What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[Jumalariik]

I'm not trying to insult anybody, but for crying out loud, you're calling yourself a sadist!
A year ago, I was repulsed at the idea of people defending him on any level, it made my dislike of intellectuals grow, now to see people calling themselves sadists?
I'm seriously saddened.

Yes, I am calling myself a sadist and a masochist because I receive gratification by inflicting pain on consenting partners and receive gratification from experiencing pain at the hands of others. That is the definition of those terms so I am not going to be dishonest and refuse to accept their accurate description of me. However, I am repulsed by violence and seek to rid the world of it. I believe it is wrong to ever resort to violence unless it can in turn prevent greater violence. I see no contradiction with these two aspects of me.

See, violence is often caused by people making inflammatory statements, for example saying that followers of a peace-loving religion are nazis.
In my life, I try to be as kind as possible, the only mean things that I've said to people have been in good fun, at least most of the time... When I said mean things seriously, I've always regretted them. People have jokingly called me a nazi often, especially because of my zealous Christian and Estonian nationalist views, no one has ever called me worse than a nazi seriously.
I know that you were not trying to be mean, but it was mean. I only forgive those who want to be forgiven, thus I do not forgive you for that. I apologize for anything that I said that may have offended you, may you please forgive me. I have no hate for sadists or masochists, I have have hate for victimizers. If you don't seek to victimize people, we have no beef.

[Vettrera]

It has everything to do with you because this thread is about "slut shaming", as in is it right to publicly ridicule and harshly criticize someone for doing this. That's what the whole thread is about.

Their private sex life has nothing to do with me at all. I just gave my opinion, saying that slut shaming is okay.

So publicly humiliating and ridiculing them is ok? Just to make sure we're using the same definition.

[The Batorys]

And some people enjoy feeling a pain while having sex. Again if they are consenting what is the problem, especially as there is no actual harm occurring.

It will invariably decrease their self esteem. Nobody should enjoy pain, it's not natural or right.

Why?

I know some sexual masochists.

They do not have poor self-esteem. They just enjoy sexual situations where there's a bit of pain with the pleasure, which, for them, it adds to.

I would suggest reserving comment and judgment on a subject you apparently know nothing about.

Instead, perhaps you should read up on it and educate yourself. The wikipedia page for BDSM might be a good place to start.

[Blasveck]

Slut shaming is a pretty stupid thing to do. You just look like an ass while doing it.

[The Batorys]

But they don't make people suffer. Everyone involves consents. One person consents to hurt the other because they experience pleasure from doing so and someone else consents to be hurt because they experience pleasure from pain. Many do both. If someone asks the other to stop, then they stop. I am disgusted by violence and seeing people have pain inflicted upon them when they did not consent to it. I have come close to being physically sick from such sights. Do not mistake my bedroom activities for my ethical views. I am still haunted by harm I have delivered to others from years ago even though they have repeatedly forgiven me. You argue that my comparison is insulting, but to associate my sexual desires with the desire to see people suffer is immensely insulting to me.

I'm not trying to insult anybody, but for crying out loud, you're calling yourself a sadist!
A year ago, I was repulsed at the idea of people defending him on any level, it made my dislike of intellectuals grow, now to see people calling themselves sadists?
I'm seriously saddened.

Just because someone is a sadist doesn't mean they hurt people without their consent.

Really, you need to educate yourself, because you're being really, really insulting.

[Jumalariik]

I'm not trying to insult anybody, but for crying out loud, you're calling yourself a sadist!
A year ago, I was repulsed at the idea of people defending him on any level, it made my dislike of intellectuals grow, now to see people calling themselves sadists?
I'm seriously saddened.

Just because someone is a sadist doesn't mean they hurt people without their consent.

Really, you need to educate yourself, because you're being really, really insulting.

My problem is not sadists, it's the label.
Marquis de Sade to me, is one of the 100 most despicable people in human history.
People can hurt each other all they want even without consent for all I care, just don't involve me or my family, just they shouldn't be comparing themselves to a rapist and a child molester who enjoyed harming people and advocated people lose all self control.

[The Batorys]

Why is having sex with one person fine, and sex with several people bad?

