Sexuality, Human Expression, and Personhood

[Sefard]

No, what matters is making sure you take your meds. It's a very good thing that people are people, and not a collection of hormonal urges with no higher brain function, or else you might be correct. Thankfully, people manage to make choices that defy what you expect all the time.

The exception may happen for males only due to the higher sex drive in males, especially those exposed to androgens at critical development points. However for highly feminine females, the preference for dominant masculine males will be a constant because females are already selective because they've got more to invest in reproduction, the best top-tier women are the most selective but can trade health for status and wealth. She carries the child for nine months while the male can walk off. Females with the best health initially want the healthiest males
but are willing to make a trade-off provided that he can provide her stability for her offspring.

According to sociobiology, this is true.

[Mini Miehm]

No, what matters is making sure you take your meds. It's a very good thing that people are people, and not a collection of hormonal urges with no higher brain function, or else you might be correct. Thankfully, people manage to make choices that defy what you expect all the time.

The exception may happen for males only due to the higher sex drive in males, especially those exposed to androgens at critical development points. However for highly feminine females, the preference for dominant masculine males will be a constant because females are already selective because they've got more to invest in reproduction, the best top-tier women are the most selective but can trade health for status and wealth. She carries the child for nine months while the male can walk off. Females with the best health initially want the healthiest males
but are willing to make a trade-off provided that he can provide her stability for her offspring.

Actually, female sexual attraction varies quite a bit more than that. This is why you end up with sketchy looking dudes with very attractive women. Because the sketchy looking dude has qualities other than physical attractiveness that the woman finds desirable, like not being a lunatic, or being able to breathe through an orifice other than the mouth. Or, treating her like a human being, rather than a warm place to put his dick. You nattering on about things you really don't understand is...alternately depressing and somewhat impressive. It's been a long time since I saw someone display this much ignorance for this long.

[Shie]

I prefer 3rd from the left and second from the right.

The guy all the way on the left looks like a serial killer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez

He was a sex symbol to women even though he you know, slit the throats of 14+ people. He had 1,000's of female admirers from all over.

By the time of the trial, Ramirez had fans who were writing him letters and paying him visits.[26] Beginning in 1985, freelance magazine editor Doreen Lioy[27] wrote him nearly 75 letters during his incarceration.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq8l8 ... o1_500.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y-6SOxPIjlc/T ... amirez.jpg

Look at those cheekbones. This is the type of savage phenotype is the winner. To be able to look past the fact that the guy is a murderous psychopath and still be attracted to him because of his face just shows what's really at play here.

[Des-Bal]

What does a slut look like exactly? What IS a slut? Because the issue with using words like "Slut" is that it's a loaded term. It carries connotations of shaming, judgement, and derision. You're passing judgment on a person based on nothing more than how they dress. That's a shitty damn way to run a railroad.

Well they don't look the same all the time but when they're on the prowl you can generally go by how much skin they're showing, how prominently cleavage is displayed, hairstyle, make up all that goodness.

I generally define "slut" as a woman who regularly has sex with people before or independently of a relationship. I don't see a problem with it.

You're loading the term. The shame judgement and derision are all in your head not in the word. People find the idea of a woman enjoying casual sex offensive so there is no way to describe a woman who enjoys casual sex without that word being called "loaded." What you're saying is that if society doesn't approve of you you don't exist and that good sir is a shitty way to run a railroad.

[Mini Miehm]

What does a slut look like exactly? What IS a slut? Because the issue with using words like "Slut" is that it's a loaded term. It carries connotations of shaming, judgement, and derision. You're passing judgment on a person based on nothing more than how they dress. That's a shitty damn way to run a railroad.

Well they don't look the same all the time but when they're on the prowl you can generally go by how much skin they're showing, how prominently cleavage is displayed, hairstyle, make up all that goodness.

I generally define "slut" as a woman who regularly has sex with people before or independently of a relationship. I don't see a problem with it.

You're loading the term. The shame judgement and derision are all in your head not in the word. People find the idea of a woman enjoying casual sex offensive so there is no way to describe a woman who enjoys casual sex without that word being called "loaded." What you're saying is that if society doesn't approve of you you don't exist and that good sir is a shitty way to run a railroad.

