no matter how much most females think it's unfair. It's just how most males are wired. They usually don't want someone long-term that everyone else has had.
> 
> Females have the right to have as many partners as they wish. But they have to accept that they will be judged for it by many or even most. That's reality and it's not changing any time soon.


:iagree:
I tried to say something similar but couldn't find the right words to articulate it without sounding like a tool..... so I erased it.

I agree with you. Some of this is innate and therefore cannot be reasoned out of us.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Openminded said:


> I grew up in the era of "boys will be boys but girls will be pure". The double standard that exists today is nowhere near as severe as the one that once existed. But most males interested in a long-term relationship, and not just sex, are likely still going to judge a female by how many other males she's been with. That's why most females with a lot of partners usually are not out there bragging about their number like many males do.
> 
> Females (and I'm one) often have trouble understanding the territorial thinking of males toward females. If it's just for fun, it's one thing. But if it's serious, it's usually a different matter. When I was a girl the saying was "She's not someone you would bring home to meet your mom". I don't believe that type of thinking has changed too much for most males. And it's not going to change no matter how much most females think it's unfair. It's just how most males are wired. They usually don't want someone long-term that everyone else has had.
> 
> Females have the right to have as many partners as they wish. But they have to accept that they will be judged for it by many or even most. That's reality and it's not changing any time soon.


This same standard exists for the males as well. The girls always want the popular, player, bad-boy stereo type male to date and have fun with, but they are not the ones they want to settle down with, be responsible and raise a family with, nor bring home to meet the parents either.

The problem is that we want to live and act in a "Modern Family" world way while maintaining the standards and values of "Leave It To Beaver", and "Father Knows Best". It just can't work.

And the real reason that Miley Cyrus has gotten all of the bad publicity, is that for years she was the cute, smiley, tender, prim and proper Hannah Montana that all our girls idolized, looked up to, mimicked, and adored. She presented a good message and values for our daughters so we thought she was a good role model of what girls can do and should be doing. Now she is pushing the envelope and embracing her sexuality and wild side, but our kids have grown up idolizing her and we are afraid they are going to follow her lead and change as well to follow her lead, as kids are impressionable We have a hard time envisioning her as anything but little Hannah.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Machiavelli said:


> As Rick James put it:
> 
> She's a very kinky girl
> The kind you don't take home to mother


Even momma would have heard she's not a prize. Sometimes a female is out there that tough that older generations heard it in their grapevines.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> This same standard exists for the males as well. The girls always want the popular, player, bad-boy stereo type male to date and have fun with, but they are not the ones they want to settle down with, be responsible and raise a family with, nor bring home to meet the parents either.
> 
> The problem is that we want to live and act in a "Modern Family" world way while maintaining the standards and values of "Leave It To Beaver", and "Father Knows Best". It just can't work.
> 
> And the real reason that Miley Cyrus has gotten all of the bad publicity, is that for years she was the cute, smiley, tender, prim and proper Hannah Montana that all our girls idolized, looked up to, mimicked, and adored. She presented a good message and values for our daughters so we thought she was a good role model of what girls can do and should be doing. Now she is pushing the envelope and embracing her sexuality and wild side, but our kids have grown up idolizing her and we are afraid they are going to follow her lead and change as well to follow her lead, as kids are impressionable We have a hard time envisioning her as anything but little Hannah.


Miley Cyrus is being true to "drugs sex and rock and roll". Tack money on there too. It's the same religion most popular musicians ascribe to and even the rappers.

You gotta be smart enough to know most of them are not to be followed.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Machiavelli said:


> A girl doesn't even have to be a slvt to be slvt shamed. They just have to be perceived as a social threat. think of the mousy girl in junior high who suddenly develops a bombshell body.


Exactly, teenage girls with large breasts usually get hit with that.

Anyone read "Are you there God, It's Me Margaret" by Judy Blume.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

NextTimeAround said:


> Exactly, teenage girls with large breasts usually get hit with that.
> 
> Anyone read "Are you there God, It's Me Margaret" by Judy Blume.


ugh wth is up with that?? I saw that constantly in high school. The girls with larger breasts were ALWAYS assumed to be sl*ts. It made absolutely NO sense!


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

There was one very mature girl in junior high school whose maturity caused enormous hostility. She was bullied horribly and forced to quit school. She looked like a woman.

Another girl who developed breasts, blond very cute, was very careful to be one of the girls. She nearly drown in swim class with the teacher was absent and a crazy boy began molesting her. It drew in other boys trying to cop a feel. Could have killed her. PE teacher returned just in time.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

treyvion said:


> Even momma would have heard she's not a prize. Sometimes a female is out there that tough that older generations heard it in their grapevines.


The reason I didn't take them around Momma is that I just didn't want to hear it. What Momma don't know, won't hurt her. 

She even looked down her nose on first rate women, anyway. Including my wife.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

treyvion said:


> Miley Cyrus is being true to "drugs sex and rock and roll". Tack money on there too. It's the same religion most popular musicians ascribe to and even the rappers.
> 
> You gotta be smart enough to know most of them are not to be followed.


Speaking as an ex-musician, musicians are really dumb. Almost as dumb as actors.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

pidge70 said:


> I knew you were pretty! Now, stay away from my man.......:rofl:


Haha. Pidge, you have nothing to worry about. I have an aversion to married men and, well, to marriage. 