As long as everyone is consenting, why is it bad to have sex with multiple people? I'm not talking about cheating here, I'm talking about casual sex and polyamory, and open relationships.

I've known a couple different women who have had two long-term partners. Why is it bad for one of them to have sex with both her boyfriends during the same week, but it's okay for another person to have goodbye sex with one partner, and sex with a new long-term partner during the same week?

You may find it gross, even, but that doesn't mean it's morally disgraceful. I find lots of things gross that I have no moral problem with (such as brussels sprouts and pickled herring... both of those gross me the fuck out, but it's not wrong for people to eat them, I just find it unappealing).

Just because you don't find something appealing, or maybe even wouldn't be comfortable doing it yourself, does not mean that it is "disgraceful" for other people to do. You're not them, and they're not you. There are lots of sexual practices that, quite frankly, do not appeal to me at all, but that I have no problem with other people partaking of, so long as all participants are consenting.

I'm talking about cheating... In a way. Like this: having sex on-and-off with multiple people that you still contact in a given amount of time. Let's say... Three in a month. Have sex with them in this order. P1, P2, P3, P1, P2, P3. That is what I think is bad.

Okay, here's the thing.

I'm not trying to shame you for being a virgin.

But the fact that you are one means you have basically no experience with this subject, and your knowledge is really limited, and your posting holds up to that fact. It isn't necessarily bad that you have no experience with it, but just like I know less about flying a plane than someone who flies them all the time, your ability to contribute meaningfully to discussions of sex is limited by your lack of experience, and there's no shame in admitting it. You need to accept that fact. Okay?

Okay, moving on.

Cheating. The harmful part of cheating really isn't the sex itself, but the dishonesty, and the breach of trust. If you cheat on them, you have hurt them, not primarily because you had sex, but because they asked you not to do something, you agreed not to do it, and they trusted you not to do it, but you then went and did it anyway.

If you never agree to not fuck other people (though generally, because closed relationships are the norm in our society, you have to specify that you're NOT agreeing to one), there's no rule for you to break in the first place.

As for your example, whether or not there's anything wrong with it depends on whether everyone involved knows what's going on and is okay with it. If the person who's fucking all of them has told them about each other, and P1, P2, and P3 are all okay with not being the only partner, I don't see how that could possibly be wrong. Everyone has agreed, no one's trust is being violated, it's fine. If, for example, the subject is keeping P2 and P3 secret from P1 because P1 already said that they want to be the only partner, THAT is cheating, and that is wrong.

Also, you can't really cheat on someone you're not in a relationship with. So, if someone is fucking P1, P2, P3, but not really in a relationship with any of them, as long as everyone's clear that there isn't really a committed relationship going on, then there's nothing wrong with that.

I will bring this back to the subject of a friend of mine who had two boyfriends for a while. They knew about each other, and were totally okay with her having both of them. I think they actually lived together. And so it was fine. Everyone was being honest, nobody was hiding anything, and therefore it wasn't cheating.

If the two boyfriends hadn't known about each other, that would have been dishonest and wrong.

Does that make sense?

[The Batorys]

If there was no agreement or expectation to exclusivity what's the problem?

I don't like thinking that he/she would be letting other people get into him/her while I am.

And that's fine.

Nobody is saying that you have to be okay with your partner having other partners.

Just that the terms of any relationship or even sexual encounter are up to the people involved, not outside parties. If you want your own relationship to be a closed, exclusive, monogamous one, that's up to you and your partner. It's nobody else's business. Just like other people having different kinds of relationships and sexual encounters than the kind you prefer aren't any of your business, and no worse than you preferring your kind of relationship.

I don't like bubblegum ice cream. I find its taste to be weird, and find it uncomfortable to eat because the gum makes it complicated. But that doesn't mean that I think that no one should eat bubblegum ice cream, or that people who are somehow bad. They like something that I don't. It's not really a big deal.

[The Batorys]

I'm not trying to insult anybody, but for crying out loud, you're calling yourself a sadist!
A year ago, I was repulsed at the idea of people defending him on any level, it made my dislike of intellectuals grow, now to see people calling themselves sadists?
I'm seriously saddened.

