permutationofninjas:

theunisexbrigade:

I think all sexism is stupid and only serves to harm, rather than help… Nonetheless, I am posting this because it makes a valid point. 

Women complain that the term “slut” is used negatively against them when they “act like men.” They also have a general attitude that women are incapable of having sex for the very things the accuse men of having sex for. The general idea among women, it seems, is that they are “above all that” and never take advantage of men like men take advantage of women.

Some men like to have sex with a lot of people. Some men will lie to get into someones pants. Everyone in agreement here? Good. 

Okay, try and stay with me for this one: Some women like to have sex with a lot of people. Some women will lie to get into someones pants. Some women will have sex for material items, for money, and generally for greedy, selfish reason.

When you try to bring this up in a conversation among certain ladies, they will become very offended and defensive and deny this, while turning the subject back on how horrible, selfish, and piggish men are. 

You are likely to hear something like this in the conversation: “All men are the same!” Except they’re not. And it shouldn’t be assumed that all women are the same either. But just as you shouldn’t assume that an entire gender is all bad, you should also not assume that an entire gender is all good; and that, audience, is what certain feminists seem to be playing at.

tl;dr: If women actually started acting like men with regards to sex the term “slut” would lose all meaning.  ”Slut” only has meaning because of “sexual economy”, the idea that women “sell” sex and men “buy” it, but if women stopped using sex as a weapon/tool/meal ticket the model would break down.

It relates to the theory of sexual economy, too.  Because our culture sets women up as providers of sex and men as consumers of sex, the paradigm doesn’t *allow* for a man to function in a way that would acquire the label.

To use another example, say, televisions:  If someone has fifty Zony TV’s, he’s rich and impressive.  If everyone has a Zony TV, we think they’re cheap TV’s because everyone can afford one.  The manufacturer is seen as prestigious by selling few at high prices, whereas the consumer is seen as prestigious if they can buy many at any price.  (If everybody has a Rolex, we wouldn’t consider them special.  If I have ten Rolexes, I’m very, very rich.  Pick whichever luxury product you want.)

Apply it to sex, and male “consumers” of sex, and we see the problem.  A man who has sex with many women is “rich” and thus prestigious (and one who has none is “poor” and thus poor), whereas a woman who has sex with many men is “cheap”, and thus not and a woman who limits her partners and successfully demands a lot from each is considered “expensive” and thus prestigious.  Women are the only ones that can get the label because women and men aren’t even playing the same game.  (The male equivalent would be “virgin-shaming”, which happens more than most might think.)

The other case is the one at the bottom of the photo.  Because of the sexual economy, women have sexual privilege.  That is, most women who are willing to have sex without some form of gain or difficulty on the part of the man can effectively have as much sex as they want, whenever they want.  ”Sleeping around” is seen as misuse of this privilege.

If women stopped trying to use sex for control, monetary gain and other similar, the term “slut” would eventually cease to be meaningful.  ”Slut” only makes sense in a paradigm with women as sellers and men as buyers.  If people simply had sex for pleasure, and thus had relatively easy access to sex depending on their own sex drive the amount of sex they ended up having wouldn’t be considered important.  

Rather than TV’s, it’s more like Coke.  Pretty much everybody can buy Coke, and they can buy pretty much as much as they want of it.  If I want ten bottles and the other guy wants two, nobody really cares because it’s about what we want, not what we can have.  (You’ll note that there is no real provider in this example, because men and women are on the same field as consumers, the “cost” being the effort to go out and find a partner.)  Sure, the guy with none might be seen as a little weird and the guy who’s got a fridge and pantry stocked with a hundred bottles a little obsessive, but for the most part (as mentioned) we just don’t care.

Which would you rather?