What is so wrong in today's society with being a 'slut'?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by BitWindy
Have you no eyes? 
Don't waste our time, either answer the question or stop spamming the thread.
Original post by cole-slaw
Don't waste our time, either answer the question or stop spamming the thread.
Don't ask a pointless question if you don't want to 'spam' the thread.
The key's male and the lock's female.
This doesn't change anything. The analogy could still be referring to other differences. I didn't use it, so I don't claim to know.
But I have sufficient imagination to see that it could mean that men are seen as treating sex as a prize to be won, whilst women treat it as something to be guarded. I'm not claiming this is true, though.
I do believe it's mainly other women who slut shame, because their main form of currency for an easy life (sex) is being devalued by others.
Also, I believe that the threat of spreading STIs is a factor with this too.
You usually find among the more.older, mature, intellectual folk that slut shaming doesn't really exist. However, if one doesn't take the right precautions with regards to sexual health or is hurting people in the meantime then slut shaming is deserved.
Also, I believe that the threat of spreading STIs is a factor with this too.
You usually find among the more.older, mature, intellectual folk that slut shaming doesn't really exist. However, if one doesn't take the right precautions with regards to sexual health or is hurting people in the meantime then slut shaming is deserved.
Original post by BitWindy
The key's male and the lock's female.
.
The key's male and the lock's female.
.
Why? Why not the other way around?
Original post by cole-slaw
Why? Why not the other way around?
Because it clearly isn't being used in that way.
The question is (roughly) "Why do boys get away with being promiscuous when girls don't?"
The "a key that opens many locks is a master key" analogy is used in response to this.
Feel free to invent your own analogy or bend the current one to meet your liking.
Original post by BitWindy
Because it clearly isn't being used in that way.
The question is (roughly) "Why do boys get away with being promiscuous when girls don't?"
The "a key that opens many locks is a master key" analogy is used in response to this.
Feel free to invent your own analogy or bend the current one to meet your liking.
The question is (roughly) "Why do boys get away with being promiscuous when girls don't?"
The "a key that opens many locks is a master key" analogy is used in response to this.
Feel free to invent your own analogy or bend the current one to meet your liking.
My point is that it fails as an analogy. It doesn't work. Its stupid. Topology is not a logical basis for morality.
You clearly don't understand how analogies should work in the first place, so it is pointless discussing this with you.
Original post by cole-slaw
Topology is not a logical basis for morality.
Well, I offered another explanation of the analogy, but okay.
Still, physiology could explain differences between men and women. Whether you think it's justified or not is another thing.
Original post by cole-slaw
You clearly don't understand how analogies should work in the first place, so it is pointless discussing this with you..
I understand analogies just fine, thank you.
Original post by BitWindy
Well, I offered another explanation of the analogy, but okay.
Still, physiology could explain differences between men and women. Whether you think it's justified or not is another thing.
I understand analogies just fine, thank you.
Still, physiology could explain differences between men and women. Whether you think it's justified or not is another thing.
I understand analogies just fine, thank you.
In what other sense could a man be analogous to a key and a woman analogous to a lock other than through topological similarity? Make a logical suggestion.
Original post by cole-slaw
In what other sense could a man be analogous to a key and a woman analogous to a lock other than through topological similarity? Make a logical suggestion.
We've already been through this.
Did you just forget?
You play football for a living you are a footballer . If you are a slut you are a slut. And there is everything wrong with it. Value your vagina
Original post by BitWindy
We've already been through this.
Did you just forget?
Did you just forget?
Yes you said
the analogy could refer to things beyond the physiological differences between men and women, nurtured or otherwise.
But you didn't say what that might be.
You then suggested:
I have sufficient imagination to see that it could mean that men are seen as treating sex as a prize to be won, whilst women treat it as something to be guarded
But that's not an analogy, its a circular argument based on mothing more than supposition. You're basically saying "men are like keys because they are like keys."
So ultimately the answer is, you don't know, there isn't one, you don't really understand the question if you're honest, you're apparently not even sure what "analogous" means.
