Neely Steinberg just wants to talk.
On my day off from work the other week, I engaged in my first Twitter debate. I was perusing the timeline when I came across a Tweet from Amanda Marcotte, a writer for Pandagon and one of the leaders of today’s feminist movement. I had been in touch with Marcotte recently, asking her to contribute to my piece on Skirtgate, the Park Slope, Brooklyn sexual assaults contretemps (which, incidentally, inspired my next piece titled Feminism: The Winter of Men’s Discontent, a commentary on the rise of misandry and men’s growing resentment toward feminism).
Marcotte tweeted that she was disgusted with The New York Times for giving air-time to Katie Roiphe, who argued in a recent op-ed that sexual harassment in the workplace is an irrelevant, antiquated institution. Or in her words:
When I was at Princeton in the ’90s, the guidelines distributed to students about sexual harassment stated, “sexual harassment may result from a conscious or unconscious action, and can be subtle or blatant.”… If this language was curiously retrograde in the early ’90s, if it harkened back to the protection of delicate feminine sensibilities in an era when that protection was patently absurd, it is even more outdated now when women are yet more powerful and ascendant in the workplace.
Roiphe is one of the most talked about cultural critics of her generation (her book Uncommon Arrangements: Seven Portraits of Married Life in London Literary Circles 1910-1939 was a delight to read, by the way). But Marcotte isn’t a fan. Fueled by her rage at Roiphe’s commentary, Marcotte launched insults at her throughout her response piece, writing things like, “She cashes that NY Times paycheck while doing no real research that could actually upend her baseless assertions” and “I’m looking forward to Roiphe’s denunciation of Dan Savage’s It Gets Better project, where she scoffs at the idea that pantsing a kid and calling him ‘fag’ on a daily basis should be a matter of concern, and not just a delightful expression of youthful boisterousness that shouldn’t be troubled by the high suicide rate amongst gay teens.” Marcotte considers Roiphe a giggling “hair-curler” who “panders to sexist men for condescending head pats.”
The question that started it all was based off Marcotte’s response piece, in which she used the word “slut” several times (she wasn’t calling Roiphe a slut but used the word in other ways). I was curious to know, simply: “Do you have a definition for the word slut?” In recent times, feminists have appropriated the word, wearing it like a badge of honor at various protests, such as the Slut Walks, but I wanted to know how Marcotte actually defined it. Here’s how the debate began. (I’ve done my best to reconstruct it.)
♦◊♦
AmandaMarcotte
http://bit.ly/tGiyq3 Fucking disgusting that the NY Times continues to run people questioning whether or not to allow harassers full rein.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – Hi, Amanda. Curious: Do you have a definition for the word slut?
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg Yep. A “slut” is someone who has had sex with two more people than the person calling the target a slut.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg “Slut”, however, has no relationship to reality. It can’t be measured and basically is meaningless without misogyny.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg In other words, to believe in the concept of a “slut”, you must believe women are inferior to men on some level.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – Can we agree it’s not just a term used toward females? What about misandry – women calling men “sluts”? That happens too.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – may not happen as often, but my friends and i have called men “sluts” and “man whores” plenty of times. it goes both ways.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – Don’t understand how u go from critiquing Roiphe to saying she would scoff at calling little boys “fags.” A stretch, no?
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg It’s a really nice bridge. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Can you get to the San Francisco area soon with your checkbook?
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg It’s also made of PURE GOLD. And you can have it for a mere $5,000. It’s an incredible bargain.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte -i had a feeling u would start to belittle my thoughts…a shame…I’m a fellow female who is just trying 2 have a dialogue.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg If you believe ironically calling someone a manslut is the same as calling a woman a slut, you have growing up to do.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg I don’t really see the point in arguing with people who are being disingenuous, sorry.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg And I can’t force you to grow up on Twitter, so what’s the point of engaging you?
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – that’s ur biggest mistake, amanda. thinking that people who disagree w/you r being disingenuous. for the record, i’m not.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – why is calling someone a man slut ironic? you don’t think women feel grossed out by men who fuck everything that moves??
