What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[The Batorys]

All work that you wouldn't do if you weren't being paid is a sort of prostitution.

Because you're always being paid for a service in which you use your body to do work for someone else.

I do not approve of prostitution because a large percentage of Whores are Slaves.

1863 Emancipation Proclamation was about punishing Slave-owners and NOT about punishing the Slaves themselves.

Slavery is already illegal.

Legalizing prostitution would not change that, and would make it easier to concentrate on the percentage that IS slavery, without wasting time and money prosecuting people for their own free choices. I'm not sure how people don't understand this. But that's not what this thread is about, unless you're talking about people slut-shaming sex workers, which is super fucked up.

[Jumalariik]

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.

a) The Bible and Christianity are two very different things.
b) Galatians said that there is "neither male nor female" there is division in the Bible, you can take every negative part of it, void it of its holiness, that's your right. The Bible teaches love of all people and equality of all believers. You can say what you want but it does not change that fact. It also doesn't change the fact that Mary gets some of the most praise from angels in the Bible.
c) The Bible preaches equality of all believers, the only people it condemns are those who try to go against God. I won't acknowledge holes in my religion because I view Christianity as perfect, since it is the proper method of worshiping God, human things are good inasmuch as they are Christian. I'm too fare gone to talk with people who want to say that I follow a false religion. I have read the Bible, you seem to enjoy quoting everything but Jesus, the most important part of the book!

I gotta go also, I await your response for tomorrow, but I gotta do evening prayers and go to sleep.

[The Flood]

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.

I never used the term 'slut' at any point in this thread, except to denounce the word.

[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?

Is racial profiling fair?

[The Batorys]

If two friends decide to fuck, but not be in a relationship, are they not still friends? Do they not still see each other as friends and as humans?

No because clearly the man is using the woman for self gratification. Clearly.

Who says there's a man involved?

Or, conversely, who says that there's a woman involved?

[Blasveck]

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.

I do have to bring up the quite obvious fact that not all people of faiths and lack thereof adhere to the same moral systems as you.

[The Batorys]

My fucking someone has never reduced their humanity.

Unfortunately, mine has (at least in my eyes). On the flip side, there were several women wherein having relations with them made me see them as more human. It really depended on my state of mind (and soul) at the time.

Indeed. Being intimate with someone, even if you're not actually in a relationship, gives you a glimpse of a side of them that most don't see. Someone's humanity is really very... I don't know... emphasized, when seen from that close (figuratively speaking).

[Gaelic Celtia]

(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.

a) The Bible and Christianity are two very different things.
b) Galatians said that there is "neither male nor female" there is division in the Bible, you can take every negative part of it, void it of its holiness, that's your right. The Bible teaches love of all people and equality of all believers. You can say what you want but it does not change that fact. It also doesn't change the fact that Mary gets some of the most praise from angels in the Bible.
c) The Bible preaches equality of all believers, the only people it condemns are those who try to go against God. I won't acknowledge holes in my religion because I view Christianity as perfect, since it is the proper method of worshiping God, human things are good inasmuch as they are Christian. I'm too fare gone to talk with people who want to say that I follow a false religion. I have read the Bible, you seem to enjoy quoting everything but Jesus, the most important part of the book!

I gotta go also, I await your response for tomorrow, but I gotta do evening prayers and go to sleep.

Just because you wont acknowledge the gaping holes in your faith doesnt mean they arent there. There are plenty of misogynist aspects in the Bible in addition to the parts you specified.

[The Batorys]

If we were talking about specific points of theology, no.

It has nothing to do with you being a Christian.

It has everything to do with you being a virgin, and the discussion being about sex.

There's no shame in being a virgin, nor is there any reason for pride in being so, but it does mean that in a discussion about sex, you have no relevant experience, and therefore your opinions are just speculation.

Er. Not having sex does NOT mean you can't talk about it. That makes no sense and can only serve to kick people out of a very important debate. I've never been a victim of slut-shaming, does that mean I can't talk about it?

It doesn't mean that you can't talk about it.

It means that you have no experience to back your opinions.

Just like someone can know a lot about planes, but when it comes to actually flying one, doesn't have the same grasp on it that a pilot does, because there are some things only experience can teach you.

[The Batorys]

Prove that it's delinquent to have sex.

What's your standard of evidence? What evidence would you consider valid?

From The Flood?

At least some would be a welcome change of pace from what he's posted so far.

Though, personally, part of the reason I asked him to provide evidence is because I don't think he can.