Yes, I am calling myself a sadist and a masochist because I receive gratification by inflicting pain on consenting partners and receive gratification from experiencing pain at the hands of others. That is the definition of those terms so I am not going to be dishonest and refuse to accept their accurate description of me. However, I am repulsed by violence and seek to rid the world of it. I believe it is wrong to ever resort to violence unless it can in turn prevent greater violence. I see no contradiction with these two aspects of me.

Yep.

It's all about consent.

[The Batorys]

Who said anything about relationships?

And why would it not be respectable? What does a person's private sex life have to do with you?

I brought up relationships.

I just don't find someone who has sex with lots of different people respectable. I have no logical or scientific explanation why, I just don't.

It has nothing to do with me. Why do you ask?

If you don't really have a reason why, maybe you should re-evaluate your views. Especially since you admit that other people's sex lives have nothing to do with you.

Maybe you shouldn't be calling other people "not respectable" if you have no real reason why, and what you're shaming them for is none of your business.

Not everything other people like has to be something that appeals to you. Hell, some people like bungee-jumping. I have no desire ever to bungee-jump, as it sounds completely unappealing to me. But I don't think there's any reason not to respect people who do.

[The Batorys]

I think he's referring to people getting worked up about the immorality of other peoples' sex lives.

Clearly. I find people's obsession over the sex lives of others...creepy, to be honest. The person theoretically having a lot of sex? Don't care. What they do with other consenting adults is really, none of my fucking business. Even if they tell me, it's like telling me they drive a Buick, "Oh, you have a thing I like but not the way I like it. Well, you have to drive it, I don't care. That's why they make so many different kinds of cars." The people who hand wring and obsess and try to come up with some sort of weird formula for the amount and kind of sex other people can have...that's fucking creepy, man. Why are you being weird about other people's sex lives? To me, that's a 'hiding in the bushes' kind of weird. What's up with that?

Yeah, exactly my thinking.

There are lots of different kinds of sex and relationships in this world.

Nobody has to like all of them. But it is weird and creepy to fixate on other people liking things that one doesn't.

[The Batorys]

It has everything to do with you because this thread is about "slut shaming", as in is it right to publicly ridicule and harshly criticize someone for doing this. That's what the whole thread is about.

Their private sex life has nothing to do with me at all. I just gave my opinion, saying that slut shaming is okay.

If it has nothing to do with you, you shouldn't shame people for it.

It's weird and creepy.

There are lots of different kinds of relationships and different kinds of sex.

You like one particular kind. That's fine. No one thinks it's bad that you like that kind of relationship and want that kind of sex.

Where it becomes a problem is when you say that people who like other kinds should be shamed, despite the fact that they are harming no one just by liking different kinds of relationships/sex than you do.

That's like shaming people who like other kinds of ice cream just because strawberry is your favorite. It makes no goddamn sense.

[The Batorys]

Just because someone is a sadist doesn't mean they hurt people without their consent.

Really, you need to educate yourself, because you're being really, really insulting.

My problem is not sadists, it's the label.
Marquis de Sade to me, is one of the 100 most despicable people in human history.
People can hurt each other all they want even without consent for all I care, just don't involve me or my family, just they shouldn't be comparing themselves to a rapist and a child molester who enjoyed harming people and advocated people lose all self control.

The term for enjoying inflicting pain in a sexual context is sadism. Whether or not it should be, it has become well established.

[-The West Coast-]

If a girl or guy wants to fuck a ton of people it's their right, their body. We should empower men and women to put themselves out there and be proud of them when they feel safe enough to sleep with one another. Not shame them and teach them sex is bad.

[Mallorea and Riva]

If the whore kills herself or starts cutting, that means you exceeded the limits.

*** 24 Hour Ban for Trolling *** You're posting inflammatory statements like this one at a pretty frequent rate, which means that you will be faced with increasingly severe punishments. Take the time to learn how to conduct yourself on these forums.

[Aquillus]

I do not think that someone's private sex life is of anyone else's concern, nor that they should have to be ashamed for it.

[The Batorys]

If the whore kills herself or starts cutting, that means you exceeded the limits.

