Wow! I easily found eight links (those below) that totally agree with my claim that women are just as, if not more so, likely to refer to other women/girls as "sluts" (or "whores") as are men. I would say it's more likely, given that women/girls do it more openly, and with malice as they use the words to attack other women/girls for one reason or another. Men, on the other hand, should they use the words at all, are more likely to do so as a descriptor...to identify a particular type of woman/girl and distinguish that type from another, more virtuous type. That's not to say men never use the words to tarnish a reputation, but men are more likely to use other words, in my opinion, to disparage a woman. "Bitch" comes to mind as a typical choice, though some use it as a synonym to "slut" or "whore" (check out most hip-hop references to women).
I'm going to quickly go through these links. While I read each one from beginning to end, my summarizing might still be less than perfectly accurate. The main point, however, will remain that Dan's charge that the words I used to accurately and factually refer to the character of two Trump accusers are not the sole weapons of "rapists", "rapey guys" or "sexual predators". And while none of these following links refer to the notion, I fully doubt that Dan could possibly find any "study" or "research" that proves the notion at all. It's merely Dan working feverishly to defend his unChristian hatred of Donald Trump, so anything goes. In any case, here we go:
https://globalnews.ca/news/1373537/study-examines-why-girls-call-each-other-sluts-its-not-about-sex/
https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/enough-now-thing-slut/
The above two links refer to the same study dealing with a particular university. It speaks specifically to the use of the words by chicks against other chicks. As is true of all the links, the words still have a sexual connotation to their use, even when sexual activity of the victim is not the issue. As one of the last links offers, the words are used to make the sexual behavior of the harasser seem to her to be less wicked. That is, "yeah, I sleep around a bit, but THAT bitch is a SLUT!"
It seems pretty obvious that if one really finds a word objectionable, that is the word one would use to attack someone perceived to be some kind of threat, or to demean that person.
https://time.com/107228/women-misogyny-twitter-study-demos/
The above link refers to misogynistic attacks on women being perpetrated by women at very similar rates as by men. But how can that be when Dan insists that such attacks are solely the acts of sexually predatory men? The answer is that Dan doesn't know what he pretends to know. It's what he wants to be true in order to strengthen his hateful attacks on Donald Trump.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1093011/Women-far-promiscuous-men-says-shock-new-study.html
I added the above link because of what it says in not so many words, which is that women are not the put upon innocents that Dan needs them to be in order to assert that every charge against Donald Trump is credible and therefor his grace-embracing hate of Donald Trump is justified. He also seems to want to believe that my reference to two whores and sluts as "whores" and "sluts" puts me in league with those who give male whores and sluts a pass for being whores and/or sluts themselves. The only basis for this notion is that it serves to stifle opposing arguments. Dan wishes to shame anyone as defenders of sexual predators those who would lend any support of any kind to Trump. Said another way, Dan's lying again.
https://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/sex/a47424/why-women-like-rough-sex/
The above link is interesting for its implications. That is, that some women like being abused and treated like whores and sluts.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a36095/leora-tanenbaum-slut-shaming/
https://feministsatlarge.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/lets-stop-calling-women-sluts/
The above two links provide insights into the radical feminist notions girly-boys like Dan find so compelling and worthy of serious consideration.
Opinions are like buttholes, and those of the radical feminists and the girly-male sheep, like Dan, are particularly foul smelling. They are largely based on the desire to be as immoral as they perceive men to be. Sure, many men are immoral, but it takes a self-loathing, "male-guilt" goof like Dan to indict the whole of mankind to defend his grace-embracing hatred of Donald Trump.
Whether intended or not, the above two links imply rather loudly that women don't mind being whores and sluts. They just don't want to be called whores and sluts. These links clearly assert the belief that there's nothing wrong with women having sex as often and in any way a woman might desire. But this is no more moral than men believing the same thing, and it doesn't matter how many centuries have passed where men have maintained they have that right. It was never moral and isn't now, nor is it for women. For them to engage in sex outside of marriage is an impediment to their salvation. I believe using the strongest terms to describe immoral behavior is a good thing given the consequences those behaviors may bring about. What hurts more...being called a whore or a slut, or never seeing inside the Golden Gates?
Shaming? Damned right. The women writing the above articles absolutely assert a woman should not feel ashamed at being promiscuous. And Dan seems very much to agree, showing once again that he is an enabler, if not a promoter, of sexual immorality. With champions like that, who needs oppressors?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-teen-age/201210/why-girls-call-each-other-sluts
The above link simply reiterates my point...that women and girls are more likely to call other women and girls whores and sluts than the "sexual predators" and "rapists" Dan thinks own the terms.
And here again it's important to point out that Dan is trying to make a case against calling a whore/slut a whore/slut, as if using another term...or never speaking of a woman's slut behavior...changes the reality, the seriousness of that behavior and all the negative consequences that it brings. He has NOT in any way demonstrated that the use of the terms alone...the mere hearing of them uttered...brings about savage harm to women everywhere or anywhere (I frankly don't care if the radical feminist wishes to assert such buffoonery, either). He mocks my ongoing polling of women to find one who is so horribly affected (so far, not a one...the polling continues), while he provides nothing to show that they are. Let's be clear: I have no doubt that a virtuous woman would very much dislike being called a slut. Such a woman cherishes her reputation and rightly would hate to see it tarnished, just as anyone else would hate to be slandered or libeled. But if the terms were not directed toward her, it's absurd to suggest she'd somehow take it as a personal attack or even on an attack on womanhood. I'm sorry. "Absurd" doesn't really go far enough. "Lie" is more like it, because there is no "study" that suggests such a thing. My links above bear that out nicely. The only way use of the terms causes harm, aside from the example of the virtuous woman, is as an epithet or as it exposes the character of the non-virtuous woman who prefers to keep hidden the truth about herself.