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg If calling a man a “slut” with humor is the same thing as calling a woman one sincerely, then I AM selling you a bridge.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg If you sincerely don’t believe in irony or nuance or context, then you believe I’m actually trying to sell you a bridge.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg You can’t have it both ways. So what’s your offer on that bridge? I’m not mocking you; there is no such thing as irony.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg For the record, I do think you’re being disingenuous. The only other option is “really daft”, and I don’t want to think that
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – that’s right. begin the ad hominem attacks.
♦◊♦
I fully understand that the word “slut” has been used throughout the ages to put women down, to shame them about their sexuality, to embarrass them for being sexual creatures. I’m not denying this. After reading Marcotte’s definition, though, I wanted her to admit that the degradation of another via the word slut is an offense that can be committed by both genders.
Feminists are loathe to admit that offenses against women can be and have been co-opted by the fairer sex to commit similar offenses against men—a prime perpetrator being The National Organization for Women (NOW). Take NOW’s and other women’s group’s lobbying efforts in 2009 to block surplus money aimed at reviving the construction industry, because the money was designated for, in their words, “testosterone-laden shovel-ready” jobs. Never mind that 80 percent of the 5.7 million jobs lost during the first 18 months of the recession were held by men, outrage still ensued.
If, according to Hanna Rosin’s recent piece “The End of Men” in The Atlantic, women have become the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history and most managers are now women, if women dominate 13 of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade, if women have surpassed men in college and master’s degrees, shouldn’t women be worrying about, or at least considering the implications of, the decline of men in today’s economy instead of kicking them when they’re down? As women become more dominant and ascendant in a postindustrial job market, it appears they’ve started to behave, ironically, like the type of person so anathema to the women’s movement: the domineering bully who turns a blind eye to gender inequity and struggle. This is a step in the wrong direction, both for its hypocrisy and for the well-being of our society. Even though Christina Hoff Summers dismisses Rosin’s assertions in “Oh, Come On, Men Aren’t Finished,” she warns that “[men’s] fate is our fate—this is no zero-sum competition.” I digress.
I also understand that the word “slut” is used less by women to shame men, but it does happen, and more than we might initially think, just in slight variations, but nonetheless, in palpable ways. It is also used more as a same-sex shame tactic (women shaming other women) by women than it is by men (men don’t shame other men for the number of their sexual partners nearly as much, although articles like the Marie Claire piece What’s With All the Male Sluts by Peter Birkenhead, in which he upbraids “BroHos,” are starting to appear). Perhaps a woman who is called a slut (whether by a man or woman) internalizes it more than a man would. But that’s our problem, not theirs.
Finally, I understand that the double standard exists and persists: Women who have a lot of sexual partners are sluts, whores; men who do the same are considered studs. More and more, though, I believe women are becoming as condemnatory and discriminating as men when it comes to a person’s sexual behavior. I was not being disingenuous when I said that my friends and I have sat around and complained plenty of times about certain men we deemed to be male whores or sluts, felt disgust at their sexual habits and, consequently, would think twice about considering them as a partner because of their level of promiscuity.
I have the same gag reflex toward Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino’s sexual exploits as I do Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi’s. Isn’t that the apex of sexual freedom—women being able to judge men as much as men have judged women? If we can have sex like men do, we can judge them, too, doggonit! (Conversely, do women not shame and tease men who are virgins or have only had a few partners?)
The main frustration of Marcotte and other sex-positive feminists is that the word “slut” is used to make women feel guilty about being sexual. My argument, although difficult to make in 140 characters or less, even when you’re tweeting multiple times, is that women shame men, too, when it comes to sex. Maybe we don’t use the exact term “slut” as often; maybe we use variations of this word, though, to accomplish a similar guilt-tripping agenda. Do we not shame men for their sexuality when we say, “All men are pigs! All men are dogs! All men think with their dicks first!”? Do we not shame them by calling them bastards for screwing a girl and never calling her again—painting ourselves as innocent, passive victims in the process—as if a man’s responsibility lies in pleasing a woman’s ego?
