What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[Blasveck]

Y'know, I've always been confused as to how a Holy Book gives others the right to publicly and privately degrade individuals who are a) not hurting anyone and b) utilizing their right to bodily autonomy in the ways they see fit.

While said Holy Book has some pretty good advice every now and then, I don't think that advice includes being an ass to others.

[The Batorys]

1. Not true at all.
2. All it takes is practice.

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

Something can be an invention and still have meaning.

Also, humans aren't the only creatures with empathy and morality.

[Jumalariik]

OMG. That is so sad. I am so sorry. OMG. Because obviously your personal experiences are indicative of the entire population and you have a good enough sample size to generalize.

Just like I've had enough bad run-ins with people in my community making comments about how people of my color are ruining their city, decreasing their home values, are gangsters, hoodlums, and thugs, and how they don't want their kids sitting next to me in class. But of course, I don't go around assuming every white guy I meet is racist, and just won't like me because I'm black. But I guess we have different views on these sort of things.

This is what happened yesterday that I was referring to by the way.

My point was that all of the atheists I know are like that, that is all but 1 of my friends. If all the white people you knew had the same tendencies, what would be wrong about making such generalizations?

[The Batorys]

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

Yes, the painful truth of reality is that there is no one thing that will ever be an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist in reality.

Edit: Except Math. Math deals with absolutes.

Only sort of.

Hypothetically a different universe could have entirely different mathematical laws.

[Distruzio]

But I must ask, how can you reconcile Christianity with the fact that you reject Christian morality?

I adhere to Christian morality. I just don't do it so well. I don't do it nearly as well as I could when there is a woman I find attractive and willing in front of me. I don't do it nearly as well as I should until after I've had my fun. Way I figure it, I fail at being perfect. Abstinence isn't a discipline I'm gifted at. If Jesus knows what its like to be tempted then He knows what thoughts run through my head. He also knows I'm not Him.

Not nearly.

That's how I reconcile my faith with sexuality. The knowledge that I'm sinning by having sex outside of marriage and likely being less appreciative of the person with whom I have sex than I could helps prevent me from slut shaming. How can I criticize someone for being sexually active when I, myself, am?

Alternatively, were I not sexually active, could I honestly criticize the sexually active from a position of arrogance about the issue? Isn't that as much a sin as their sexual proclivities?

[The Batorys]

It would be an invention of man, yes, but not necessarily meaningless, at least, not any more than things like language are meaningless. Social constructs still have meaning.

If that were the case, you would have to acknowledge the meaning and validity of the supposed social construct that denounces promiscuity.

It is of no benefit, and so it has no positive meaning, nor any validity. It is a misogynist double standard to punish women with.

Music is an invention of humans, and it is not meaningless.

[Distruzio]

Y'know, I've always been confused as to how a Holy Book gives others the right to publicly and privately degrade individuals who are a) not hurting anyone and b) utilizing their right to bodily autonomy in the ways they see fit.

While said Holy Book has some pretty good advice every now and then, I don't think that advice includes being an ass to others.

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

[Jumalariik]

Y'know, I've always been confused as to how a Holy Book gives others the right to publicly and privately degrade individuals who are a) not hurting anyone and b) utilizing their right to bodily autonomy in the ways they see fit.

While said Holy Book has some pretty good advice every now and then, I don't think that advice includes being an ass to others.

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

You're being sarcastic presumably?

[Distruzio]

Nope, funny, but Gren is a Christian.

Also... you read/watch Game of Thrones and you think it's immoral for people to have sex?

Parts of that are basically softcore porn.

It's fantasy, I don't judge the characters on Christian morals because Christianity does not exist within the universe the books are set.

Perhaps the morality of Christianity does not apply to the person you shame for sexual activity?

[Distruzio]

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

You're being sarcastic presumably?

No. Not at all. She is correct.

[The Batorys]

Well, people need to know societies boundaries. However, bullying is not the answer. We should educate people on how and, most importantly, why, to make moral choices.

Why?

What purpose does invading the personal lives of others where sex is concerned benefit anyone? Why should things consenting adults do with each other that harm none be discouraged?

[Blasveck]

Y'know, I've always been confused as to how a Holy Book gives others the right to publicly and privately degrade individuals who are a) not hurting anyone and b) utilizing their right to bodily autonomy in the ways they see fit.

While said Holy Book has some pretty good advice every now and then, I don't think that advice includes being an ass to others.