So, dressing like a slut is entirely subjective. Glad we cleared that up. Let's leave our subjectivity off of other people's bodies and choices.

A woman who enjoys casual sex is a woman. There's no other word necessary to describe her. We don't have one for men, why do we need one for women? What I'm saying is that it's not up to society to approve or disapprove. Labeling people based on what they do and how they dress is a shitty way to act, and if that's how society wants to operate, society can go to hell.

[Sefard]

Well they don't look the same all the time but when they're on the prowl you can generally go by how much skin they're showing, how prominently cleavage is displayed, hairstyle, make up all that goodness.

I generally define "slut" as a woman who regularly has sex with people before or independently of a relationship. I don't see a problem with it.

You're loading the term. The shame judgement and derision are all in your head not in the word. People find the idea of a woman enjoying casual sex offensive so there is no way to describe a woman who enjoys casual sex without that word being called "loaded." What you're saying is that if society doesn't approve of you you don't exist and that good sir is a shitty way to run a railroad.

So, dressing like a slut is entirely subjective. Glad we cleared that up. Let's leave our subjectivity off of other people's bodies and choices.

A woman who enjoys casual sex is a woman. There's no other word necessary to describe her. We don't have one for men, why do we need one for women? What I'm saying is that it's not up to society to approve or disapprove. Labeling people based on what they do and how they dress is a shitty way to act, and if that's how society wants to operate, society can go to hell.

There's a reason why society has these feelings; it is because generally human beings find these traits to be undesirable when assessing mates for long term relationships, and, it is true, they are undesirable.

[Des-Bal]

So, dressing like a slut is entirely subjective. Glad we cleared that up. Let's leave our subjectivity off of other people's bodies and choices.

A woman who enjoys casual sex is a woman. There's no other word necessary to describe her. We don't have one for men, why do we need one for women? What I'm saying is that it's not up to society to approve or disapprove. Labeling people based on what they do and how they dress is a shitty way to act, and if that's how society wants to operate, society can go to hell.

Yeah let's fucking not. Anything that has to do with culture is subjective.

There's nothing wrong with labeling, we label everything we observe. You're saying that they don't exist as a concept because society has put a negative connotation to the word. That is fucked up. You've mistaken willful ignorance for being progressive and that is fucked up. We have "pimp" "player" and "womanizer" for men depending on what connotation your looking for.

[Shie]

The exception may happen for males only due to the higher sex drive in males, especially those exposed to androgens at critical development points. However for highly feminine females, the preference for dominant masculine males will be a constant because females are already selective because they've got more to invest in reproduction, the best top-tier women are the most selective but can trade health for status and wealth. She carries the child for nine months while the male can walk off. Females with the best health initially want the healthiest males
but are willing to make a trade-off provided that he can provide her stability for her offspring.

Actually, female sexual attraction varies quite a bit more than that. This is why you end up with sketchy looking dudes with very attractive women. Because the sketchy looking dude has qualities other than physical attractiveness that the woman finds desirable, like not being a lunatic, or being able to breathe through an orifice other than the mouth. Or, treating her like a human being, rather than a warm place to put his dick. You nattering on about things you really don't understand is...alternately depressing and somewhat impressive. It's been a long time since I saw someone display this much ignorance for this long.

Define "sketchy-looking" before we carry on this debate. I've provided pictorial examples and am more credible until you provide some sort of evidence, preferably scientific as mine.

[Novia Soviet Socialist Republic]

Actually, female sexual attraction varies quite a bit more than that. This is why you end up with sketchy looking dudes with very attractive women. Because the sketchy looking dude has qualities other than physical attractiveness that the woman finds desirable, like not being a lunatic, or being able to breathe through an orifice other than the mouth. Or, treating her like a human being, rather than a warm place to put his dick. You nattering on about things you really don't understand is...alternately depressing and somewhat impressive. It's been a long time since I saw someone display this much ignorance for this long.

Define "sketchy-looking" before we carry on this debate.

Sketchy looking as in if they ever look at you as if they've just been bitten by a poisonous snake/spider when in fact they haven't.