Furthermore, if in fact men do think with their dicks first, that it is part of their biology to “spread their seed” or look at a woman’s cleavage or have persistent sexual thoughts throughout the day, is it then fair for us to curb and shame their natural impulses? In certain ways, yes, of course, or there would be total anarchy (case in point: A Occupy Baltimore community pamphlet that encouraged women who have been sexually assaulted to report to the “security committee” as opposed to the police). But let’s then remember that we have asked men to compromise their sexuality on a daily basis as part of a societal contract. Consider Thomas Matlack’s piece Is Male Lust Turning Us Inside Out?, in which he writes:
But what is the connection between male goodness and male lust? It seems, to be good you have to control your lust into a very narrowly defined box. It’s a test that most men fail miserably, often with catastrophic results … As a young adult, I used to joke with my friends, perhaps in twisted despair, about how we felt the need to hide our feelings of lust, while we were actually most similar to baboons whose sexual patterns are far from monogamous. Is the male lust instinct some legacy of animal nature that threatens to bring down civilization? Or is it just something we, collectively, are too afraid to look at directly and, thereby, we give it way more power than it deserves?
Or consider Saumya Arya Haas’ description of the male dilemma in her recent Good Men Project article Blind Rage: Not Every Man is Evil: “They are a collection of individuals who are struggling to find a way to be human despite limiting social structures.”
Marcotte’s disbelief that my opinions could be actually genuine was frustrating. How can we engage in discourse if we don’t believe the conviction of each other’s opinions? It seems there is an unwillingness in some parts of the feminist community to at least consider other viewpoints, from women no less. Men gave up that fight years ago, when they realized a contrasting male perspective would be summarily dismissed as more agitprop by the patriarchy.
Finally, though, Marcotte jumped in, if only for a brief moment, to ask a respectful, productive question, before returning to her sardonic rhetoric.
♦◊♦
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg But really, why is it so important to be able to judge people for being sexually active? What does it buy you?
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – great question. the kind of respectful tweets that should happen.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – i see your point. it can be, though, about considering how it affects society at large. cont…
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg I disagree strongly that you’re being “respectful”. Playing dumb disrespects everyone involved.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg I said your statements defy common sense, making you either daft or disingenuous.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg Incorrect use of the term “ad hominem”. If I’d said, “You’re wrong because you look funny”, that’s ad hominem.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – it doesn’t have to be looks based. you’re not arguing the point. you’re simply calling me daft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg If you say something really stupid and claim to mean it sincerely, expect people to draw conclusions.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – ur opinion that i’ve said something stupid. others would surely agree w/me, but i guess by ur logic, they’re stupid too.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg You’re reversing cause and effect. I assumed you’re daft because you claim to be impervious to common sense.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – consider this article: http://tinyurl.com/b25yv or amy wax’s wsj op-ed: http://tinyurl.com/88e87lu (full article is gone)
At this point I asked Marcotte to consider articles written by Kay Hymowitz and Amy Wax, whose various commentaries on the decline of social and sexual mores (and the attendant consequences) have long stuck with me. I didn’t expect an immediate response—the Hymowitz piece is many pages—but I hoped she might reply that she would read them. I was mistaken. In her final tweets, she continued with her rant about the quality (or, in her eyes, the lack thereof) of my comments. She also accused me of being disgustingly judgmental of people who are sexually active and of floating a red herring (which made me laugh because that’s exactly what she did from the get-go).
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg You said, in essence, the dumb things you say are not disingenuous, so I concluded that you are being daft.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg If I say, “I believe women are equal to men,” it’s not ad hominem to conclude that I’m a feminist.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – have i called u any names or been sarcastic toward u during this twitter debate? ur emotions r getting the better of you.
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg You have been disingenuous, floated a red herring, and been disgustingly judgmental towards sexually active people.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte -disgustingly judgmental??? i’m simply asking questions & trying to talk through it. guess that’s too difficult for twitter.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte – so you’re not being disingenuous when you make the argument that Roiphe must not be against calling little boys “fags”?
AmandaMarcotte
@NeelySteinberg When called on it, you played dumb, and when called on that, you screamed “ad hominem” as if that meant anything.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte when did i play dumb? i just answered ur questions and sent u articles to consider. will u consider what these ladies say?