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

I have my moments.

And you should really check your email more often. Just letting you know.

[The Batorys]

Slut shaming = Taliban stoning women to death.

Maybe I am exagerating
If both are exactly the same, then the limit is don't do it evah.

If there are some special occasions where there is a difference, then nobody sent me the memo.

It's the same mindset, just a difference of degree.

The attitude behind slut-shaming is the same attitude behind people stoning women to death for premarital sex.

[The Scientific States]

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

This "whore" was a human being. There should not be "acceptable limits" to degradation over nonharmful activities.

Indeed.

Slut shaming is a really dumb thing that can harm lives.

[Distruzio]

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

I have my moments.

And you should really check your email more often. Just letting you know.

I'll do so tonight.

[Vettrera]

(a) Not my point
(b) I was raised baptist. At my church, ushering is a women's only activity, and it's not really a position of power so I don't see how that serves a point. The existence of female ministers also doesn't mean that the Holy Book doesn't call for women to be subordinate to men.
(c) People usually conduct themselves certain ways on church grounds and certain ways outside of church grounds...it has nothing to do with their religion, but etiquette concerning where they are. I am sure many Christians use those exact phrases (I've heard literally hundreds say it), just not in a church setting. Also, anectdotal evidence and your overgeneralizations don't mean shit. Refer to my post about being black yesterday
(d) I haven't made sweeping generalizations. You have. Actually you did so today and yesterday. And you once again missed my point. I didn't say CHRISTIANS were misogynistic. I said CHRISTIANITY was.
The Bible itself is misogynistic.

a) You can't talk about Christianity, it's too broad a term, are you going to call liberal Christians misogynists? Oh wait no, that wouldn't help your argument.
b) Both men and women usher at my church. Yes it does, Saul directly greets females of importance in his letters. It's not anecdotal, at the moment, the church is experiencing a transitions, so there have been many ministers from many different churches, in fact, the minister of the first baptist church in the state is female. You were the one who made over-generalizations, not me. I never claimed that 1 thousand different denominations are the same on an issue.

c) The Bible condemns people like that. The Bible is not misogynistic, you could argue that it's sexist, however, it does not preach hate of women the way that porn that you are defending does.

(A) Please learn to read. I am not talking about Christians. I am talking about the Bible as the text that Christian morals are derived from.
(B) Are you really going to cherrypick certain parts of the bible without pointing out the parts that call for women to be seen but not heard or that punish them after being raped, and that say they exist to serve man. If so, then you're just being blisfully ignorant. How the fuck was my comment an overgeneralization when I never said anything about people, I referenced the Christian text, that's it. The BIBLE. That's it.
(C) No, the Bible doesn't. Yes the bible is misogynistic, do you need me to once again cite the passages? And you're once again only singling out a specific variety of porn.

Until you're willing to recognize that the Bible does not teach gender-equality, there's really nothing to say here. You want to take the good parts of Christianity that make it seem like the perfect faith, and ignore everything else. The type of person that can't acknowledge the faults or holes in their own faith is too far gone and too indoctrinated to talk rationally with. I suggest you read the book you live your life by.

I have to go take a shower and will be back in about 20 minutes. If anyone wants to take this over for me, be my guest.

[Vettrera]

This is what happened yesterday that I was referring to by the way.

My point was that all of the atheists I know are like that, that is all but 1 of my friends. If all the white people you knew had the same tendencies, what would be wrong about making such generalizations?

Because it's an overgeneralization.

[ALMF]

Yes, the painful truth of reality is that there is no one thing that will ever be an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist in reality.

Edit: Except Math. Math deals with absolutes.

Only sort of.

Hypothetically a different universe could have entirely different mathematical laws.

Interestingly, any Mathematical Systems is "in a different universe" than every other. That is the as applied version of Gödel's IT.

[The Batorys]

It's not a "you should only care about you" idea.
It's a "you should mind your own damn business and stay out of other people's personal lives" idea.
You think someone else's sexual behavior is unappealing? If they're not doing anything nonconsensual (which would be everyone's problem), you should keep your goddamn mouth shut, because it's their life, not yours, and nobody fucking asked you.
You think a woman is dressed inappropriately? You should keep your goddamn mouth shut, because it's her decision to choose how she's going to look, not yours, and nobody fucking asked you.