Probably because this part:
Is much more difficult than this part:
For the record, before the feminazis arrive, I dislike sleeping around in general and I'm not interested in debating this.
Still, live and let live.
Original post by emgraceb2804
getting the girl to be such a slut for him
Is much more difficult than this part:
Original post by emgraceb2804
be such a slut for him
For the record, before the feminazis arrive, I dislike sleeping around in general and I'm not interested in debating this.
Still, live and let live.
(edited 9 years ago)
The same way the double standard of men being virgins is laughed at while women being virgins is completely fine. Or, women rejecting sex is fine, but if men reject women for sex, they're suddenly a 'faggot' or just plain weird for NOT wanting to sleep with anything that moves.
The perception in society is that women own sex. Men seek sex. Therefore if men OR women deviate from these set norms then they are weird and do not follow social protocol. They must be ridiculed as a result. This is a way to make them fall back in line.
The perception in society is that women own sex. Men seek sex. Therefore if men OR women deviate from these set norms then they are weird and do not follow social protocol. They must be ridiculed as a result. This is a way to make them fall back in line.
Original post by cole-slaw
Yes you said
But that's not an analogy
But that's not an analogy
An analogy serves the purpose of comparing two things.
It's an analogy.
It follows from something along the lines of:
"A penis is to vaginas as a key is to locks"
Original post by BitWindy
An analogy serves the purpose of comparing two things.
It's an analogy.
It follows from something along the lines of:
"A penis is to vaginas as a key is to locks"
It's an analogy.
It follows from something along the lines of:
"A penis is to vaginas as a key is to locks"
Nope, 100% wrong. Completely hopelessly wrong. That is a comparison. An analogy is something different.
An analogy is a tool used to show that two things are related in some non-obvious way by (1) showing that they are related in some more obvious way to a different set of circumstances, and then (2) demonstrating that the obvious connection implies the non-obvious one.
In this case, the non-obvious connection is that it is valuable for men to sleep around but not valuable for women. The aim of the analogy is to "prove" this by using the example of locks and keys.
The line of reasoning then proceeds:
Men are like keys because they have sticky out bits
Women are like locks because they have holes
The connection is based around topology.
For the specific example of a lock and a key, a key that services many locks is valuable, whereas a lock that services many keys is not.
Therefore we can conclude that because men are like keys, they must be valuable when they sleep around, whereas the opposite applies to women.
However you will have spotted that we have missed out stage 2. There is no logical reason to suppose that topology is in any way correlated with the value of ubiquity. Hence the analogy fails.
I'm sorry to have had to explain this in detail, I did not suspect that there would be someone old enough to use TSR who did not already understand how analogies worked. I guess secondary education isn't what it used to be.
Original post by cole-slaw
In what other sense could a man be analogous to a key and a woman analogous to a lock other than through topological similarity? Make a logical suggestion.
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, it is advantageous for men to have sex with as many women as possible, disperse their seed as far and wide as possible, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing a lot of offspring. The more attempts at procreation they have (particularly, but not exclusively with females displaying signs of high fertility), the more healthy offspring they are likely to produce. It is also advantageous for them to value women who are not sexually promiscuous, because otherwise they are competing with many other males in the race to be the one who actually gets her pregnant.
On the other hand, for women it is not particularly advantageous to have sex with as many different men as possible. Unlike a man who can theoretically have as many women as he wants carrying his children all at once, a woman only has one uterus, with a very limited capacity for the number of different men's children it can house. Unlike men, who produce millions of sperm every day, even into their old age, a woman's reproductive system is very limited in the number of children it can produce, and it stops working around the age of 40-50. It is therefore more advantageous for them to value virile men who are likely to produce the most healthy offspring, and to restrict their sexual activity to select men of the "highest quality" they can get, so as to give their few attempts at procreation the highest chances of being successful, rather than waste them on any old person. It's also advantageous with them to be in a relationship with a male who looks like he's going to stay around and help provide for, and protect her offspring, giving it the highest chance of survival.