Marcotte’s question—“Why is it so important to judge people for being sexually active?”—was a legitimate query and one I hoped we could discuss like two rational human beings. The truth is I am conflicted about my answer. The real irony here is that I don’t actually like the word “slut” and try my hardest not to use it, although I fully admit to doing so occasionally—and being grossed out and sometimes saddened by certain people’s sexual activity (men, too, for the love of God!). But the feminists are right: How do you quantify the word “slut?” Does it mean you’ve had 10 partners? 15? 20? I don’t want people to shame me for what I do behind closed doors, so I shouldn’t be in a position to shame others.
There are uses in society, however, for shaming, and I recognize that. Take Dr. Joyce Brother’s article Shame May Not Be So Bad Afterall, in which she bears this out:
Rather than cut our wiring for shame—an impossible feat—we need to distinguish between shame that is useful and that which is destructive … Certain types of shame can be beneficial … In the past, we may have allowed ourselves to be burdened too much by shame. Today, it’s lack of shame that appears to be the burden. Maybe it’s time to invite the useful aspects of shame back into our culture.
Or consider what Wax writes about: Sexual freedom has been a mixed blessing for the well-heeled and has most certainly negatively affected economically-disadvantaged peoples; as a result, the rest of society pays (quite literally, in various ways). In her exact words:
First, the decades-old demise of clear standards following the sexual revolution, at worst a mixed blessing for the well-off, has hit the less privileged hard … Second, marital and sexual behavior depend more on mores than money. Restraint and social norms, rather than economic circumstances, best account for class differences … Poor relief and welfare policy, whether strict or lenient, can’t rescue disintegrating families … Wise behavior can secure economic well-being. Men and women who stick together, stay out of trouble, and work steadily are rarely poor, and their children surmount poverty as well. Public money and policy gimmicks are no substitute for good conduct.
It’s amazing how a 30-minute back-and-forth on Twitter inspired all of the aforementioned thoughts. Despite Marcotte’s assaults on my opinions, I’m glad I engaged with her. Even if she didn’t want to listen, maybe others will.
Shall we all begin a respectful debate? 140 characters minimum!
—Photo d.loop/Flickr
I’m very late to this party, but I totally understand Amanda’s irritation here: the symmetry argument is a typical anti-feminist concern-troll’s device, in general.
“Girls call guys sluts too!” is the mild version of MRA’s “Men get raped too!”.
The prevalent double-standards in society are such that a guy who’s called a slut is likely to get a boost to his reputation of a “scorer” because, in our fabulous society, that’s what “real guys” do : they score.
On the other hand calling a girl a slut will have the overall effect of flagging her as a less worthy person.
Then, you’ll need to have this talk with women, since they are the ones that primarily call women sluts. Except the feminists. As noted above, they wear the title proudly in their Slut Walks. If someone calls themselves a slut, there is no argument to be made that others should not also call them sluts.
Steinberg, thank you for trying to reach Marcotte. Sorry she would not listen. I like to think that redemption can reach anyone, even Marcotte. I don’t know how you managed to keep your cool when confronted with issue-evasion and relentless character assaults. I would have morphed into a rabid dog the first time Marcotte said “it’s a really nice bridge.”
Also, I am sorry that I was unkind to you in the past.
You write: “In recent times, feminists have appropriated the word, wearing it like a badge of honor at various protests, such as the Slut Walks” Although it’s not relevant to the overall idea of your article, I’d like to comment here. I am a huge supporter of the SlutWalks & I think you misunderstand the intent. The walks aren’t to say “It’s fantastic being a slut.” They are to say “Even if show my body or sleep with many men, I don’t deserve sexual violation and I deserve to be afforded equal protection by law.” SlutWalks do not encourage promiscuity,… Read more »
If a person, any person, makes choices that increase their odds of becoming a victim of crime, any reasonable person would tell them to make better/safter choices, including law enforcement agencies. That is not victim-blaming; that is common sense.
Rape is no less traumatic to a prostitute than it is to a nun. Our society blames the victim of rape often, including adolescent girls who are raped by grown men. You can’t cite the one time it doesn’t happen & offer that as proof that it never happens.
What is your evidence that “Our society blames the victim of rape often, including adolescent girls who are raped by grown men?” Or, are you just saying that? I have not ever seen any such evidence. Please present evidence to support your statement.
