What makes you a slag
Scroll to see replies
It's a subjective term, as is evident in this thread with people giving all sorts of weird definitions of what qualifies as a slag. People have their own ideas of what a slag is and this is, in my opinion, fine.
My personal opinion is it's no more correct to say "a slag is this and does this, this and this" as it is to say "it's just a nothing word used by sexually frustrated guys with small cocks who can't get sex because they're losers" or words to that effect. If you are against the word, then follow that with a statement about someone's sex life (or lack of) that has pejorative intent, you are hammering a rusty nail into your own argument.
My personal opinion is it's no more correct to say "a slag is this and does this, this and this" as it is to say "it's just a nothing word used by sexually frustrated guys with small cocks who can't get sex because they're losers" or words to that effect. If you are against the word, then follow that with a statement about someone's sex life (or lack of) that has pejorative intent, you are hammering a rusty nail into your own argument.
If you think about the origins of the term you can liken the act of sex to the smelting process.
The metallic ore is the useful bit (the object of the process i.e. having the sex) but once the process is complete the slag product is not useful.
So a slag is someone who allows themselves to be used for sex and regrets it but still allows it to happen time and again (being the waste product in the process).
The metallic ore is the useful bit (the object of the process i.e. having the sex) but once the process is complete the slag product is not useful.
So a slag is someone who allows themselves to be used for sex and regrets it but still allows it to happen time and again (being the waste product in the process).
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Wilfred Little
It's a subjective term, as is evident in this thread with people giving all sorts of weird definitions of what qualifies as a slag. People have their own ideas of what a slag is and this is, in my opinion, fine.
My personal opinion is it's no more correct to say "a slag is this and does this, this and this" as it is to say "it's just a nothing word used by sexually frustrated guys with small cocks who can't get sex because they're losers" or words to that effect. If you are against the word, then follow that with a statement about someone's sex life (or lack of) that has pejorative intent, you are hammering a rusty nail into your own argument.
My personal opinion is it's no more correct to say "a slag is this and does this, this and this" as it is to say "it's just a nothing word used by sexually frustrated guys with small cocks who can't get sex because they're losers" or words to that effect. If you are against the word, then follow that with a statement about someone's sex life (or lack of) that has pejorative intent, you are hammering a rusty nail into your own argument.
I see no meaningful parallel between labelling someone a slag because they're sexually promiscuous (which has reason) and speculating that people who use this word are sexually frustrated. The former is more 'correct' than the latter in that it's subjective judgement based in reason; the latter in prejudice/speculation
Although I agree people who say this are effectively just mirroring their opponents' argument in a sense
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Tuerin
I see no meaningful parallel between labelling someone a slag because they're sexually promiscuous (which has reason) and speculating that people who use this word are sexually frustrated. The former is more 'correct' than the former in that it's subjective judgement is based in reason the latter in prejudice/speculation
Although I agree people who say this are effectively just mirroring their opponents' argument
Although I agree people who say this are effectively just mirroring their opponents' argument
Alright fair enough, bad example. Cut me some slack mate it's late and I'm tired
Although what you said is basically what I'm saying.
Original post by Tuerin
I and many others apply it to members of both sex.
'Isn't wrong on any level'. Completely subjective.
'They shouldn't be used'. Says who? Because you think they're offensive they should be erased from English vocabulary?
'Isn't wrong on any level'. Completely subjective.
'They shouldn't be used'. Says who? Because you think they're offensive they should be erased from English vocabulary?
No, you don't. Not in the serious manner in which people use it to insult girls. A guy called a 'slag' would be first bemused and second proud.
Empty, boring argument. I'm making a truth-claim that promiscuity is not wrong. You may agree or disagree; but dwelling on the truism that it cannot be scientifically proven gets us nowhere. I wasn't making the claim that it could.
Well, yes, basically. I think the words should be avoided because they're offensive. When they're used, in certain settings, as a joke, for instance, I don't really care, but it would be a great thing generally is society stopped reserving a certain scornful tone, which includes the use of the words 'slut' and 'slag', for women who enjoy casual sex.
Original post by SillyMilly
I define a slag, as a woman (or man) who sleeps with somebody who they know is in a relationship. That to me is a slag, its not how many people or what youve done but by purposefully sleeping with somebody elses partner that is slaggy. So i'll probbaly be negged but I think anybody who knowingly gets involved with a taken person is a slag
Can a man be a slag then?
Original post by llessur123
Such a disgusting word to use to describe someone. Also it's quite painful to see the **** "educated" people come out with in threads like this. People can do whatever they want with their genitals, and this shouldn't be a reason for people to jump on their moral high horse and degrade others.