*** 24 Hour Ban for Trolling *** You're posting inflammatory statements like this one at a pretty frequent rate, which means that you will be faced with increasingly severe punishments. Take the time to learn how to conduct yourself on these forums.

This isn't directly related to the ruling, but I have taken to imagining your moderation posts as being said by the very proper shark in your flag.

[Nazi Flower Power]

How about we just not mind other people's business of they aren't doing anything harmful. Your concept of "decency" is not shared by everyone. Public nudity is a good example you provide. You argue that it is indecent, while others will argue that your unnecessary sexualization and condemnation of the nude human form is the only indecent act. If you have to stop to think if something could be considered slut-shaming, just don't so it.

The problem with public nudity is that it's public. I like GNI's standard that if everyone is safe, sane, and consenting then it's OK. Out in public, not everyone wants to see you naked, so not everyone is consenting, and it's not OK. There is some cultural variation in how much skin you can show and reasonably expect people to be OK with it, but purposely violating the cultural norms is wrong. If you know you are going to make people uncomfortable, and you do it anyway, you're not adhering to the idea that sexuality should be consensual.

Nudist colonies, public baths or saunas, and nude beaches are fine because people enter them voluntarily knowing what to expect, and it is easy enough for people who feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing to simply avoid them. Societies where nudity is culturally accepted are also fine.

[The Batorys]

How about we just not mind other people's business of they aren't doing anything harmful. Your concept of "decency" is not shared by everyone. Public nudity is a good example you provide. You argue that it is indecent, while others will argue that your unnecessary sexualization and condemnation of the nude human form is the only indecent act. If you have to stop to think if something could be considered slut-shaming, just don't so it.

The problem with public nudity is that it's public. I like GNI's standard that if everyone is safe, sane, and consenting then it's OK. Out in public, not everyone wants to see you naked, so not everyone is consenting, and it's not OK. There is some cultural variation in how much skin you can show and reasonably expect people to be OK with it, but purposely violating the cultural norms is wrong. If you know you are going to make people uncomfortable, and you do it anyway, you're not adhering to the idea that sexuality should be consensual.

Nudist colonies, public baths or saunas, and nude beaches are fine because people enter them voluntarily knowing what to expect, and it is easy enough for people who feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing to simply avoid them. Societies where nudity is culturally accepted are also fine.

I'm way more offended if someone wears an LA Dodgers shirt. I'd rather they be nude.

Or, worse, if they wear shirts with shitty, conservative slogans on them.

Way more offensive than nothing at all.

Why don't I get a law protecting me from seeing something visually offensive?

[Norstal]

The problem with public nudity is that it's public. I like GNI's standard that if everyone is safe, sane, and consenting then it's OK. Out in public, not everyone wants to see you naked, so not everyone is consenting, and it's not OK. There is some cultural variation in how much skin you can show and reasonably expect people to be OK with it, but purposely violating the cultural norms is wrong. If you know you are going to make people uncomfortable, and you do it anyway, you're not adhering to the idea that sexuality should be consensual.

Nudist colonies, public baths or saunas, and nude beaches are fine because people enter them voluntarily knowing what to expect, and it is easy enough for people who feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing to simply avoid them. Societies where nudity is culturally accepted are also fine.

I'm way more offended if someone wears an LA Dodgers shirt. I'd rather they be nude.

Or, worse, if they wear shirts with shitty, conservative slogans on them.

Way more offensive than nothing at all.

Why don't I get a law protecting me from seeing something visually offensive?

Because you're not a god and you don't represent the whole of society.

You can offend someone with a Nazi Swastika shirt and it is against the law in Germany to do that. But just because that law exists doesn't mean every symbol that offends you should be banned in Germany. Go get other people to be offended by an LA Dodgers symbol. Because society is not here to serve your every whim.

[Nazi Flower Power]

The problem with public nudity is that it's public. I like GNI's standard that if everyone is safe, sane, and consenting then it's OK. Out in public, not everyone wants to see you naked, so not everyone is consenting, and it's not OK. There is some cultural variation in how much skin you can show and reasonably expect people to be OK with it, but purposely violating the cultural norms is wrong. If you know you are going to make people uncomfortable, and you do it anyway, you're not adhering to the idea that sexuality should be consensual.

