posted
Well, for that there is "player" (which is the man counterpart of slut, someone who sleeps around a lot and has little to no connection emotionally to those individuals), and "pimp" (less negative but it depends on who says it). I think words like skank and ho which are often used for men are more derogatory as used towards men because guys generally are insulted when there is even the slightest chance that they are being called girly, no matter how indirectly.
I feel weird writing words like this at Hatrack.
Anyway, I just feel that where I live things are different than they used to be, and sexual females are not looked down upon unless they dress promiscuously, and only by those who don't dress that way. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but I tried Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, it's particularly difficult to pin down what a "healthy" attitude about sex would be, and that changes for different times in life as well as different life circumstances within any single culture. We live in a time and a country where cultural traditions are mixed. That just adds to the confusion.
That's why my standards don't relate to the sex part. Doesn't matter a whit to me if you are married, single, chaste, or working your way through the Milwaukee phone book.
Treat people honorably and ethically, act unselfishly, and try to leave the situation better than before you arrived. That applies to sex, raising children, running a business, posting in a forum, whatever.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Doesn't matter a whit to me if you are married, single, chaste, or working your way through the Milwaukee phone book.
Good golly, it does to me.
Milwaukee? Have some pride!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when not used literally it still has connotations of "being in charge of a large number of sexy, experienced women", whereas player has always been... a player. Nobody wants to date a player. Or a pimp, for that matter, but people want to BE them Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard words that are applied only to men, based on sexual activity, and are derogatory.
They also have a tinge of racism, so for all of the above reasons, I prefer not to put them here and perpetuate the meme, however inadvertently.
I have only heard the terms in Utah. Laying aside the yucky racism part, I wonder if the term arose because there isn't as much of a double standard? The society expects the same behavior from both sexes.
quote:Well, when not used literally it still has connotations of "being in charge of a large number of sexy, experienced women",
Really? Because to me, it means "taking advantage of and living off of women while contributing nothing" which is NOT a pleasant connotation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was talking about the non-literal meaning. Obviously real pimps are, for lack of a better word, bad.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The non-literal meaning is still not good - it still means someone who sees women as commodities to make him look good/improve his life. Every twist on "pimp" means someone that disrespects women.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes yes, I agree. When I'm saying there's slightly positive connotations with "pimp," I'm referring to the way that in the hip-hop and rap world, it's something to be proud of... rappers brag about being a P-I-M-P (up in NYC, etc etc... just like they sometimes brag about being "thugs"... it's not necessarily and probably isn't true), so, just like grills, fancy rims, and bling, there's a bit of glam surrounding it and there are people out there who would like (to be/to be with) these things/people.
No one would be jealous of a man called a "skank" or "ho", and no one would want to be with a "player". (there are exceptions, I know this, but for the sake of simplicity pimp > player).
[edited a bajillion times for clarity]
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Yes yes, I agree. When I'm saying there's slightly positive connotations with "pimp," I'm referring to the way that in the hip-hop and rap world, it's something to be proud of... rappers brag about being a P-I-M-P (up in NYC, etc etc... just like they sometimes brag about being "thugs"... it's not necessarily and probably isn't true), so, just like grills, fancy rims, and bling, there's a bit of glam surrounding it and there are people out there who would like (to be/to be with) these things/people.
No one would be jealous of a man called a "skank" or "ho", and no one would want to be with a "player". (there are exceptions, I know this, but for the sake of simplicity pimp > player).
[edited a bajillion times for clarity]
I watched an interesting documentary about Tupac Shakur, and a women interviewer asked him how he felt about women and the double standard that if a man sleeps around he is a player but if a woman does it she is a ho.
Tupac basically said something to this effect, "I really dont care if a girl sleeps around, she can sleep around all she wants she can still be my home girl, its when she is sleeping with some guy because she wants his stuff, then she is a ho, take guys, we sleep around, but we do it for free!"
I don't completely agree with his logic, but I agree that its not the sex that is wrong in of itself, its the way you are treating your partner.