[Des-Bal]

Actually, female sexual attraction varies quite a bit more than that. This is why you end up with sketchy looking dudes with very attractive women. Because the sketchy looking dude has qualities other than physical attractiveness that the woman finds desirable, like not being a lunatic, or being able to breathe through an orifice other than the mouth. Or, treating her like a human being, rather than a warm place to put his dick. You nattering on about things you really don't understand is...alternately depressing and somewhat impressive. It's been a long time since I saw someone display this much ignorance for this long.

You're talking about personal qualities, in terms of physical appearance his spiel about symmetry, masculinity, and femininity are all very accurate.

[Shie]

Define "sketchy-looking" before we carry on this debate.

Sketchy looking as in if they ever look at you as if they've just been bitten by a poisonous snake/spider when in fact they haven't.

A female would settle for men like this because they've got a relatively high amount of money or status.
Women will dismiss their disfigured looks if they can get a sociological/economic trade-off.

[Mini Miehm]

Actually, female sexual attraction varies quite a bit more than that. This is why you end up with sketchy looking dudes with very attractive women. Because the sketchy looking dude has qualities other than physical attractiveness that the woman finds desirable, like not being a lunatic, or being able to breathe through an orifice other than the mouth. Or, treating her like a human being, rather than a warm place to put his dick. You nattering on about things you really don't understand is...alternately depressing and somewhat impressive. It's been a long time since I saw someone display this much ignorance for this long.

Define "sketchy-looking" before we carry on this debate. I've provided pictorial examples and am more credible until you provide some sort of evidence, preferably scientific as mine.

For your purposes, a sketchy looking guy would be one who does not fit your ideal, but still manages to find himself in a relationship with a female who fits the modern physical ideal, despite his physical imperfections.

[Shie]

Define "sketchy-looking" before we carry on this debate. I've provided pictorial examples and am more credible until you provide some sort of evidence, preferably scientific as mine.

For your purposes, a sketchy looking guy would be one who does not fit your ideal, but still manages to find himself in a relationship with a female who fits the modern physical ideal, despite his physical imperfections.

Due to his perceived high social value or his extensive financial wealth or resources.

[Mini Miehm]

Actually, female sexual attraction varies quite a bit more than that. This is why you end up with sketchy looking dudes with very attractive women. Because the sketchy looking dude has qualities other than physical attractiveness that the woman finds desirable, like not being a lunatic, or being able to breathe through an orifice other than the mouth. Or, treating her like a human being, rather than a warm place to put his dick. You nattering on about things you really don't understand is...alternately depressing and somewhat impressive. It's been a long time since I saw someone display this much ignorance for this long.

You're talking about personal qualities, in terms of physical appearance his spiel about symmetry, masculinity, and femininity are all very accurate.

I'm aware, but he's acting like physical qualities are all that matter. They're not, and I take issue with the idea that physical characteristics area sum total of a persons value in terms of finding a relationship.

So, dressing like a slut is entirely subjective. Glad we cleared that up. Let's leave our subjectivity off of other people's bodies and choices.

A woman who enjoys casual sex is a woman. There's no other word necessary to describe her. We don't have one for men, why do we need one for women? What I'm saying is that it's not up to society to approve or disapprove. Labeling people based on what they do and how they dress is a shitty way to act, and if that's how society wants to operate, society can go to hell.

Yeah let's fucking not. Anything that has to do with culture is subjective.

There's nothing wrong with labeling, we label everything we observe. You're saying that they don't exist as a concept because society has put a negative connotation to the word. That is fucked up. You've mistaken willful ignorance for being progressive and that is fucked up. We have "pimp" "player" and "womanizer" for men depending on what connotation your looking for.

I'm saying that sluts don't exist. That's correct. The reason that sluts don't exist is because the word slut is an offensive term used to describe women who enjoy having sex. Women who enjoy having sex are women. Full stop. They're not sluts, they're not whores, and they're not any other label you can come up with that lets you dehumanize them. Once you label someone, you can take away their humanity, and view them as less than a person, so yeah, I'm saying that sluts as a concept should not exist. And apparently by your logic I'm the shitty person, for wanting to take people as they come, not based on how many people they're slept with, or what they wear.