Nudist colonies, public baths or saunas, and nude beaches are fine because people enter them voluntarily knowing what to expect, and it is easy enough for people who feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing to simply avoid them. Societies where nudity is culturally accepted are also fine.

I'm way more offended if someone wears an LA Dodgers shirt. I'd rather they be nude.

Or, worse, if they wear shirts with shitty, conservative slogans on them.

Way more offensive than nothing at all.

Why don't I get a law protecting me from seeing something visually offensive?

Because Dodgers shirts and conservative slogans are protected by the 1st Amendment, and the people who wear them do not have any reason to believe they will make the general public uncomfortable by wearing those. This is why I brought up cultural norms, because the issue with nudity is not just my personal taste; it's a cultural standard that a large part of the public shares and you can reasonably be expected to be aware of it. Anything you wear, or don't wear, could theoretically be offensive to someone somewhere, but some things are much more likely than others to cause widespread offense. You are an asshole if you choose to dress in a manner that you know is practically guaranteed to offend a substantial number of people. This is why you should not walk around in Nazi regalia outside the 3rd Reich, and it's also why you should not walk around naked in areas where it's not socially accepted.

Depending on how shitty the conservative slogans are, it might also be morally wrong to wear those in public, but there is still the 1st Amendment issue. As far as the Dodgers, I am sorry you don't like them, but I really doubt that a Dodgers shirt makes you uncomfortable in the same way that nudity makes prudes uncomfortable. I mean, I dislike the New York Yankees, but it's really not equivalent.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

There's nothing wrong with having a lot of sex, no sex, or anywhere in between. That's why slut shaming is bad, it asserts that something that isn't bad is bad.

[The Batorys]

I'm way more offended if someone wears an LA Dodgers shirt. I'd rather they be nude.

Or, worse, if they wear shirts with shitty, conservative slogans on them.

Way more offensive than nothing at all.

Why don't I get a law protecting me from seeing something visually offensive?

Because you're not a god and you don't represent the whole of society.

You can offend someone with a Nazi Swastika shirt and it is against the law in Germany to do that. But just because that law exists doesn't mean every symbol that offends you should be banned in Germany. Go get other people to be offended by an LA Dodgers symbol. Because society is not here to serve your every whim.

Precisely.

This is why I'm against laws against public nudity.

[The Batorys]

I'm way more offended if someone wears an LA Dodgers shirt. I'd rather they be nude.

Or, worse, if they wear shirts with shitty, conservative slogans on them.

Way more offensive than nothing at all.

Why don't I get a law protecting me from seeing something visually offensive?

Because Dodgers shirts and conservative slogans are protected by the 1st Amendment, and the people who wear them do not have any reason to believe they will make the general public uncomfortable by wearing those. This is why I brought up cultural norms, because the issue with nudity is not just my personal taste; it's a cultural standard that a large part of the public shares and you can reasonably be expected to be aware of it. Anything you wear, or don't wear, could theoretically be offensive to someone somewhere, but some things are much more likely than others to cause widespread offense. You are an asshole if you choose to dress in a manner that you know is practically guaranteed to offend a substantial number of people. This is why you should not walk around in Nazi regalia outside the 3rd Reich, and it's also why you should not walk around naked in areas where it's not socially accepted.

Depending on how shitty the conservative slogans are, it might also be morally wrong to wear those in public, but there is still the 1st Amendment issue. As far as the Dodgers, I am sorry you don't like them, but I really doubt that a Dodgers shirt makes you uncomfortable in the same way that nudity makes prudes uncomfortable. I mean, I dislike the New York Yankees, but it's really not equivalent.

Something being a "cultural norm" doesn't make it right or immune from examination. That by itself is not really a strong justification for, well, really anything.

That's like justifying something just by saying "tradition."

[The Flood]

Casual sex and promiscuity are immoral, and should be condemned as such. They should be stigmatized by society at large, enough to discourage these actions, but not so much that it becomes hatred. This stigma should apply to both sexes evenly.

I also don't think words like 'slut' and 'whore' should be used in a derogatory sense. Only that promiscuity should not be considered acceptable behaviour.