I happen to think that you do more harm then good by sleeping around, but if 2 people say they had sex and are no longer together but they are both happier for having had sex with each other, I will not tell them I know better. I won't think less of them either.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of positive connotations to Pimp, depending on which circles you're in. Pimping something means making it fancy, adding new features. I think it has kind of a old west gunslinger feel. You're not necessarily a good guy, but you have a certain badass kind of respect.
And a lot of women.
From a purely genetic standpoint, males succeed by spreading their genes to as many females as possible, and females succeed by insuring that their offspring thrive.
There must be some sort of biological connection to the idea that it's positive for men to sleep around, but negative for women.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: There are a lot of positive connotations to Pimp, depending on which circles you're in. Pimping something means making it fancy, adding new features. I think it has kind of a old west gunslinger feel. You're not necessarily a good guy, but you have a certain badass kind of respect.
And a lot of women.
From a purely genetic standpoint, males succeed by spreading their genes to as many females as possible, and females succeed by insuring that their offspring thrive.
There must be some sort of biological connection to the idea that it's positive for men to sleep around, but negative for women.
If you look at the leaders of many ancient powerful civilizations, one of the manifestations of their power was multiple wives.
That seems to be supporting evidence of your assertion, though I am refraining from making a moral judgement on the matter Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the problem a lot of people have isn't that we as a society judge people based on the number of partners they've had. It's that we judge women far more harshly than men. And whether or not you, personally, judge them equally is pretty much irrelevant to wether the society does. If the words we use to describe sexual behavior reflect the boundaries society wants to place on it, then society only thinks women having lots of sex is wrong. There have been several derogatory words for women used in this thread. I can think of a dozen more. There has been one word for men, man whore, which is based on the word whore, used for women. And incidentally, which I have never heard used in a derogatory manner. Although if people point out some instances, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong about that. It's still telling that it's the only word to describe sexually active men, though.
quote: Clearly sex is something we have decided to place boundries on, and the words we use to describe those who break the boundries reflect that.
See, society is wise, intelligent, and perceptive in placing boundaries around women but not around men. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I think the problem a lot of people have isn't that we as a society judge people based on the number of partners they've had. It's that we judge women far more harshly than men. And whether or not you, personally, judge them equally is pretty much irrelevant to whether the society does. If the words we use to describe sexual behavior reflect the boundaries society wants to place on it, then society only thinks women having lots of sex is wrong. There have been several derogatory words for women used in this thread. I can think of a dozen more. There has been one word for men, man whore, which is based on the word whore, used for women. And incidentally, which I have never heard used in a derogatory manner. Although if people point out some instances, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong about that. It's still telling that it's the only word to describe sexually active men, though.
I agree completely blacwolve.
I should add - I do think this is changing. But I still think that as a generality there is still a sexual double standard between the genders.
I also think that in sub-cultures where there isn't that double-standard (usually where sexual promiscuity is disapproved for both genders equally) the connotations behind derogatory words may not be the same as they are in wider 'general' culture.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, society is wise, intelligent, and perceptive in placing boundaries around women but not around men.
Some societies do place the same boundries on men as on women.
Whatever the double standard, it is still seen as sleazy for a man to have multiple children by different mothers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some societies do place the same boundries on men as on women.
No more 'we'? What happened to 'society' has decided?
The point that I was speaking to, Kat, which you seem to have ignored, is that you seemed to be insinuating that 'society' was wisely policing itself, that it could, or was, doing so intelligently.
I do not think that this is the case, that a large society can intelligently use a unified standard of moral behavior with any degree of usefulness, because that standard, when implied to individuals, is going to be lacking in accurate information with regard to each individuals situation, and is going to be burdened down by blind custom and assumptions--as is it is in the case of the double standard.
There is a chapter in Naomi Wolf's "Promiscuities" entitled 'Sluts' that I really have been wanting to type up and post on Hatrack that speaks to this issue, of how stupid even the teachers of a High School can be in seeing people clearly.
quote: Some societies do place the same boundries on men as on women.
Whatever the double standard, it is still seen as sleazy for a man to have multiple children by different mothers.
I'm not sure if you meant to tie your two sentences together. They don't read to me that way, so I"m going to address them as seperate ideas. If I misunderstood, pardon.