Are you aware that most persons in this country are female?
“You can’t cite the one time it doesn’t happen & offer that as proof that it never happens.”
I have no idea what this means.
@Angelic: I have seen that statement or others like it countless times, but I have never seen anyone actually prove it.
Is this a case of an opinion being bantered around as ‘fact’ and hoping that if we repeat it enough it will become true.
For an example see “Super Bowl Hoax”
Neely, I want to give you a high 5, hell a high 10. The fact you can see where women behave bad, and comment on it, AND see how men can get treated bad is awesome.
It’s amazing that Amanda would stoop so low when she replied to you, to call you daft for asking a simple question? Was she trying to avoid the answer?
After this, and after the Matlack debacle, can we just agree to not even TRY to use Twitter as a debate platform? Clearly, there is far too much room for misinterpretation, ambiguity, and oversimplification, and not enough room to form a clear & coherent thought.
On a personal level, it makes me glad I do not have a Twitter account. At this point, I’m not sure anyone or anything could convince me to voluntarily join that community.
I just had to comment on your thoughts re: Twitter and say ‘yep’ – it’s too easy, in 140 characters or less, to really get to the heart of what someone is saying or what they mean.
Most people realize that, but still too many seem to double down on whatever message they are trying to share and that’s when the anger, annoyance, hurt feelings and as shown here, name calling starts.
Clarence, I still don’t see the need to call them (male or female) a slut. If someone chooses to have multiple casual encounters, they’re not making you do it. As derek said, he might not want to look like or a date a fat person. That doesn’t mean he goes around calling his fat friends, co-workers, or strangers ‘fatties,’ ‘butterballs,’ or making sure that they know they should be ashamed of their bodies. Some people do well with casual encounters, some do not. I’m not going to shame someone or call him/her a prude or loser for waiting for marriage… Read more »
Anonymous drunken sex is a dangerous behavior that deserves to be shamed. And yes, I consider there is most likely something wrong with someone who makes that their default mode of sex. Note two words: “drunken” and “default”. Note that I am not shaming enthusiastic sex with strangers. I’m saying that if you pretty much always have to get yourself liquored up to do something, chances are either you don’t really want to do it, or you have some other issue that leads you to use alcohol as a crutch.
Ms. Steinberg: My only use for the word “slut” is to use for someone who shows extreme promiscuity whether male or female in their sexual encounters. In other words, if drunken, anonymous sex is the norm for your sexual experiences, than yes, you are a “slut”. Insofar as “numbers” are concerned, women with high numbers of partners (average number per male/female in a life time is six) tend to be at more risk of fracturing their relationships than males with high numbers. Of course some females and some males can handle higher numbers and still have happy marriages/etc. so it’s… Read more »
For these guys, a slut is any woman that refuse to have sex with them and have sex with other guys,
Why do these words have to be a part of our vocabularies? It’s my opinion that what I do with my body is my business, and what others do with their bodies is, well, not. Same for what comes out of their mouths (or fingers), what happens with their marriages, etc. To me this sounds a lot like arguing the validity of the “N” word. Yes, discrimination in all forms exists, but you don’t have to take part in it. I believe there was an article on this site about the very topic a month back or so – the… Read more »
I was in the midst of writing an epically long comment and then I accidentally deleted it. Not the thoughtful analysis I was composing, but so it goes: 1) “Slut” is a gendered word designed to shame women for engaging in sexual behavior outside of society’s very strict, socially constructed parameters (e.g., a monogamous relationship, marriage). When applied to men, it does not have the same meaning and it less effective as a weapon of disempowerment/oppression. 2) Slut-shaming anyone is not productive, period. It creates a culture of secrecy and guilt surrounding sex, an activity that requires openness and confidence… Read more »
I’ve heard women who are friends use the word “slut” in a teasing or ironic way to each other, as a kind of “I’m jealous you’re getting some action and I’m not” statement or even a “well, it’s about time!” kind of way. I’ve also heard it as an ironic term for someone who’s taking things very slowly — “sex after only knowing him for five years? What a slut….”
The problem is weak-mindedness or at best immaturity (i.e. middle school mentality). Only a weak-minded adult can be shamed for their choices. A mature adult wouldn’t allow him/herself to be shamed for their choices.