If you don't want to involve yourself in the activities described here, fine. Just don't talk about others as if their lower than dogs because they do, it's very unbecoming.
If you don't want to involve yourself in the activities described here, fine. Just don't talk about others as if their lower than dogs because they do, it's very unbecoming.
Oh, please. I'm sick of the same old tired excuse of "people can do what they want!" for promiscuity. Whoring yourself out constantly isn't "being free and doing what you like", it's having no self-restraint and no class. Sleeping with tonnes of people is an extremely unattractive trait for either gender, and the fact we daren't say anything about it lest WE BE SLUT SHAMIN' is ridiculous. It's the SJW warriors gone nuts and trying to justify what they do.
I'm not going to suddenly point at someone and yell SLAG if they mention over a certain number, but don't expect me to have much respect for them or regard them the same as I would with someone who has a little more modesty and doesn't go "WANT SEX NEED SEX THIS PERSON HERE WILL DO."
"Lower than dogs", how silly. I mean, it's not like dogs go around recklessly humping everything because they want to and have no idea of self-restraint or decency, and instead just give in to their baser instincts.
Ah, wait...
Original post by TimmonaPortella
No, you don't. Not in the serious manner in which people use it to insult girls. A guy called a 'slag' would be first bemused and second proud.
Yeah, I do, and so do many others. Flick through the thread.
What an individual guy would make of being called a slag has no bearing on the attitudes of those that would call them that, which is what we're discussing. However, it's pretty obvious every guy would react differently.
Empty, boring argument. I'm making a truth-claim that promiscuity is not wrong. You may agree or disagree; but dwelling on the truism that it cannot be scientifically proven gets us nowhere. I wasn't making the claim that it could.
I said nothing about scientific proof, I was querying the moral absolutism your phrasing implied in 'It isn't wrong on any level'. I was disagreeing not with your subjective opinion, because it wasn't presented as one, but the apparent belief that this is an absolute truth.
Well, yes, basically. I think the words should be avoided because they're offensive. When they're used, in certain settings, as a joke, for instance, I don't really care, but it would be a great thing generally is society stopped reserving a certain scornful tone, which includes the use of the words 'slut' and 'slag', for women who enjoy casual sex.
Again, I reject the idea that the term is isolated to women. Tone is completely unquantifiable and entirely anecdotal, not very worthy of inclusion in an argument. I could equally claim that the word was mostly used with a tone that connoted respect for the many sexual conquests of the subject, male or female.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Tuerin
I said nothing about scientific proof, I was querying the moral absolutism your phrasing implied in 'It isn't wrong on any level'. I was disagreeing not with your subjective opinion, because it wasn't presented as one, but the apparent belief that this is an absolute truth.
I said nothing about scientific proof, I was querying the moral absolutism your phrasing implied in 'It isn't wrong on any level'. I was disagreeing not with your subjective opinion, because it wasn't presented as one, but the apparent belief that this is an absolute truth.
I think it's true that it isn't wrong on any level. This is just semantics over 'truth' really, though.
As for the rest, I can't really demonstrate anything that I'm saying. My experience is that 'slut' and 'slag' are associated with an attitude, or at least come with an implication, that having lots of sex is bad when you're female but not otherwise. If your experience has not been that, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
These debates always make me question why people are so involved in the sex lives of others to be offended or off-put by what they get up to in the bedroom.
Personally, I don't do the casual sex thing. I feel uncomfortable with that level of intimacy with people I don't know that well, but then I don't really see any problem with people who do have casual sex. If you believe it is immoral to sleep with a vast number of people, then fair enough, don't sleep with a vast number of people, but to judge others for it seems strange. Unless you feel pain with every penetration of an unwed vagina, like a puritanical version of Harry Potter's burning scar, then I don't see how it personally effects you enough to care.
It is usually leveled at women over men, and that's probably because of societal reasons. The religious idea of women's worth being determined by their sexuality, and the idea of a woman either being pure or a whore that dates back to the days when a wife was something to be traded for two goats and a handful of olives. Whatever. People like sticking to old ideas. It's hard to shake off long held societal ideas.
There's the self respect argument, that people who have lots of sex don't respect themselves because if you were doing it, you would lose your self-respect, but if you think about it, the shame and guilt associated with sex is a societal construct. You don't get confetti and a banner straight from heaven if you have your first time on your wedding day, and the devil doesn't claim a kitten for every pair of teenagers having clumsy drunk sex on a pile of coats. If you don't want to do it, don't, and don't go throwing dirty words about for the ones that do. They just have a different moral code to you, and chances are the only people it could possibly hurt are consenting.