:rofl:

Plus, you're so awesome the hubs would be a fool to ever even think of replacing you. He'd never find a cooler chick. :smthumbup:


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> ugh wth is up with that?? I saw that constantly in high school. The girls with larger breasts were ALWAYS assumed to be sl*ts. It made absolutely NO sense!


It's not an any assumption they are slvts, it's simple character assassination to bring down perceived attraction. The girl next door was very skinny with an enormous natural rack about 7th grade. They had to pull her out of school over the slvt issue. It was pathetic.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Jellybeans said:


> And what 'place' might that be?


You did notice the quotation marks, right? I was being ironic.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Machiavelli said:


> Speaking as an ex-musician, musicians are really dumb. Almost as dumb as actors.


I'm saying you can't follow the lyrics or antics cause your life will be messed up.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Machiavelli said:


> It's not an any assumption they are slvts, it's simple character assassination to bring down perceived attraction. The girl next door was very skinny with an enormous natural rack about 7th grade. They had to pull her out of school over the slvt issue. It was pathetic.


Wow. Got called it enough that she may as well have been.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> You did notice the quotation marks, right? I was being ironic.


Yes I noticed which is why I quoted as you did.

You actually made my entire point.


----------



## warlock07 (Oct 28, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Nope. Apples and oranges. In those cases, men are painted as being sexually neglected.



This is not a competition.




Jellybeans said:


> *Maybe ti's just one of those things that if you aren't a woman, you will never really understand.
> *
> There is a thin line to walk as a woman a lot of time. Don't be too this, don't be too that.
> 
> ...



:scratchhead:

Don't turn this into gender war. You can turn around and use the bolded statement for men too. there are different challenges both the genders face. This is not a competition to see who the biggest victim is.


----------



## pidge70 (Jan 17, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Haha. Pidge, you have nothing to worry about. I have an aversion to married men and, well, to marriage.
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Plus, you're so awesome the hubs would be a fool to ever even think of replacing you. He'd never find a cooler chick. :smthumbup:


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> That is not rocket science. It's simply not something that you, as a man, will understand from the viewpoint of a woman and what it feels like for a woman. Because you are not a woman. (Unless I'm wrong about that).


Obviously this doesn't apply to all women getting it either and isn't a blanket true statement, as we have women posting in this thread that thought it differently than you.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

warlock07 said:


> This is not a competition.


Nobody said it was. 



warlock07 said:


> Don't turn this into gender war. You can turn around and use the bolded statement for men too. there are different challenges both the genders face. *This is not a competition to see who the biggest victim is*.


You mad? Nobody is talking about victims but you. Also, I'm not turning this into a "gender war." The thread topic relates directly to women and what that term means. It's a fact that there are things each gender experiences that are specific to that particular gender that the other will not fully understand or grasp because we were not born with the same inherent nature. So our life experiences are NOT the same. That is not rocket science. It's simply not something that you, as a man, will understand from a viewpoint of a woman and what it feels like for a woman. Because you are not a woman. (Unless I'm wrong about that).


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Obviously this doesn't apply to all women getting it either and isn't a blanket true statement, as we have women posting in this thread that thought it differently than you.


Pretty much everyone has said that it is a term mean to demean women. 

What I mean to say is that men cannot experience certain things as women do. Just as women can't experience certain things as men do.

Men do not get sl*tshamed. The entire point of that term is geared toward women. The thread question was asking what it meant.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> Men do not get sl*tshamed. The entire point of that term is geared toward women. The thread question was asking what it meant.


I completely disagree with this. Look at the gay community and see if this doesn't happen (I know it does as I saw it first hand while in school and the workplace). When gay males are considered overly promiscuous they tend to call each other slvt, b!tch, and wh0re just like women get called. It is something feminine and they relate to it better, but it is not just something isolated to the women of the species. Welcome to the modern age!


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> I completely disagree with this.


Ok.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> Ok.


No comment about the gay community and how they slvt-slam?? Like how you chose what part to quote and cut out the supporting information to back my statement.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

No. Because I am speaking about this term as it relates to women in the female experience.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> No. Because I am speaking about this term as it relates to women in the female experience.


But earlier you stated that it *ONLY* applied to women, and men would never understand as it didn't apply to them so it had to be discussed as such. I have shown that it can and does apply to men as well, so men can feel the pain just as much. Do you not agree.


----------



## moxy (Apr 2, 2012)

Here is something worth reading on the subject

http://playboysfw.kinja.com/bros-this-is-how-your-****-shaming-is-backfiring-a-se-1563665480

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/problem-****-shaming-jvinc/

There is too much misogyny on this thread for my taste. 

Sex is awesome. Everyone should have it. Responsibly. 

Cheating is a different moral issue altogether. Its about betrayal, rather than choice or freedom.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

I think the whole question is apples to oranges. Let me explain. 

A man walks in a bar. A woman walks in at the same time. They are not together. They both raise their hands and say "anyone want to go home with me and have sex?" Who's leaving alone and who's taking their pick of 10 people to go home with?

That's why women are judged more for their sexual decisions. 

No matter how much you don't like nature you can't change it. Even the laws are written for the woman to say no. That's why women are special.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

A man walks in a bar...wait, what was the joke? snicker...That was the first thing I thought when I read the first sentence. I thought surely I would be laughing at the end of that. Figures. That's how it works for me. 

ETA: I know. And don't call me shirley(surely).


----------