I teach my children to do what they believe and feel they know to be the right thing for them, and (literally) not care at all if other people disagree, no matter how vehemently they disagree. So, this whole concept of shaming sounds like something people should have gotten past in middle school or at the latest in 9th grade or so.
It is possible for a man to be sexually shamed, but (to me it seems) far rarer, and certainly the context is wildly different. Usually men are expected to be far more sexual, and interested in sex and casual sex than women. Men can also gain peer status by getting laid frequently, proving their sexual prowess. It might be a “tongue-in-cheek” expectation, but it is nearly universal. Meanwhile there is an even more universal beleif that a woman can be too sexual. “Slut” “Whore” “Skank” are insults based on the idea that a woman should limit her sexuality. Where this… Read more »
Neely,
I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed your article. Although, I agree with Marcotte’s point of view on the topic, I was flabbergasted at her disrespectful tone. Quite frankly, I found it painful to read. I applaud you for handling it with such dignity and continuing to contemplate her perspective, despite her insults.
WRT NOW and “shovel-ready jobs”. Correction. Outrage did not occur.
Well done for managing to bait someone into a pointless argument over twitter. You obviously went into the conversation looking to make Marcotte angry so you could create a straw-feminist to argue against. “I don’t really see the point in arguing with people who are being disingenuous, sorry.” This is the most intelligent thing anyone said in that entire technological shouting match.
This is a perfectly decent article on sexual policing and shaming across genders. The twitter argument with a respected feminist and journalist is merely unnecessary and distracting.
“Why, exactly, do you feel that what people do in their bedroom is any of your business? Why does it “sadden” you what people choose to do? You might not be into a whole range of stuff — from anal sex to bondage to piercings to promiscuity — and that’s fine. Different strokes for different folks. Just don’t go around calling people names.” Yes! Exactly what I was trying to say. “Sadden” is very condescending. There are plenty of things to be sad about other than your friends’ and some tv stars’ who don’t have the same sexual habits as… Read more »
Everyone seems hung up on this number thing. First of all, if a guy meets a girl somewhere, he has no way of knowing her”nunber” unless she tells him.To many guys it’s not the number, but theway she goes about it. Example 1; Guy meets girl in club, bar, where ever. They hit it off, gosomewhere quite where they spend time talking and in general enjoying each others company. They go to her place and “get it on”. Example 2; Guy meets girl in bar . She takes him into the bathroom where she “does him” in the stall. She… Read more »
But people can date who they want to date. That’s very different from shaming. I’m not going to date a girl who is obese, but I don’t run around making comments about “fatties” or how someone’s eating habits “sadden” me.
My point is, #1 I have heard the term “slut” used to discribe women far more by other women than men ( I’m talking about like a 10 to 1 ratio). #2 Women tend to refer to other women as “sluts” based on the # of men she’s “been with” whereas guys base it more on how “easy” she is. #3 Most guys dont mind if the girl is reputed to be a “slut”. Especially if their out to “get some”. If anything, they figure the odds just tipped in their favor. I mean, when I think about back in… Read more »
Yeah, I agree it’s something girls (mostly school-age) tend to enforce against each other. You know the saying, “why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?” Well if some girls are giving away their “milk” then it makes it harder for others to use the promise of sex as a tool to extract expensive dinners or an exclusive relationship from guys. Hence… slut police!
Hi, you guys had a very interesting exchange! Katie Roiphe’s piece incensed me because of its irresponsible, cavalier and elitist assertions (an argument I made on this site) and the harm that those arguments do to. I agree entirely with Marcotte’s in responding. Having read your exchange regarding the word “slut” however I’m thinking that as illuminating as defining what the word slut means to people (and the use of the word by women for men) it is probably just as useful, if not more, to defining what slut-shaming is. I’ve written a lot about both of these topics in… Read more »
I’ve enjoyed reading these comments immensely. Thank you and keep the feedback coming!
Neely Steinberg
http://twitter.com/neelysteinberg
Hey N.S. , great piece. If you want an example of “sexual harrasment claims run amok”, check out “Wierd but True” colum in the New York Post from 12/7 . A 9year old boy in Gastonia, NC was suspended from school for sexual harrasment. His alleged crime? He was overheard saying to another boy he thought his subsitute teacher for that day “was cute”.