The "key and the lock" analogy does not need to be solely about the physical resemblance to anybody's anatomy, which is purely coincidental. You could just as easily think of it as a combination safe, and the code used to open it. Or an exclusive club with a guest list, and a swarm of people trying to get in, most of whose names are not on the list.
The point of the analogy is that, the lock is protecting something rare or valuable from being accessed by anyone other than a select few; just as women are instinctively predisposed to do, with their few chances at procreation. There's supposed to be a filtering mechanism in place to make sure only the "right" people get through. But it's not a great filtering mechanism if it can be bypassed by just anybody. Whereas the purpose of a key is to allow the holder to gain access to these rare and valuable things. The most useful key is the one that opens the lock that is guarding the most valuable stuff. But on top of that, the key is even more useful if it is able to open more locks than just that; just as men are predisposed to want to mate with, not only the highest quality females, but also a high quantity of females.
These predispositions carry over into society today, where men are thought to be "successful" in having sex with many women, because it's a sign of being a "high quality" male that so many women are willing to have sex with him, and consider him adequate enough to spend one of their precious attempts at procreation on him. He's also perceived to have got something that he wanted, but was difficult to achieve.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, it is advantageous for men to have sex with as many women as possible, disperse their seed as far and wide as possible, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing a lot of offspring. The more attempts at procreation they have (particularly, but not exclusively with females displaying signs of high fertility), the more healthy offspring they are likely to produce. It is also advantageous for them to value women who are not sexually promiscuous, because otherwise they are competing with many other males in the race to be the one who actually gets her pregnant.
On the other hand, for women it is not particularly advantageous to have sex with as many different men as possible. Unlike a man who can theoretically have as many women as he wants carrying his children all at once, a woman only has one uterus, with a very limited capacity for the number of different men's children it can house. Unlike men, who produce millions of sperm every day, even into their old age, a woman's reproductive system is very limited in the number of children it can produce, and it stops working around the age of 40-50. It is therefore more advantageous for them to value virile men who are likely to produce the most healthy offspring, and to restrict their sexual activity to select men of the "highest quality" they can get, so as to give their few attempts at procreation the highest chances of being successful, rather than waste them on any old person. It's also advantageous with them to be in a relationship with a male who looks like he's going to stay around and help provide for, and protect her offspring, giving it the highest chance of survival.
The "key and the lock" analogy does not need to be solely about the physical resemblance to anybody's anatomy, which is purely coincidental. You could just as easily think of it as a combination safe, and the code used to open it. Or an exclusive club with a guest list, and a swarm of people trying to get in, most of whose names are not on the list.
The point of the analogy is that, the lock is protecting something rare or valuable from being accessed by anyone other than a select few; just as women are instinctively predisposed to do, with their few chances at procreation. There's supposed to be a filtering mechanism in place to make sure only the "right" people get through. But it's not a great filtering mechanism if it can be bypassed by just anybody. Whereas the purpose of a key is to allow the holder to gain access to these rare and valuable things. The most useful key is the one that opens the lock that is guarding the most valuable stuff. But on top of that, the key is even more useful if it is able to open more locks than just that; just as men are predisposed to want to mate with, not only the highest quality females, but also a high quantity of females.
These predispositions carry over into society today, where men are thought to be "successful" in having sex with many women, because it's a sign of being a "high quality" male that so many women are willing to have sex with him, and consider him adequate enough to spend one of their precious attempts at procreation on him. He's also perceived to have got something that he wanted, but was difficult to achieve.
On the other hand, women who are promiscuous are seen as "unsuccessful". It is assumed that they want to get a man's commitment, but are unable to do so, and therefore end up with different partners all the time, which is a sign of a "low quality" woman. The trait of having had multiple sexual partners is also less valued by their potential suitors.