There's the STD argument, that people who are having casual sex are causing everyone to die horrible deaths from horrible diseases, and while STDs are a problem, they aren't if you're careful (unless you're particularly unlucky). You can sleep with two people in your lifetime and spread some horrible disease to lover #2, or you can sleep with two hundred and never contract a thing. Being unsafe is ill-judged, but if that's what they want to do, and both parties are comfortable with forgoing precautions, then that is their choice and they'll have to deal with the possible consequences. I don't see how a moral judgment can be made over that really. If you sleep with a girl and she gives you herpes, then you accuse her of being a 'slag' then surely you're as much of a 'slag' as she is for having unprotected sex with her?
Then there's the 'sleeping with another woman's man' argument, and I can see where morality comes in here, but so often you see women blaming other women for their boyfriends and husbands straying. The woman isn't the one with the responsibility, unless she's your best friend or something, the man is the one with the responsibility to you. For all you know, the woman doesn't know that she's with a married man, or she's told you're splitting up, or you're evil. The man is the one who knows the conditions of the relationship. Isn't blaming some stranger for the cruelty of your boyfriend a sign of low self-respect when you should be telling him where to go, and thanking the girl for bringing to your attention that he is an absolute bellend?
That's just my opinion. You can reverse the roles, where the man is the 'slag', or where both people involved are men, women, toasters, whatever, but the message stays the same. Let other people live their lives on their own terms when it's not hurting anybody, and live yours on yours.
Personally, I don't do the casual sex thing. I feel uncomfortable with that level of intimacy with people I don't know that well, but then I don't really see any problem with people who do have casual sex. If you believe it is immoral to sleep with a vast number of people, then fair enough, don't sleep with a vast number of people, but to judge others for it seems strange. Unless you feel pain with every penetration of an unwed vagina, like a puritanical version of Harry Potter's burning scar, then I don't see how it personally effects you enough to care.
It is usually leveled at women over men, and that's probably because of societal reasons. The religious idea of women's worth being determined by their sexuality, and the idea of a woman either being pure or a whore that dates back to the days when a wife was something to be traded for two goats and a handful of olives. Whatever. People like sticking to old ideas. It's hard to shake off long held societal ideas.
There's the self respect argument, that people who have lots of sex don't respect themselves because if you were doing it, you would lose your self-respect, but if you think about it, the shame and guilt associated with sex is a societal construct. You don't get confetti and a banner straight from heaven if you have your first time on your wedding day, and the devil doesn't claim a kitten for every pair of teenagers having clumsy drunk sex on a pile of coats. If you don't want to do it, don't, and don't go throwing dirty words about for the ones that do. They just have a different moral code to you, and chances are the only people it could possibly hurt are consenting.
There's the STD argument, that people who are having casual sex are causing everyone to die horrible deaths from horrible diseases, and while STDs are a problem, they aren't if you're careful (unless you're particularly unlucky). You can sleep with two people in your lifetime and spread some horrible disease to lover #2, or you can sleep with two hundred and never contract a thing. Being unsafe is ill-judged, but if that's what they want to do, and both parties are comfortable with forgoing precautions, then that is their choice and they'll have to deal with the possible consequences. I don't see how a moral judgment can be made over that really. If you sleep with a girl and she gives you herpes, then you accuse her of being a 'slag' then surely you're as much of a 'slag' as she is for having unprotected sex with her?
Then there's the 'sleeping with another woman's man' argument, and I can see where morality comes in here, but so often you see women blaming other women for their boyfriends and husbands straying. The woman isn't the one with the responsibility, unless she's your best friend or something, the man is the one with the responsibility to you. For all you know, the woman doesn't know that she's with a married man, or she's told you're splitting up, or you're evil. The man is the one who knows the conditions of the relationship. Isn't blaming some stranger for the cruelty of your boyfriend a sign of low self-respect when you should be telling him where to go, and thanking the girl for bringing to your attention that he is an absolute bellend?
That's just my opinion. You can reverse the roles, where the man is the 'slag', or where both people involved are men, women, toasters, whatever, but the message stays the same. Let other people live their lives on their own terms when it's not hurting anybody, and live yours on yours.
(edited 11 years ago)
My personal take on the word is a woman that sleeps around a lot.
But as some others have said, definitions of the word vary from person to person.
But as some others have said, definitions of the word vary from person to person.
when it hurts when you hear it.
Original post by consumed by stuff
when it hurts when you hear it.
