What makes you a slag

I actually LMAOed.

'Slag' is word someone made up in order to oppress women and prevent them from deciding for themselves who and how many men/women they can sleep with and how they choose to 'flaunt' their sexuality. In reality a women's sexuality should be no one else's concern but her own.

In my opinion a 'slag' is someone who sleeps around specifically without PROTECTION! Catches STI's or gets pregnant. I have enjoyed a healthy six life with numerous men, have ALWAYS made sure a condom is in use and just for extra security on the pill. Be safe!

People can do whatever they want with their genitals.

Anyone whose sex life deliberately harms someone else is pretty low. That means cheating on a partner, lying about protection, having sex when you know you may have an STI, things like that.

I'd rather call a person selfish in those situations though, rather than slag.

I think Jimmy Savile proved quite conclusively that this is not the case.

1. You would be surprised at how much social animals conform to the group. Humans are no exception.

2. Then your definition is unique to you. See: pejorative slang term, primarily used in United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Australia, to describe women who often engage in casual sex and promiscuous behaviour. There does not seem to be any equivalent for men, by the way.

3. Well, if she wants casual sex with a man, there is no problem as long as he wants casual sex with her as well. Your "I do not approve personally" is highly patronising especially when that relationship does not concern you.

4. Well, sex with another person does affect (as in involving) someone else: that "another person".

6. LOL Were you talking about agreeing or disagreeing with someone else harmless activities? You have that freedom but it is highly patronising to even consider the idea of agreeing with someone else's harmless activities especially when they do not involve you.

9. First, social conventions regulating sexual activities of individuals in social animals have existed long before human existed. A convention that regulates an activity does in fact control that activity. Social conventions keep us inside a set of behaviours that are considered beneficial for that particular society. Do you think serious bodily harm would be allowed in a democratic society? No, because it is no beneficial for that society. Do you think serious bodily harm would be allowed in a society whose justice system is based on retributive justice (ie Code of Hammurabi)? Yes, because if retributive justice is accepted then body harm is the logical reaction to someone inflicting that harm upon me.

Second, by regulating casual sex and promiscuous behaviour in individuals (by the use of social stigma), the sexual activities of individuals are indeed controlled to a great extent. This control is tacit and assumed rather than explicit and a result of rational debate.

To degrade is to treat or regard someone with contempt or disrespect, so yes, you can degrade another person. You're deluding yourself if you believe that the opinions of others don't matter to some extent. It doesn't necessarily have to deeply affect someone to be deemed wrong.

Stop being such a victim. It's applied to both genders and people have every right to judge someone's sexual behaviour if they want to.

Sleeping with alot of guys does not make you a slag! Just means you're not afraid to have a good time. Cheating in an 'exclusive' relationship = slaaag!