I would not walk up to such a person and call them a slut to their face, I would not say a thing to them. Nor would I want anyone else to make derogatory remarks at them.

It's like if you were eating an ice cream sundae, because you felt like treating yourself, and I came up and started insulting you for eating the "wrong" kinds of ice cream, and having far too much ice cream. How would that be in any way acceptable? Who would be the asshole in that situation?

It would depend on the type of ice cream. If I was eating raisin ice cream, you would be perfectly justified in telling me it was bad

You shouldn't gossip about people. Especially parts of their lives that are not your business. That's immoral.

And no, even if you were eating raisin ice cream, or bubblegum, it's none of my damn business. Maybe you like those ice creams. You eat the kinds of ice cream that you like, and have however much or little of it that you think you should, and I'll eat the kinds and amounts of ice cream that I like.

Sex is the same way. You have the kind of sex and amount of it that you like, and I'll have the kinds of sex and amounts of it that I like.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

You're being sarcastic presumably?

No, that is a very good point.

[The Batorys]

Your slut-shaming is essentially gender hate speech.

How? I'm against promiscuity of both genders, equally.

"Slut" is a gendered term. It refers predominantly to women, who have been vastly disproportionately shamed for sexual behavior, compared to men.

You can't really use it in a non-sexist way any more than I can use "kike" or "chink" in a non-racist way.

[The Batorys]

You are advocating slut shaming.

You are a far greater misogynist than a casual porn viewer could ever be.

You are literally punishing women for being sexual, and enforcing a misogynist double standard.

Pull that plank out of your eye, good sir. As a Christian, you should know what I am referring to.

Are you sure that calling people misogynist solves much?

Also, isn't criticizing people then quoting the "plank/splinter" quote slightly hypocritical?

1. Yes. Misogyny needs to be called what it is.

2. No. He's the one who seems to think it's his place to comment on people's sex lives, and judge them. I'm just saying he should keep it to himself. It's not hypocritical to respond to someone else who is invading others' personal lives, to tell them that such is not acceptable and none of their business.

[The Batorys]

You are advocating slut shaming.

You are a far greater misogynist than a casual porn viewer could ever be.

You are literally punishing women for being sexual, and enforcing a misogynist double standard.

Pull that plank out of your eye, good sir. As a Christian, you should know what I am referring to.

You literally didn't read anything I posted earlier in this thread, did you?

I find it appalling that people often only apply stigma to the promiscuity of women, when men deserve that stigma just as much.

I read everything you said.

Still makes you misogynist to slut-shame.

Also, no one deserves that stigma. Behavior that doesn't harm anyone doesn't need to be stigmatized.

[The Batorys]

How? I'm against promiscuity of both genders, equally.

According to many liberals, that makes you anti-woman.

Using "slut" makes you anti-woman.

Kinda like using "kike" makes you anti-semitic.

[The Flood]

But I must ask, how can you reconcile Christianity with the fact that you reject Christian morality?

I adhere to Christian morality. I just don't do it so well. I don't do it nearly as well as I could when there is a woman I find attractive and willing in front of me. I don't do it nearly as well as I should until after I've had my fun. Way I figure it, I fail at being perfect. Abstinence isn't a discipline I'm gifted at. If Jesus knows what its like to be tempted then He knows what thoughts run through my head. He also knows I'm not Him.

Not nearly.

That's how I reconcile my faith with sexuality. The knowledge that I'm sinning by having sex outside of marriage and likely being less appreciative of the person with whom I have sex than I could helps prevent me from slut shaming. How can I criticize someone for being sexually active when I, myself, am?

Alternatively, were I not sexually active, could I honestly criticize the sexually active from a position of arrogance about the issue? Isn't that as much a sin as their sexual proclivities?

I respect the fact that you acknowledge the sin. In fact, I respect that a lot, when people acknowledge these sins, rather then pretending they don't exist.

But in this thread, I feel I am being misconstrued. People are interpreting what I'm saying as advocating going around calling promiscuous people whores, but no, I don't advocate that, that's horrible. I don't want people to treat promiscuous people like crap, I just don't want people to accept promiscuity as moral behaviour. I want people to accept the sinners, but not their sins.


I must admit, that chastity does come easily to me. I've never been tempted by sex, not once. I've never even had a dream about sex, I've never had a thought about sex when gazing upon a woman. That is why for me, if I failed to be abstinent, it would perhaps be a far graver sin then it would be for another.