Original post by yaboy
Can a man be a slag then?
I think so, its just that men seem to be able to get away with doing stuff and being called a lad whereas a women is a slag whereas in the situation of cheating there both as bad
Original post by SillyMilly
I define a slag, as a woman (or man) who sleeps with somebody who they know is in a relationship. That to me is a slag, its not how many people or what youve done but by purposefully sleeping with somebody elses partner that is slaggy. So i'll probbaly be negged but I think anybody who knowingly gets involved with a taken person is a slag
I find it intersting how im negged but nobody has stated as to why
Original post by Anonymous
ok, i want to know the answer to this question. I pulled 4 different guys on friday night and my only defence is that i was really drunk and i'm really affectionate when i'm drunk but my flatmate says i'm on my way to being a slut which tbh i think is unfair :/ i mean kissing is just fun and i didn't sleep with any of them
Don't confuse a slag with a slut.
Slag = A girl who sleeps around too much.
Slut = A girl who does anything in the bedroom.
I personally don't see a girl being adventurous in the bedroom as a negative thing, as I'm sure many of the males here would agree.
Original post by WoodyMKC
Don't confuse a slag with a slut.
Slag = A girl who sleeps around too much.
Slut = A girl who does anything in the bedroom.
I personally don't see a girl being adventurous in the bedroom as a negative thing, as I'm sure many of the males here would agree.
Slag = A girl who sleeps around too much.
Slut = A girl who does anything in the bedroom.
I personally don't see a girl being adventurous in the bedroom as a negative thing, as I'm sure many of the males here would agree.
i didn't sleep with any of them
Original post by IlexBlue
Oh, please. I'm sick of the same old tired excuse of "people can do what they want!" for promiscuity. Whoring yourself out constantly isn't "being free and doing what you like", it's having no self-restraint and no class. Sleeping with tonnes of people is an extremely unattractive trait for either gender, and the fact we daren't say anything about it lest WE BE SLUT SHAMIN' is ridiculous. It's the SJW warriors gone nuts and trying to justify what they do.
I'm not going to suddenly point at someone and yell SLAG if they mention over a certain number, but don't expect me to have much respect for them or regard them the same as I would with someone who has a little more modesty and doesn't go "WANT SEX NEED SEX THIS PERSON HERE WILL DO."
"Lower than dogs", how silly. I mean, it's not like dogs go around recklessly humping everything because they want to and have no idea of self-restraint or decency, and instead just give in to their baser instincts.
Ah, wait...
I'm not going to suddenly point at someone and yell SLAG if they mention over a certain number, but don't expect me to have much respect for them or regard them the same as I would with someone who has a little more modesty and doesn't go "WANT SEX NEED SEX THIS PERSON HERE WILL DO."
"Lower than dogs", how silly. I mean, it's not like dogs go around recklessly humping everything because they want to and have no idea of self-restraint or decency, and instead just give in to their baser instincts.
Ah, wait...
The thing is, people can do what they want. If someone is promiscuous does it affect you in any way? No. So why care? Why put others down for something that has nothing to do with you?
I feel sorry for people like you, so much negativity. It must be hard to carry that everywhere with you. You sound very angry and bitter. I'm not even going to try to debate this because we have two polar points of view and from experience there is no way to change that sort of attitude. I think people can do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others, and you do not. That is all.
OP is self-conscious
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- My mum keeps calling me a slut!
- Teacher=Epic fail. Plain form and present form help? Exam!
- Awful first year experience and horrible flatmates!
- Is the University of Westminster any good?
- Where are the "dodgy" parts of Preston?
- Funniest thing you've ever got detention for?
- How to revise A level physics
- Need help with starting a essay for uni
- A Level Mathematics Improvement tips.
- I don't know what to do about my future...
- How to look at peoples eyes
- best way to learn quotes and make points in petal paragraphs
- Is a degree in Management Information Systems worth it?
- A-level biology (AQA)
- revison
- best study methods?
- A level physics advice- how to stop failing
- Failing biology A-level
- English literature revision
- Social anxiety and starting 6th form
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
I want to quit physio, maybe to start a career in ITLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 6 minutes ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 7 minutes ago
Do you guys reckon I could get an offer for Warwick PPE?Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Is anyone going to graphic design in 2024 in university of Northampton?Last reply 17 minutes ago
Possibilities of making it into the Undergrad Economics?Last reply 19 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 19 minutes ago
Fujitsu Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 19 minutes ago
emmanuella's study discussions #1: motivation and disciplineLast reply 38 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
851
Last reply 40 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choice
