(no subject)
Jul. 13th, 2006 11:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenRead. This.
It's an interesting and devastating and funny article all at the same time. "The Taming of the Slur." The slur in particular here is "slut." There are good points to the reclaiming of the word, and there are the expected bad points. Can we reclaim such a word? Among less serious recent comebacks, we've taken back the word "geek," taking pride even when it's hurled at us unflatteringly. "Queer" is another--it got to be an ugly word then came around again to one of pride, one of common address. As you would say "I am a geek," you can now saw "I am queer."
But what about "slut"? Queer made a comeback, sure, but I doubt something as hateful as "faggot" will ever be bandied about as cheerfully. And make not mistake but that "slut" is a hateful term. "Slut" is making inroads--like the article says, we call ourselves sluts when we mean we overindulge, obsess, or crave (I, most definitely, am a Diet Pepsi slut).
That's changing usage, however. What about actually calling someone a slut and meaning it's more traditional defintion--that of an unforgiveably (because such behavior in women is unforgiveable, clearly) promiscuous woman? Teenagers doing that one to the other in play or as a new way of saying "You're cool" while actually disliking anyone who ventures into the behaviors we commonly associate with a slut? The double standard is that it's cool to have people think you're a slut, but if they know it, you are a slut and therefore less than human, disgusting, dirty. Instead of "You're so queer," you are, in essence, "a fucking fag."
That's the difference. Pardon the offensive language, but that's it. In one word, you're trying to praise a girl (it's rarely directed at boys) for her sexiness and then condemning her if she has expressed any enjoyment in sex. When there's only one word to define both, where do you figure out the boundary? While the word "slut" is a two-edged sword, how can you use it to slap and not cut at the same time?
The lack of such words thrown at boys is especially glaring in this search for a positive or negative definition of "slut." It reminds me, of all things, of an Ally McBeal episode, where a male colleague called Ally a bitch, and the only thing she could throw back at him was "You....man." As we have no handy shorthand for a domineering man (like we do for a domineering woman in "bitch"), what equivalent do we have for an unacceptably promiscuous man? "Player" doesn't quite cut it. A "player" is a man on the prowl for sex, he isn't the type you'd want to marry, just like one man in the article says about a slut, except that you wouldn't really want to date a player either, whereas apparently men do want to date sluts. It scratches the itch, she won't be needy (a Very. Bad. Thing. and a compromise of masculinity, apparently, having to deal with your partner's emotions), then you can trash her for the lady in white, the feminine ideal: a woman who hasn't had as much sex as you have so she won't know if you're bad at it or not. That's harsh, but that's the worst this comes down to, and the worst a word comes down to is the stigma still attached to it. A slut is still a woman men want to use, women are self-trained to denigrate because they are still trained to make for a goal of getting a man, and, ultimately, a pariah in this sexually moribund society.
That's a long way of saying I think we're a long way from reclaming this particular slur, and I find it incredibly disturbing that we should encourage anyone to try. Or that we celebrate people who embody the definition (Paris Hilton, I'm looking in your direction).
It's an interesting and devastating and funny article all at the same time. "The Taming of the Slur." The slur in particular here is "slut." There are good points to the reclaiming of the word, and there are the expected bad points. Can we reclaim such a word? Among less serious recent comebacks, we've taken back the word "geek," taking pride even when it's hurled at us unflatteringly. "Queer" is another--it got to be an ugly word then came around again to one of pride, one of common address. As you would say "I am a geek," you can now saw "I am queer."
But what about "slut"? Queer made a comeback, sure, but I doubt something as hateful as "faggot" will ever be bandied about as cheerfully. And make not mistake but that "slut" is a hateful term. "Slut" is making inroads--like the article says, we call ourselves sluts when we mean we overindulge, obsess, or crave (I, most definitely, am a Diet Pepsi slut).
That's changing usage, however. What about actually calling someone a slut and meaning it's more traditional defintion--that of an unforgiveably (because such behavior in women is unforgiveable, clearly) promiscuous woman? Teenagers doing that one to the other in play or as a new way of saying "You're cool" while actually disliking anyone who ventures into the behaviors we commonly associate with a slut? The double standard is that it's cool to have people think you're a slut, but if they know it, you are a slut and therefore less than human, disgusting, dirty. Instead of "You're so queer," you are, in essence, "a fucking fag."