[Des-Bal]

I'm saying that sluts don't exist. That's correct. The reason that sluts don't exist is because the word slut is an offensive term used to describe women who enjoy having sex. Women who enjoy having sex are women. Full stop. They're not sluts, they're not whores, and they're not any other label you can come up with that lets you dehumanize them. Once you label someone, you can take away their humanity, and view them as less than a person, so yeah, I'm saying that sluts as a concept should not exist. And apparently by your logic I'm the shitty person, for wanting to take people as they come, not based on how many people they're slept with, or what they wear.

The word is used as an offensive term because "women who enjoy having sex" are treated as bad. You're saying they don't exist because society has a problem with them. That makes you a shitty person.

[Mini Miehm]

I'm saying that sluts don't exist. That's correct. The reason that sluts don't exist is because the word slut is an offensive term used to describe women who enjoy having sex. Women who enjoy having sex are women. Full stop. They're not sluts, they're not whores, and they're not any other label you can come up with that lets you dehumanize them. Once you label someone, you can take away their humanity, and view them as less than a person, so yeah, I'm saying that sluts as a concept should not exist. And apparently by your logic I'm the shitty person, for wanting to take people as they come, not based on how many people they're slept with, or what they wear.

The word is used as an offensive term because "women who enjoy having sex" are treated as bad. You're saying they don't exist because society has a problem with them. That makes you a shitty person.

I'm saying that women who enjoy having sex are not bad. I'm saying that sluts do not exist, because slut is a negative term. The difference between a slut and a woman is inhow society views her. I choose not to make a judgment about a person's character based on her number of sexual partners. She is a person. she's right there. I can see her. I see her as a person, not as a vagina with a number tattooed on it, or a label. Sluts do not exist. There are only people, and they should be taken on their merits. Having sex with a number of people is neither good nor bad, and so does not enter into my consideration.

[Des-Bal]

I'm saying that women who enjoy having sex are not bad. I'm saying that sluts do not exist, because slut is a negative term. The difference between a slut and a woman is inhow society views her. I choose not to make a judgment about a person's character based on her number of sexual partners. She is a person. she's right there. I can see her. I see her as a person, not as a vagina with a number tattooed on it, or a label. Sluts do not exist. There are only people, and they should be taken on their merits. Having sex with a number of people is neither good nor bad, and so does not enter into my consideration.

Slut is a negative term because society treats women who enjoy sex as bad. You're saying if society doesn't like you then you don't exist. That is fucked.

We have words to describe people based on their traits there's nothing atypical about that.

[Mini Miehm]

I'm saying that women who enjoy having sex are not bad. I'm saying that sluts do not exist, because slut is a negative term. The difference between a slut and a woman is inhow society views her. I choose not to make a judgment about a person's character based on her number of sexual partners. She is a person. she's right there. I can see her. I see her as a person, not as a vagina with a number tattooed on it, or a label. Sluts do not exist. There are only people, and they should be taken on their merits. Having sex with a number of people is neither good nor bad, and so does not enter into my consideration.

Slut is a negative term because society treats women who enjoy sex as bad. You're saying if society doesn't like you then you don't exist. That is fucked.

We have words to describe people based on their traits there's nothing atypical about that.

I'm saying that women who enjoy sex exist. How is this hard to get? Just because I don't think that sluts exist doesn't mean that the women society refers to in a judgmental manner as sluts don't exist. That's a pretty fucking moronic way to think.

[Shie]

I'm saying that women who enjoy having sex with good-looking masculine men are not bad. I'm saying that sluts do not exist, because slut is a negative term. The difference between a slut and a woman is inhow society views her. I choose not to make a judgment about a person's character based on her number of sexual partners. She is a person. she's right there. I can see her. I see her as a person, not as a vagina with a number tattooed on it, or a label. Sluts do not exist. There are only people, and they should be taken on their merits. Having sex with a number of people is neither good nor bad, and so does not enter into my consideration.

I see women as a group of people.
People should be judged based upon their actions, which is the source of your virtue and merit as a person.

[Mini Miehm]

I'm saying that women who enjoy having sex with good-looking masculine men are not bad. I'm saying that sluts do not exist, because slut is a negative term. The difference between a slut and a woman is inhow society views her. I choose not to make a judgment about a person's character based on her number of sexual partners. She is a person. she's right there. I can see her. I see her as a person, not as a vagina with a number tattooed on it, or a label. Sluts do not exist. There are only people, and they should be taken on their merits. Having sex with a number of people is neither good nor bad, and so does not enter into my consideration.