What's interesting is that your first statement is true, and your second is false. Quite often men sleeping around and having children by different mothers are doing so because it is the norm, the standard, in the communities in which they live, particularly the male community, again highlighting the capricious usefulness of standards.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I didn't say what you are arguing against. I'm happy to explain anything I did say, but I'm not going to defend the words you have chosen to put in my mouth.
For my last post, it's down to "I think there is a stigma." and "I don't think there is a stigma." Clearly we have different perceptions of societal standards.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still a bit discomforted by the (perceived, by me, and possibly in error) implication that just because societies in general share an unease or distaste that is reflected in the language, this must reflect some underlying truth about how it must be.
That is, I take studies of the beliefs of societies and underlying vagaries of language to be descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. Like much of induction, it seems to be to be highly useful for generating hypotheses (which must certainly come from somewhere, and being able to generate them systematically is a most useful part of science), but not for negating the null.
Consider the prevalence of disgust-laden words for those of mental or physical deficiencies: crip/cripple, gimp, retard, spaz, villiage idiot. Although this may reflect a general social trend to distinguish and distance Us from Them, I'm not sure that this fact establishes that this is reasonable or proper.
As regards counterexamples of small[er] societies that buck trends, certainly there have likely been, or may be, some examples of societies whose language reflects distate for men who engage in sex frequently or (in some sense) indiscriminately, just as for women. Certainly, too, it is likely that there have been at least some societies that don't seem to have drawn that same distinction of distaste for either. (We can debate this point, although I'll privilege in advance discussion of documented societies who may not be currently represented.)
Same for crips, gimps, and idiots. But the sense of distate and even -- as our sndrake continues to remind us -- the more insiduous assumptions about quality of life still pervade our "enlightened" culture. Doesn't mean that it establishes the worth of such a stance, though.
---
I'm not sure if I am the only one reading some of the vibes this way. It's entirely possible that my concern reflects issues in my own mind rather than what is actually on the table. Nonetheless, I'd like to bring that current out into the open (if it is there) and critically examine it together.
If it's just me, on the other hand, feel free to let me natter on to myself in the corner.
---
Edited to add: Ahh, I see this has been broached more directly while I was writing. Carry on, then.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I didn't say what you are arguing against. [Smile]
I don't understand this.
quote: I'm happy to explain anything I did say, but I'm not going to defend the words you have chosen to put in my mouth.
What makes you think that I'm putting words in your mouth, rather than that I either misunderstood what you said, or you weren't clear enough, or both? You aren't someone who just discovered internet forums, so it can't be new to you that someone *innocently* misinterpreted what someone else wrote.
quote: For my last post, it's down to "I think there is a stigma." and "I don't think there is a stigma." Clearly we have different perceptions of societal standards.
I dont' understand how this applies to your last post and my last post, exactly? Sorry. Perhaps I am being slow today. Can you please elaborate?
edit: Got rid of the first quote, which I didn't mean to be there. Pardon.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure of what you're saying, ssasse.
quote:I'm still a bit discomforted by the (perceived, by me, and possibly in error) implication that just because societies in general share an unease or distaste that is reflected in the language, this must reflect some underlying truth about how it must be.
It seems like you're classifying society's standards for sexual behavior with society's standards for "quality of life." The implication seems to be that just as society is severely wrong in judging some lives to be not worth living, it is just as wrong for judging some sexual behaviors to be inappropriate.
I don't believe in calling people names at all, and I think that's been made clear. A person is made of many things and is primarily a human being, and pejorative terms ignore all of that and reduce an individual to a single (negative) characteristic. That's wack.
I do think that it's okay for a society to have some standards for and limits on the sexual behavior of its members. And actually, I don't think there is disagreement on that. It seems like the disagreement is on where the line may lie.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Same with subcultures where it is approved for both genders equally
Yep. But I would suggest the other type of subculture is more prevalent (if solely for the fact that any religious subculture will tend to be disapproving of premarital sex) - which is why I used it as an example.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whatever the double standard, it is still seen as sleazy for a man to have multiple children by different mothers.
