Free Love = Slut?

Is someone a slut because of how many people they have sex with, or because they take sex for granted? Or do you consider "slut" a male-dominant term, since it is only really used to describe a female (in a negative way) while males who are very sexual are commended for what would be considered slutty for a woman to do?

I was having a conversation about this with a girl in my science class today (a girl who just so happens to be one of the most attractive girls imaginable) and personally (first of all) i think that "slut" is a male-dominant word and concept, like I described above. And even if you applied the term to both sexes, I don't think that someone should be considered slutty for how many people they have sex with, but for taking it for granted. Like, if you have sex with a whole bunch of people because you want to establish a loving bond with those people and share pleasure with them, or if you have sex with one person and only worry about yourself and take it for granted, I think only the second should be considered slutty. I mean, if you saw a couple (or more) of hippies at woodstock having sex in a field, would you consider one or more of them slutty? I know I wouldn't, I would consider it beutiful and magnificent. What I mean is, there is a difference between "fucking" and "making love."

Anyway on a side note I definatley feel a physical and emotional connection to this girl, who knows, mabye something special will happen

But seriously, thoughts?

 

to me the big defining factor in slut is someone who fucks others because they don't respect or care about themselves. It stems from internal inadequacies or unhappiness. Big difference between that and having sex because, well, you love sex.

I've referred to guys as sluts before, but it does have a much more negative slant when applied to women (at least in my experience). I usually use the term "manslut" instead of just slut when talking about male sluts.

That said, I don't mind that word when it's used in, well, a less than slow/sensual bedroom romp :X

 

I pretty much agree, first paragraph anyway.

 

I think to be a slut, you must carry yourself in a slutty way. A girl who throws herself onto everything with a penis just because she has zero respect for herself is a slut.

 

i'd hafta agree, a slut is someone who disrespects themselves sexualy

however, i dont concider it slutty when its due to past traumas preventing them from being able to establish meanningful connections..or even if they degrade themselves regularly because they've been conditioned that way

i guess a good definition of sluttiness would be sex without caring about consequences...like for instance, fuckin a virgin and not caring one bit about messin with theyre feelings

 

Slut? Just a girl who is easy to sleep with.

Is it sexist? Probably, but derogatory words tend to not to the status quo (ie: most guys are pretty easy to sleep with if you're a girl).

 

Lotsa guys I've talked to about this are douchebags who think it doesn't apply to males, for some reason.



Either way...

I strongly feel that free love is a hilarious and ridiculous concept because: If geese can lead a monogamous lifestyle, why the hell can't we? And if we can't, I feel that natural selection may as well rule us out by having the geese morph into human-eating omnivores.

There ya go.

 

I belive your body is a treasure, to share with only those worthy. Eventually you will regret all those one night stands and meaningliss fucks

 

Same.

Causeeee... the only kiss that counts is the first... the rest are just routine checkup.

 

Meaningless fucks? Who decides what sex is meaningless or meaningfull? You?

And about the goose monogamy - first of all, geese are incredibly stupid. In order to say "even geese can do it" your already assuming that it's the right thing. Second of all, monogamy (in general) is bad for a species. In almost every other species, and virtually every other species closely related to humans, polygamy is how things go. Now bear in mind that this is just nature, and you could argue that nature is wrong, but for the most part monogamy slows down evolution and lessens a species' chances of survival, because it limits variation and decreases the possibility of mutations. Mutations may sound bad, but in reality we evolved from billion-year-old muck due to the process of evolution, which is really just a series of lucky, beneficial mutations, like opposable thumbs for example.

But thats just a natural standpoint. Monogamy is really cultural, and if you think that it's the best way to go then fine, thats your opinion, but don't try and back up monogamy by saying that two partners for life is natural, when in fact the opposite is true.

 

I've always thought that geese were quite natural beings, monogamy has always felt natural, and felt that humans can also be incredibly stupid, on a much different, though equal level. I mean, we are the only creatures that totally destroy their own environment... makes sense to me.

Personally, I really don't care what anyone does as long as they aren't hurting me, for the most part. I just don't think things are changing anytime soon and there are better things to focus on, in times like these.

I've done without it so far and it hasn't killed me and fate shall lie in the hands of my lord. I feel it's very much the same was as slavery taking its course into equality.

 

Like I said, if it works for you, do it! But don't try to back it up with "it's natural" when every shred of evidence says it's a man-made concept. For most people wearing clothes seems like a natural thing to do (no matter the weather) and being naked seems very unatural. However, we know that this isn't really what nature set us up to do, it's a concept invented by man. If it works for you then do it, but don't say it's natural if the facts point against it.

And also your "goose monogamy" thing is kinda flimsy. You've chosen one of a select few species that is naturaly monogamous, and have disregarded the, say, 5,000 other species on your continent alone (whatever that may be) that are polygamous. Also, geese are a different Class, Order, Family, Sub-Family and species from humans, meaning that other than the fact that we are both animals, there isn't much connecting us. Chimpanzees on the other hand, which are our closest relatives, are extremly polygamous, as well as gorillas and many other species of monkey and ape (our closest evolutionary cousins). There are naturally occuring instances of monogamy, but I have yet to find one related to humans.

 

If we have yet to see beyond a point in the universe, then who are we to say where our origins lie...

 

I think I get what your saying - you're basing this in religion? Well I can't go up against blind faith. Over and out.

 

i'm still waiting for that eventuallity

 

i'm not saying that you should only have sex with one person, and you and only you can decide what a meaningless fuck is

 

I'm not a conservative by any means, though I come from a long line of dixiecrats and could easily say it was for religion too, though I believe in a seperation of church and state, for the most part, I can't help my personal beliefs, but I'm basing it on personal morals in that it's just... a bit disgusting, in a way. Atop that, I feel that it's somewhat degrading. That's the problem, people focus too much on what you can label people as versus who actually does their damn job these days democrat, republican, or marklar...

I mean... don't you think that even though you support such a thing, that it is a bit extreme and the abstract beauty of it is the shock and awe factor?

 

yeah sorry i've gotta work on my hostility, that was my fault. don't take it as an insult, i've still got a truckload of imperfections to work on

And orsino man, you're makin' less and less sense as time goes on. Separation of church and state... for the most part? sorry, but I go all the way on that one.

 

as for free love, that term is often misunderstood. i've looked into it, and asked many older people (who lived when it was "popular") and they weren't meaning you fuck ANYONE. you make love to people who you feel spiritually connected to. Creepy nasty men who came into hippie communes (or whatever) to get "free love" were turned away (usually), because their vibes are bad. The difference with free love and people who have multiple monogamous relationships in their life is just that with free love, you can sleep with other people who you connect to (not meaning you love them as soulmates), because you realize that sex is a physical act, and real intimacy is something only soulmates can have. .. i hope i explained that right.
so free love isnt slutty.


as for whats "natural", according to anthropologists nothing is "human nature", its all cultural. Monogamy is a cultural value held in America, and many of the other (maybe all, i don't know) industrial nations.

 

You said it, man. You really said it. That what I meant to say, I just don't know how to talk.