I see women as a group of people.
People should be judged based upon their actions, which is the source of merit.

I see people as individuals. Individuals should be judged on their actions, not by your perceptions. If you're not harming other people, you're not doing anything worth being judged negatively for. And even if YOU think someone is harming another, if the person being "harmed" disagrees with you, YOU are in the wrong.

[Llamalandia]

I'm saying that women who enjoy having sex are not bad. I'm saying that sluts do not exist, because slut is a negative term. The difference between a slut and a woman is inhow society views her. I choose not to make a judgment about a person's character based on her number of sexual partners. She is a person. she's right there. I can see her. I see her as a person, not as a vagina with a number tattooed on it, or a label. Sluts do not exist. There are only people, and they should be taken on their merits. Having sex with a number of people is neither good nor bad, and so does not enter into my consideration.

Slut is a negative term because society treats women who enjoy sex as bad. You're saying if society doesn't like you then you don't exist. That is fucked.

We have words to describe people based on their traits there's nothing atypical about that.

I doubt society considers all women who enjoy sex as bad. For instance I doubt anyone would claim that a woman who is faithful only to her husband and enjoys sex with him would be called a slut would she? So obviously one can enjoy sex and not be be a slut.

[Llamalandia]

I see women as a group of people.
People should be judged based upon their actions, which is the source of merit.

I see people as individuals. Individuals should be judged on their actions, not by your perceptions. If you're not harming other people, you're not doing anything worth being judged negatively for. And even if YOU think someone is harming another, if the person being "harmed" disagrees with you, YOU are in the wrong.

Engaging in promiscuous sex is an action (or rather a series actions) so if that is the standard for slut then by that logic sluts are in fact being judged on their actions.

Some child sex victims might not claim to be harmed but would anyone seriously argue that they aren't? (I'm thinking especially in terms of young statutory rape victims in particular here.)

[Shie]

I see women as a group of people.
People should be judged based upon their actions, which is the source of merit.

I see people as individuals. Individuals should be judged on their actions, not by your perceptions. If you're not harming other people, you're not doing anything worth being judged negatively for. And even if YOU think someone is harming another, if the person being "harmed" disagrees with you, YOU are in the wrong.

Full definition of A GROUP: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group

First, you can't judge someone outside of your perceptions.
Secondly, If I perceive someone as being harmed while they disagree, I am right because my strength is as the strength of ten, only because my heart is pure.

[Llamalandia]

Slut is a negative term because society treats women who enjoy sex as bad. You're saying if society doesn't like you then you don't exist. That is fucked.

We have words to describe people based on their traits there's nothing atypical about that.

I'm saying that women who enjoy sex exist. How is this hard to get? Just because I don't think that sluts exist doesn't mean that the women society refers to in a judgmental manner as sluts don't exist. That's a pretty fucking moronic way to think.

Definition of SLUT
1
chiefly British : a slovenly woman
2
a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
b : a saucy girl : minx

Unless you want to argue with dictionary, sluts do in point of fact quite obviously exist, to say otherwise is completely contrary to simple logic.

Also slut =/= woman who enjoys sex. (after all some prostitutes may not like sex and yet still be promiscuous for money) slut == woman who is promiscuous. Hence if promiscuous women exist then sluts necessarily exist.

[Mini Miehm]

I see people as individuals. Individuals should be judged on their actions, not by your perceptions. If you're not harming other people, you're not doing anything worth being judged negatively for. And even if YOU think someone is harming another, if the person being "harmed" disagrees with you, YOU are in the wrong.

Engaging in promiscuous sex is an action (or rather a series actions) so if that is the standard for slut then by that logic sluts are in fact being judged on their actions.

Some child sex victims might not claim to be harmed but would anyone seriously argue that they aren't? (I'm thinking especially in terms of young statutory rape victims in particular here.)

I would. Harm isn't something you can tell someone else they've suffered if they don't agree with you. You can tell them they've been harmed until you're blue in the face, but if they don't agree with you, you're not doing anything but wasting your time.