[Flyover]

Er. Not having sex does NOT mean you can't talk about it. That makes no sense and can only serve to kick people out of a very important debate. I've never been a victim of slut-shaming, does that mean I can't talk about it?

It doesn't mean that you can't talk about it.

It means that you have no experience to back your opinions.

Just like someone can know a lot about planes, but when it comes to actually flying one, doesn't have the same grasp on it that a pilot does, because there are some things only experience can teach you.

You're still wrong in your assertion that his opinions would be speculation based on his lack of experience. Just because the pilot has not flown a plane, it does not mean his opinions are speculation, since he knows a lot about planes. Ergo, knowing about something = having done it for the validity of an opinion if it's still backed up by fact.

[Jumalariik]

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?

Is racial profiling fair?

Hell no. You don't choose to be a certain race, thus, no true generalizations can be accurate, since you choose to be atheist, people who make that choice can have many things in common.
I was wrong in saying that it would be ok to make a huge generalization about whites, however, it would be and warranted to dislike a group of people if one is willing to like people if they prove themselves to be likable.

[The Batorys]

I'm not gay and have never been persecuted as a homosexual. Should I not speak out against such treatment?

No, you should. That was exactly my point. Not having experienced something doesn't mean you can't talk about it.

I never said that he couldn't talk about it.

Just that he had no experience with the topic, and so that made his opinion less valuable. Not that it means he should not say anything about it at all, just that in a discussion about sex, he should consider the opinions of those who actually have experience with it.

To use Distruzio's example... whose opinion on the topic of persecution of LGBT folks is more valuable? That of someone who is not gay and has never been persecuted as a homosexual? Or that of someone who is, and has?

[Jumalariik]

a) The Bible and Christianity are two very different things.
b) Galatians said that there is "neither male nor female" there is division in the Bible, you can take every negative part of it, void it of its holiness, that's your right. The Bible teaches love of all people and equality of all believers. You can say what you want but it does not change that fact. It also doesn't change the fact that Mary gets some of the most praise from angels in the Bible.
c) The Bible preaches equality of all believers, the only people it condemns are those who try to go against God. I won't acknowledge holes in my religion because I view Christianity as perfect, since it is the proper method of worshiping God, human things are good inasmuch as they are Christian. I'm too fare gone to talk with people who want to say that I follow a false religion. I have read the Bible, you seem to enjoy quoting everything but Jesus, the most important part of the book!

I gotta go also, I await your response for tomorrow, but I gotta do evening prayers and go to sleep.

Just because you wont acknowledge the gaping holes in your faith doesnt mean they arent there. There are plenty of misogynist aspects in the Bible in addition to the parts you specified.

That may be true, however, the part of the Bible that I put all stock in is the gospels, to me the rest is not relevant and if need be could be thrown away. Jesus was not a sexist and would condemn it, instead preaching equality of all believers, thus, I view the epistles as a diverse group of writings, many of which don't go along with Christ's teachings.

[Flyover]

No, you should. That was exactly my point. Not having experienced something doesn't mean you can't talk about it.

I never said that he couldn't talk about it.

Just that he had no experience with the topic, and so that made his opinion less valuable. Not that it means he should not say anything about it at all, just that in a discussion about sex, he should consider the opinions of those who actually have experience with it.

To use Distruzio's example... whose opinion on the topic of persecution of LGBT folks is more valuable? That of someone who is not gay and has never been persecuted as a homosexual? Or that of someone who is, and has?

Like I said before, if they're both equally knowledgeable their opinions are both equally valid. Somebody who is not gay will probably never experience being discriminated against by a homophobe, but that does NOT mean the straight person's opinions are less valuable. Besides, having sex =/= actually knowing anything about sex; or enough to be educated about it. People who have sex can easily have incorrect and backwards views on it, while somebody who hasn't had it can have the correct ones. Hopefully you won't say the wrong-but-experienced opinion is more valuable, and the right-but-virgin should consider the wrong opinion?

[Jumalariik]

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?

Is racial profiling fair?

Oh, sorry I was unclear, all but one of my friends are atheists and all of my atheist friends say anti-Christian things, usually mockingly, I don't really care that they do, I just realize that that is how atheists generally seem to be.

[The Batorys]

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.

Then perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticize others' sex lives.

No one is saying that you should be promiscuous, if you don't want to. To go back to the ice cream example, that would be like saying "you have to eat this ice cream, even though it's not a flavor you like and it's way more than you want!" Nobody is saying that.