That's the difference. Pardon the offensive language, but that's it. In one word, you're trying to praise a girl (it's rarely directed at boys) for her sexiness and then condemning her if she has expressed any enjoyment in sex. When there's only one word to define both, where do you figure out the boundary? While the word "slut" is a two-edged sword, how can you use it to slap and not cut at the same time?
The lack of such words thrown at boys is especially glaring in this search for a positive or negative definition of "slut." It reminds me, of all things, of an Ally McBeal episode, where a male colleague called Ally a bitch, and the only thing she could throw back at him was "You....man." As we have no handy shorthand for a domineering man (like we do for a domineering woman in "bitch"), what equivalent do we have for an unacceptably promiscuous man? "Player" doesn't quite cut it. A "player" is a man on the prowl for sex, he isn't the type you'd want to marry, just like one man in the article says about a slut, except that you wouldn't really want to date a player either, whereas apparently men do want to date sluts. It scratches the itch, she won't be needy (a Very. Bad. Thing. and a compromise of masculinity, apparently, having to deal with your partner's emotions), then you can trash her for the lady in white, the feminine ideal: a woman who hasn't had as much sex as you have so she won't know if you're bad at it or not. That's harsh, but that's the worst this comes down to, and the worst a word comes down to is the stigma still attached to it. A slut is still a woman men want to use, women are self-trained to denigrate because they are still trained to make for a goal of getting a man, and, ultimately, a pariah in this sexually moribund society.
That's a long way of saying I think we're a long way from reclaming this particular slur, and I find it incredibly disturbing that we should encourage anyone to try. Or that we celebrate people who embody the definition (Paris Hilton, I'm looking in your direction).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-13 05:21 pm (UTC)I don't think "slut" should be "reclaimed". It's not like being black, or like being homosexual, or like being good with computers...it's freaking nasty. I can't attest for society's double-standard, however my option is not to think female sluts are great, but to think male sluts (I see no reason to devise a new term - how's that for equality?) are just as freaking nasty. I'm one of the horniest people I know, yet I have no interest in having so many partners I'd have to think about it to know exactly. I personally would feel dirty if I did.
I know most of society uses the word in an unbalanced, gender-biased way, and that many of the same progressives who dislike the gender bias aspect think that the best solution is ultimate sexual freedom (as in, not just freedom from others' constraints, but freedom from one's own, which makes no sense to me). Personally I think I'm solving the problem just fine by equivalizing the genders on the other side.
As an interviewee for that article said, I wouldn't marry a slut...I wouldn't even date a slut...when I have children (again, of EITHER gender), I won't want them to be sluts. Beyond that, though, I have enough of a live-and-let-live mentality that I couldn't care less. (I mention this as a pre-emptive action before a thousand people descend on me here telling me I'm a fascist asshole: I don't want to force people to behave a certain way, but I, too, am certainly free to think whatever I choose, thanks.)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-13 07:34 pm (UTC)People are free to live their lives as they chose. I chose not to be promiscuous, and I would feel awkward being with someone who was promiscuous, if only because of what it suggests about the person's ability to be happy with just one other partner (which is my preference when entering a relationship of that kind). I don't think it makes them dirty or undateable, only that I think it makes them unable or unlikely to commit to a one-on-one, and that's not what I'd look for.
As for not raising sluts or encouraging people not to be sluts? I do that out of fear of STDs more than anything else. We've gotten so crazed about not teaching kids safer sex practices in this country, I'm just waiting for the bomb to drop, for AIDS infection rates to skyrocket and the like. We're also indulging a more-more-more, gimme-gimme-gimme age that's going to find drugs harder to turn away from, and crystal meth has already spiked STD infection rates liek whoa. I would be an irresponsible parent to encourage free loving to my kids in this environment because no matter how careful I teach them to be, I can't parent the people they'll have sex with. Teaching them to be more selective about partners is for their own good.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-13 07:48 pm (UTC)You don't keep up with health news do you? Rates have been spiking in the high school and early college aged population. Mostly it's been other STDs, but AIDS rates haven't been dropping off as they have been in years past. There are already preliminary studies trying the increases to sex ed (or more specifically lack there of). One article in particular that I found interesting, Forget sex? Virginity pledgers lie about past, really concerns me since you could end up with a lot of carriers for things who won't know what they're doing to their partners. I try at least once a week to go through MSNBC's Sexual Health to find out what else is going on in the field... and sometimes I find it scary.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-13 07:53 pm (UTC)