Dan will simply have to find a more legitimate way to disparage Donald Trump. This tactic is ludicrous, fantasy and totally deceitful. A whore is a whore, and a slut is a slut and a rose by any other name...
More to come....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Words mean things. Sluttiness has gone up dramatically thanks to the Left -- including the "Christian" Left. Witness those "sugar babies" -- that is, prostitutes -- renting out their bodies for cash.
Very true.
It's also curious to think that somehow not using the words when appropriate somehow is a good thing. If one lives like a slut, avoiding the term doesn't make her less a slut. It just makes everyone liars. And it's not used as an epithet, but merely to be accurate in labeling. "Oh...let's not call that guy a thief just because he steals. It might hurt his feelings!" Removing the shame, by refusing to use the terms to properly describe shameful behavior, does NOT lead to repentance, but legitimizes the behavior.
And what really is irksome, is Dan's continued reference to Christ and the adulteress to pretend that Christ didn't acknowledge she was an adulteress. "Neither do I condemn you" doesn't mean she wasn't an adulteress and it doesn't mean that Christ wasn't referencing her adultery when He told her to "sin no more". It simply means that she wouldn't be put to death that day. There's a huge difference between suspending punishment and ignoring the reason why punishment was considered. She was an adulteress...what some might call a "slut" or a "whore". Christ didn't use those specific words, but He most certainly acknowledged she was one. That's what an adulteress is. He called her a sinner by saying she should give up the behavior for which she stood accused. And again, a rose by any other name...or no name at all, for that matter. Dan perverts to enable perversion and immorality.
I'd agree that there are numerous arrangements that meet the definition of prostitution, but that are a little less direct.
While I appreciate your effort, my past experience is that it will very likely be wasted. Some folx appreciation for things like data and peer reviewed studies only extend as far as the things they want to be supported.
Craig,
Direct is what I feel is necessary. The more direct the better when it comes to persuading against harmful, dangerous behavior. If your child is playing with matches, you don't beat around the bush, do you? More so with adults who are prone to indulging cheap rationalizations when it comes to being denied that which they want to do. A few examples to illustrate the point:
---I just heard today a press conference with IL Gov JB Pritzker when asked about a downstate sheriff who is refusing to enforce new mandates beginning May 1 accuses that sheriff of not caring about people getting sick. This isn't exactly the same as calling the sheriff some nasty name, but he is accusing him of nasty behavior, basically calling him heartless, uncaring, unconcerned about the health and safety of the people he's sworn to protect. Not a great thing for the reputation of a law enforcement officer, particularly the head dude.
---Lefties know that calling someone a racist is a great way to affect the behavior of the accused, because no one wants to be known as a racist who isn't one. Lefties commonly use words in this manner. The difference is that it is just to refer to a racist as a racist, regardless of how harsh the word is. One wants the racist to forsake racism, so one is not looking for nicer ways to describe his racist behaviors.
Such is the case with sluts and whores. If the words are harsh, it's only because the behavior is so very wrong and immoral...at least to someone who claims to be Christian. There's no just cause for admonishing the proper description of such women by someone like me who has no particular gripe against womankind in general. Again, I won't use the term against a virtuous woman, or any woman about whom I have no true knowledge of their personal sexual habits. I only used the terms in relation to two specific women who are, by their career choices and claims, to be both whores and sluts. Said another way, if Trump is a pervert because Dan believes him to be so, the calling him a pervert is not merely an epithet, but an accurate description of what Dan perceives to be factual.
At least in my case, there's no speculating necessary about these two women. By their own admission the words are accurate, factual and truthful descriptions of their behavior and thus their character and thus them. And because I regard these behaviors as horribly immoral as per their possible desire for heaven, I find it to their advantage to be made aware of just how bad their lifestyle choices are. They NEED to be called whores and sluts and no "nicer" alternatives if we want to pretend we care about their salvation. What's the likelihood of them choosing to change for the better if their behavior isn't properly labeled in a manner that compels such change? This isn't a matter of blue not being their color. This is serious stuff.
As to my efforts in posting the links, I have no doubt that Dan won't take so much as a moment to so much as skim them. He doesn't want to know what will expose to him how stupid his arguments truly are. But they do serve to prove that such "studies" exist and as such, he can't say I'm just talking out my backside, as he's talking out of his own. I'll always be able to refer to this post if he tries and then he'll be forced to prove them unworthy of consideration or admit he's full of shit.
I think you misunderstood my use of the word direct. I was referring to relationships like sugar babies etc, in which you don’t have a direct cash for sex transaction, but are still essentially prostitution.
He’s going to accuse you of talking out of your ass no matter what you provide. I’m glad you did, it’s just going to be wasted on Dan. Data usually is.
Uh...yeah. I DID misunderstand. Sorry.
If those Leftists really cared about women they'd "slut-shame" as well. Both sides obviously know what a slut is, but the Left is trying to say it isn't something to be ashamed of. But it is a horrible lifestyle that will dramatically reduce their chances of someone wanting to marry them, or, if they do get married, of being able to properly pair-bond. Oh, and the diseases . . .
Art,
No problem.
Neil, there you go bringing data into a conversation that’s more about emotional overreacting than anything else.
Dan's LEFTISM is based on feelings, so he continues his attacks with his emotional vomiting and virtue signalling, but never proves his any of his cases. He's just an SJW fake Christian trying to justify his ideology.
Post a Comment