A Question about "Sluts"

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chiwawa626

Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
12,013
0
0
The fact that your having such conversations means you've been thrown into the friends zone already. Girls who are slutty enough to sleep on the first date or do one-night-stands rarely do so with men they already know. Logically it would make sense for her to have sex with you, she knows you, but no, they tend to like the strangers they meet at random places/parties for casual sex.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: chiwawa626
The fact that your having such conversations means you've been thrown into the friends zone already. Girls who are slutty enough to sleep on the first date or do one-night-stands rarely do so with men they already know. Logically it would make sense for her to have sex with you, she knows you, but no, they tend to like the strangers they meet at random places/parties for casual sex.

Correct. If this girl had any inclination of having sex with the OP, she would already have done so.
 

jiwq

Platinum Member
May 24, 2001
2,036
0
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: chiwawa626
The fact that your having such conversations means you've been thrown into the friends zone already. Girls who are slutty enough to sleep on the first date or do one-night-stands rarely do so with men they already know. Logically it would make sense for her to have sex with you, she knows you, but no, they tend to like the strangers they meet at random places/parties for casual sex.

Correct. If this girl had any inclination of having sex with the OP, she would already have done so.

Sounds like another frustrated yagt thread
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: RCN
LOL.....there is no such thing..............



girls like to fvck you tards...........


What about a girl who never commits to a relationship and racks up hundreds of anonymous sexual partners over the years? You wouldn't call that a slut?
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RCN
LOL.....there is no such thing..............



girls like to fvck you tards...........


What about a girl who never commits to a relationship and racks up hundreds of anonymous sexual partners over the years? You wouldn't call that a slut?

It only takes one fvck to catch a disease. A careless 'virtuous' girl may have the sickness you'd expect from the cautious 'slut', so what is your point?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

It only takes one fvck to catch a disease. A careless 'virtuous' girl may have the sickness you'd expect from the cautious 'slut', so what is your point?


The definition of "slut" describes the person's behavior, not the fact of whether they have a disease or not.

slut Audio pronunciation of "slut" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slt)
n.
1.
a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.


Also, just because it only takes one time to catch a disease doesn't make it as likely as if you did it many times. The risk is proportional to the exposure. It's usually idiots who want to downplay this obvious fact when they say, "oh, there's no difference, since it only takes one time to catch something" There is a difference. That difference is probability.

It baffles me when I see people wanting to act without regard to consequence. They want to do the deed, but they don't like the connotation that comes with that deed. You can change what you do, but you cannot change what others think about you or how they describe you. Hence, terms like "slut". The word has been around for at least 500 years, and it's not about to change now.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,393
19,725
146
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

It only takes one fvck to catch a disease. A careless 'virtuous' girl may have the sickness you'd expect from the cautious 'slut', so what is your point?


The definition of "slut" describes the person's behavior, not the fact of whether they have a disease or not.

slut Audio pronunciation of "slut" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slt)
n.
1.
a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.


Also, just because it only takes one time to catch a disease doesn't make it as likely as if you did it many times. The risk is proportional to the exposure. It's usually idiots who want to downplay this obvious fact when they say, "oh, there's no difference, since it only takes one time to catch something" There is a difference. That difference is probability.

A man sleeps around, he's a "stud." A woman does it and she's a "slut."

That alone should tell you what a bullsh!t term that is.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused

A man sleeps around, he's a "stud." A woman does it and she's a "slut."

That alone should tell you what a bullsh!t term that is.


I wouldn't consider him to be a stud. He's still dirty in my book. I've known guys who had a habit of sleeping with the "cheapest" and "easiest" girls around. I didn't think highly of them.
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

It only takes one fvck to catch a disease. A careless 'virtuous' girl may have the sickness you'd expect from the cautious 'slut', so what is your point?


The definition of "slut" describes the person's behavior, not the fact of whether they have a disease or not.

slut Audio pronunciation of "slut" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slt)
n.
1.
a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.


Also, just because it only takes one time to catch a disease doesn't make it as likely as if you did it many times. The risk is proportional to the exposure. It's usually idiots who want to downplay this obvious fact when they say, "oh, there's no difference, since it only takes one time to catch something" There is a difference. That difference is probability.

It baffles me when I see people wanting to act without regard to consequence. They want to do the deed, but they don't like the connotation that comes with that deed. You can change what you do, but you cannot change what others think about you or how they describe you. Hence, terms like "slut". The word has been around for at least 500 years, and it's not about to change now.

My point is a careless, clueless virtuous girl is more likely to fvck without precaution. An experienced girl will do all in her power to prevent. The result is that the risk might as well be the same, so why not pork the slut? She'd be better in the sack anyway.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,393
19,725
146
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Amused

A man sleeps around, he's a "stud." A woman does it and she's a "slut."

That alone should tell you what a bullsh!t term that is.


I wouldn't consider him to be a stud. He's still dirty in my book. I've known guys who had a habit of sleeping with the "cheapest" and "easiest" girls around. I didn't think highly of them.

OK, what about a guy who sleeps with as many hard to get girls as he can?

At any rate, the term "slut" is crap, as there is no comparable term for a man who does the same thing.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused


At any rate, the term "slut" is crap, as there is no comparable term for a man who does the same thing.

That seems like a logical fallacy there. You're saying one term is crap because there's not an equivalent term for something else?

What if the one term is dead-on, and that our language just lacks a comparable term for the other?

Besides, I usually hear women call guys like that, "dogs" or "pigs".
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

My point is a careless, clueless virtuous girl is more likely to fvck without precaution. An experienced girl will do all in her power to prevent. The result is that the risk might as well be the same, so why not pork the slut? She'd be better in the sack anyway.


But the slut was once a careless, clueless girl at one time, too, so she made all the mistakes the virtuous girl did. Now on top of that, she slutted around for years and years afterwards.

The slut wasn't always a slut, she had to get her start somehow.