The Indelible Bonobo Experience

..get an STD test, I can, and will, call you a slut..

communismkills:

the-capitalist:

cowboy-robot:

daisysnotebook:

communismkills:

This does not mean I want you to be raped.

This does not mean I want to control you.

It means you’re a slut.

If you think it’s something I’m “shaming” you for, then maybe you feel ashamed of your actions.

If you’re “empowered” by sex, you shouldn’t feel ashamed by anyone’s “shaming”.

And I’d like to know how anybody’s sex life is any business of mine or anyone else’s. Why are these kinds of slurs necessary? It’s all about attitude and personality, not how many people you’ve slept with. The word “slut” is a vile slur; it’s not polite to call anyone that, even if you don’t agree with their choices. 

There’s a difference between people trying to reclaim a word so they can feel some sort of sexual empowerment and you using it in a derogatory manner in attempts to make them feel ashamed of their own choices.

Having sex with one partner still warrants an STD checkup, by the way. You don’t have to be “a slut” to get these checkups.

Which is why the “who gives a shit what others do so long as rights aren’t being violated” is one of the best positions anyone can take on almost all issues.

The problem here is distinguishing the difference between rights to action, which is based on morality, and personal morality. An individual who is out having sex on a very constant basis and being promiscuous has the right to do so. It is their individual freedom. It is their body. It is their choice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that in a social context, political context, or a “rights” context. That is, however, one arena. It is a political arena. 

However, morally, the person who is out sleeping around, being promiscuous is immoral. It’s a show of the lack of value of themselves, of their bodies, of their standards, and of their life. It is one thing to have numerous partners but have very deep, personal, feelings for them and value for them as lovers, as partners, as individuals, and I mean that in the context of that individual achieving those virtues that you desire in a mate, that your value. You can have numerous partners like that, but when someone refers to someone as a slut, it is those people who do not have those types of partners, but are merely out spreading open for a variety of reasons like “pleasure” or “fun”, though neither of those are standards for action or morality. 

So, in a moral context, one has the right and should judge a person upon their sexual activities and the partners they have had sex with. It is part of their character and that is how we judge individuals by: their character. However, since our moral code does not value coercion, or the invasion of people’s lives, or the violation of people’s rights, they are free to act in what manner they want as long as they do not hurt others. 

It is still a moral issue no matter what you want to try and make it out to be, but to be cowardly enough to not judge them based on their character is just another example of moral agnosticism. We do not have to stop them from being who they want to be, but we can make our own value judgments people based on their actions and label them as such. And if they get annoyed by “slut shaming”, well…maybe they should stop being sluts.

Bingo.

Of course, an Objectivist gets it.

I can judge whomever I want for any action they take because I have the ability to reason.

If I feel as if someone is acting immorally, I can, and will, call them out on it.

BS!

Read The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures 

1. Using the term “slut” is a clear indication of sexism and quite possibly misogyny. A man who has sex with many women is a “stud” or a “playboy” and there’s nothing negative about that. After all, a man is spreading his seed, fulfilling the instinct that has made our species so successful. Why are we refusing women the same treatment? Aren’t these attitudes reminiscent of the desire to censor and control women, which has “blossomed” in other cultures in restrictions to education, full coverings / censure and rampant discrimination?
2. The idea that seeking “pleasure and fun” is immoral is erroneous on too many levels to mention. Last time I checked “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was “engraved” on a very important document in USA and has become, spread by pax americana, the motto of the entire Western culture and now the entire world’s desideratum.
3. There are other reasons to get an STD test, such as rape or having had contact with hospital equipment, especially blood work etc. In Canada, a recent investigation has found that sterilizing procedures are severely lacking; not long ago, people got AIDS or hep C from a colonoscopy. Women can get pelvic exams without their consent.
4. Claiming that you respect sluts’ freedom but you just disapprove of it (for whatever illogical, unreasonable motives) is hypocritical. You will vote for dumb men who claim they will pass laws to control women, oblivious to the fact that they have no intention of doing so and are telling you only what you need to hear. Should you have lived in Jesus’ time, you’d have been one of those to cast the first tone. As you age, you will become one of the bible thumping bigots that form the core membership of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Your adherence to social conservatism is, however, not determined by logic and reason, as probably my beliefs are neither. It is your early childhood and upbringing that chrystalised such beliefs and therefore it is highly unlikely that you can change them by discussion and reasoning.

(See also the free PDF.)