This is an example of the education system’s hostility toward [heterosexual] boys in the form of sexual harassment discrimination. It is no wonder their performance has declined and they fail to graduate far more often than girls. By contrast, Imagine the uproar if a boy who identified as gay was suspended for being overheard saying that a male teacher was cute. There would be cries of homophobia from every corner, an investigation, and firings of the responsible staff would likely be demanded, if not actually executed. Or, if a girl was overheard saying that a male teacher was cute to… Read more »
I tweeted about that recently. Completely absurd.
http://twitter.com/neelysteinberg
Hear hear, Derek and Urban!
I tend to cringe at the word slut because I tend to cringe at the negativity towards sex and sexual relationships. I have to agree that there should be a certain liberation and freedom to partake in sexual experiences without the negative social baggage. I do understand my viewpoint is not universal. I have no judgement on your and your friends’ judgement on people having too many partners — that’s your prerogative. But that should stay between your friends — and not spread to others as gossip. I feel the same respect should also be shown to those who may… Read more »
I’m with Marcotte — it’s pretty offensive to publicly judge people for their private, consensual sexual behavior. You say you’re “conflicted” about your answer, and try to defend yourself by bringing up out-of-welfare births to poor parents. But that’s hardly the reason why you feel such disgust about the Snooki and The Situation. Why, exactly, do you feel that what people do in their bedroom is any of your business? Why does it “sadden” you what people choose to do? You might not be into a whole range of stuff — from anal sex to bondage to piercings to promiscuity… Read more »
Marcotte’s behavior was disgusting. Ad hom’s throughout.
But then this is the woman who was insulting the Duke Lacrosse players after the news came out that the Attorney General of North Carolina had cleared them. Then she tried to erase the comment and pretend it never happened. To this day she’s never apologized to them for nearly a year of foul mouthed rants at them.
She’ll throw people under the bus for ideology.
Yeah, I don’t normally agree with her — and she was rude. But on this, I think, she has a point. It’s silly to try and claim guys are “slut-shamed” as much as gals are. The issue is kinda overblown — from the amount of attention feminists give it, you’d think there were slut police running around or something. But to the extent girls are bullied in school about this, we should just agree it’s bad and move along.
Jesus- H-Christ!
Male slut shaming is an egalitarian pipe dream.
There is too much hard work, social validation & dopamine envolved in male sexuality for any of these “Kum-ba-ya” comments to ever be true.
People Please GET REAL!
I always thought a slut was someone of either sex, who just liked sex and didn’t really much care who it was with. Sex without love, caring, affection or any kind of emotional connection. And by this definition I know more male sluts than female.
Ms. Steinberg:
Thank you for writing this article. It mirrors the experiences that I’ve had talking to some feminists, and to be honest, lol,..some chauvanists.
If a conversation turns that quickly into ad hominem attacks, etc, then it’s time to bail. It stops benig a conversation, and becomes something abusive.
You showed a lot of patience and poise.
Great job!
To me, a key question about the word “slut,” or any word with a derogative connotation, is whether or not a word the word can be salvageable for something positive. Can we just keep using the word but use it in new ways that make it empowering and destroy its negative connotation, or is it too soiled to make use of? The fact that one can now get a graduate degree in Queer Studies and can go platinum singing about “niggaz” suggests that some words can be rehabilitated. As a man, I don’t think calling me a slut would be… Read more »
Marcotte was totally out of line and obnoxious. I did like her quip that a slut is someone who’s had two more partners than the person calling her a slut. I thought that was funny.
And despite going out of line later at least she kept that “definition” gender neutral.
I’m thinking that “Slut” can be used for either gender in pretty much an equal opportunity slam. I also agree that we are getting sick of men who sleep around as not studs but stupid. I’m also painfully aware of the fact that NOW has moved from a position of advocating equality (which I agree with) to one advocating women over men (which I don’t).
Just for the record read http://bit.ly/love-found where I admit, god forbid, as a teenaged boy I turned down sex from a beautiful young lady. “Please stop,” were my exact words.