On the other hand, for women it is not particularly advantageous to have sex with as many different men as possible. Unlike a man who can theoretically have as many women as he wants carrying his children all at once, a woman only has one uterus, with a very limited capacity for the number of different men's children it can house. Unlike men, who produce millions of sperm every day, even into their old age, a woman's reproductive system is very limited in the number of children it can produce, and it stops working around the age of 40-50. It is therefore more advantageous for them to value virile men who are likely to produce the most healthy offspring, and to restrict their sexual activity to select men of the "highest quality" they can get, so as to give their few attempts at procreation the highest chances of being successful, rather than waste them on any old person. It's also advantageous with them to be in a relationship with a male who looks like he's going to stay around and help provide for, and protect her offspring, giving it the highest chance of survival.
The "key and the lock" analogy does not need to be solely about the physical resemblance to anybody's anatomy, which is purely coincidental. You could just as easily think of it as a combination safe, and the code used to open it. Or an exclusive club with a guest list, and a swarm of people trying to get in, most of whose names are not on the list.
The point of the analogy is that, the lock is protecting something rare or valuable from being accessed by anyone other than a select few; just as women are instinctively predisposed to do, with their few chances at procreation. There's supposed to be a filtering mechanism in place to make sure only the "right" people get through. But it's not a great filtering mechanism if it can be bypassed by just anybody. Whereas the purpose of a key is to allow the holder to gain access to these rare and valuable things. The most useful key is the one that opens the lock that is guarding the most valuable stuff. But on top of that, the key is even more useful if it is able to open more locks than just that; just as men are predisposed to want to mate with, not only the highest quality females, but also a high quantity of females.
These predispositions carry over into society today, where men are thought to be "successful" in having sex with many women, because it's a sign of being a "high quality" male that so many women are willing to have sex with him, and consider him adequate enough to spend one of their precious attempts at procreation on him. He's also perceived to have got something that he wanted, but was difficult to achieve.
On the other hand, women who are promiscuous are seen as "unsuccessful". It is assumed that they want to get a man's commitment, but are unable to do so, and therefore end up with different partners all the time, which is a sign of a "low quality" woman. The trait of having had multiple sexual partners is also less valued by their potential suitors.
bull****, bull****, bull****. Every single sentence is bull****.
stop attempting to portray your ugly personal prejudices as if they are somehow scientific facts.
I've called you out on this several times before yet you continue to spout this hatemongering nonsense.
Original post by cole-slaw
bull****, bull****, bull****. Every single sentence is bull****.
stop attempting to portray your ugly personal prejudices as if they are somehow scientific facts.
I've called you out on this several times before yet you continue to spout this hatemongering nonsense.
stop attempting to portray your ugly personal prejudices as if they are somehow scientific facts.
I've called you out on this several times before yet you continue to spout this hatemongering nonsense.
You seem awfully defensive of sluts-in this thread and many others. Is there eeeerm something in it for you to be pro-slut? Do you have any kind of bias that leads you to be so emotionally invested in promoting/defending sluts?
Original post by P357
You seem awfully defensive of sluts-in this thread and many others. Is there eeeerm something in it for you to be pro-slut? Do you have any kind of bias that leads you to be so emotionally invested in promoting/defending sluts?
yes, its called not being a misogynist ****.
I also don't like seeing people lie and misrepresent the facts to attempt to ostracise and denigrate other people's decisions.
and please don't use the word "slut", its deeply offensive.
Original post by cole-slaw
yes, its called not being a misogynist ****.
I also don't like seeing people lie and misrepresent the facts to attempt to ostracise and denigrate other people's decisions.
and please don't use the word "slut", its deeply offensive.
I also don't like seeing people lie and misrepresent the facts to attempt to ostracise and denigrate other people's decisions.
and please don't use the word "slut", its deeply offensive.
Is this really about a moral justice campaign? Don't get me wrong i'm not arguing about the validity of you or anyone holding the opinion you hold but you just seem awfully invested in this.What I'm trying to say is,people rarely get so passionate about a cause that doesn't affect them directly(if you will) so eeerm I was wondering ...this stance you hold, it wouldn't be because you yourself are turned on by eeer "females with questionable morals" would it?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