I'm going to have to agree with Storm, here. I don't think this is true in at least a significant percentage of society. I've encountered too many men who are proud of it. In some sub-groups it's considered proof of masculinity to get your girlfriend pregnant. (And your next girlfriend, and your next.) Unfortunately, it's not always also considered proof of masculinity to provide for your child, hence the horrific statistics on non-payment of child support. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I would be fascinated to see a study that surveyed the nation and came up with what sexual standards exist in what part of the country.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not sure of what you're saying, ssasse.
I'll give it another go. Like you, I am chosing my words carefully, but that may make it more difficult to read them clearly.
quote:
quote:I'm still a bit discomforted by the (perceived, by me, and possibly in error) implication that just because societies in general share an unease or distaste that is reflected in the language, this must reflect some underlying truth about how it must be.
It seems like you're classifying society's standards for sexual behavior with society's standards for "quality of life." The implication seems to be that just as society is severely wrong in judging some lives to be not worth living, it is just as wrong for judging some sexual behaviors to be inappropriate.
I don't believe in calling people names at all, and I think that's been made clear. A person is made of many things and is primarily a human being, and pejorative terms ignore all of that and reduce an individual to a single (negative) characteristic. That's wack.
A restatement of my contention, more baldly: I don't think that just because it seems common for societies to share a certain belief, it therefore follows that there is good reason for societies to have such a belief.
And now for more nuance: it seemed to me that there was an undercurrent to the thread of a positing that because societies seem to share a certain assumption, then this sharing of assumption might indicate some weight to the idea that this is a good thing.
The reference to language was just a furtherance of the (already brought up) notion that the language used by a society seems to reflect what it values. That is, I did not mean to ascribe to you any belief whatsoever about particular words -- rather, I was musing on the implications of and possible counterexamples to some musings about language and culture that were already generally on the table.
I hope that makes more sense. I certainly don't mean to imply -- ever -- that I think you are comfortable with calling* anyone derogatory names!
quote:I do think that it's okay for a society to have some standards for and limits on the sexual behavior of its members. And actually, I don't think there is disagreement on that. It seems like the disagreement is on where the line may lie.
Again, what I was responding to was quite circumscribed: the idea that was on the table (as perceived by me) that just because it seems common for societies to share a certain belief, it therefore follows that there is good reason for societies to have such a belief. To the extent that you (or anyone else!) is not interested in asserting or discussing that particular issue, you should feel perfectly free to ignore my ramblings here entirely.
---- *Edited to change: "callking" (?) to "calling"
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. It may not necessarily follow that it is good, but I think does mean looking at it. I don't think something should be dismissed without a second look.
In other words, there is probably a reason - multiple reasons - for it.They may not be good reasons, but I think we are better served by looking at ALL the reasons and not rejecting the standard because some of the reasons are not good.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's less the part of the country than the communities that people belong to, or whether people belong to any community in the first place. And by community, I speak of family, too.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Okay. It may not necessarily follow that it is good, but I think does mean looking at it. I don't think something should be dismissed without a second look.
In other words, there is probably a reason - multiple reasons - for it.They may not be good reasons, but I think we are better served by looking at ALL the reasons and not rejecting the standard because some of the reasons are not good.
Certainly we agree, then! I think induction is a great way of generating potentially useful hypotheses. That's not a brush-off, by the way -- I think science has not fully appreciated how important the generation and selection of hypotheses is.
One cannot just examine every possibility. There are a virtually infinite number, so it is criticial to have some reliable-ish means of sorting out which ones are most relevant and potentially interesting.
---
Edited to add: by ranting on about "science," I didn't mean to imply that the moral aspect should be trumped by some sort of scientific study. Whether or not such standards are good ones to uphold is of course not just a matter of science! (Far from it, actually, as we all know how embarrassing it is to try to make an "ought" out of an "is.") But I was merely going off on the science aspect of it, as that is there too (as it is for any claims of fact about the world), since it is one of my pet peeves.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I think it's less the part of the country than the communities that people belong to, or whether people belong to any community in the first place. And by community, I speak of family, too.
Yep. Right here in one town I can identify subgroups of people who disaprove of the idea of sex outside of marriage (or even long-term dating that doesn't lead to marriage) and other groups where it's cool to have the names of your out-of-wedlock kids (but not their mother/s) tatooed on your arm.
What's interesting is settings where those groups overlap/interact.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Have some pride!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