What people are saying, though, is that you shouldn't judge other people for liking different things than you do, as long as nobody is involved against their will. You do the things you like, let others do the things they like. Liking something different from what you like doesn't make anyone a bad person, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[Flyover]

Is racial profiling fair?

Oh, sorry I was unclear, all but one of my friends are atheists and all of my atheist friends say anti-Christian things, usually mockingly, I don't really care that they do, I just realize that that is how atheists generally seem to be.

Your friends =/= even a remote sampling of every possible atheist opinion. People with like views tend to be friends, so just because every atheist (except one, who's existence proves you wrong anyways) you know are that way does not mean even 50% of atheist are that way.

[The Batorys]

"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.

I never used the term 'slut' at any point in this thread, except to denounce the word.

Good.

That's a good start.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Just because you wont acknowledge the gaping holes in your faith doesnt mean they arent there. There are plenty of misogynist aspects in the Bible in addition to the parts you specified.

That may be true, however, the part of the Bible that I put all stock in is the gospels, to me the rest is not relevant and if need be could be thrown away. Jesus was not a sexist and would condemn it, instead preaching equality of all believers, thus, I view the epistles as a diverse group of writings, many of which don't go along with Christ's teachings.

So youre allowed to cherry pick whats important? And by if need be im sure you mean can be thrown away as is convenient to your argument.

And I put all stock in regular porn and disregard the strange sub sections. See my point?

And you dont know he would disprove of that. You now presume to speak for the Lord? In fact he wouldn't more tjan likely because misogyny was a part of life in his day.

[The Batorys]

It doesn't mean that you can't talk about it.

It means that you have no experience to back your opinions.

Just like someone can know a lot about planes, but when it comes to actually flying one, doesn't have the same grasp on it that a pilot does, because there are some things only experience can teach you.

You're still wrong in your assertion that his opinions would be speculation based on his lack of experience. Just because the pilot has not flown a plane, it does not mean his opinions are speculation, since he knows a lot about planes. Ergo, knowing about something = having done it for the validity of an opinion if it's still backed up by fact.

The opinions he posted were speculation about what sex does morally and emotionally. They are not backed up by fact, and have been easily dismissed by those more experienced than he.

[Flyover]

You're still wrong in your assertion that his opinions would be speculation based on his lack of experience. Just because the pilot has not flown a plane, it does not mean his opinions are speculation, since he knows a lot about planes. Ergo, knowing about something = having done it for the validity of an opinion if it's still backed up by fact.

The opinions he posted were speculation about what sex does morally and emotionally. They are not backed up by fact, and have been easily dismissed by those more experienced than he.

You're right. We were arguing about the principle of the thing, though. At least I was.

[The Batorys]

I never said that he couldn't talk about it.

Just that he had no experience with the topic, and so that made his opinion less valuable. Not that it means he should not say anything about it at all, just that in a discussion about sex, he should consider the opinions of those who actually have experience with it.

To use Distruzio's example... whose opinion on the topic of persecution of LGBT folks is more valuable? That of someone who is not gay and has never been persecuted as a homosexual? Or that of someone who is, and has?

Like I said before, if they're both equally knowledgeable their opinions are both equally valid. Somebody who is not gay will probably never experience being discriminated against by a homophobe, but that does NOT mean the straight person's opinions are less valuable. Besides, having sex =/= actually knowing anything about sex; or enough to be educated about it. People who have sex can easily have incorrect and backwards views on it, while somebody who hasn't had it can have the correct ones. Hopefully you won't say the wrong-but-experienced opinion is more valuable, and the right-but-virgin should consider the wrong opinion?

No, they really aren't.

Some knowledge has to be lived to be acquired.

The kinds of things The Flood was posting about sex were pretty much just speculation on his part that he was trying to pass of as fact, despite clearly not knowing what he was talking about.

[Jumalariik]

That may be true, however, the part of the Bible that I put all stock in is the gospels, to me the rest is not relevant and if need be could be thrown away. Jesus was not a sexist and would condemn it, instead preaching equality of all believers, thus, I view the epistles as a diverse group of writings, many of which don't go along with Christ's teachings.

So youre allowed to cherry pick whats important? And by if need be im sure you mean can be thrown away as is convenient to your argument.

And I put all stock in regular porn and disregard the strange sub sections. See my point?

And you dont know he would disprove of that. You now presume to speak for the Lord? In fact he wouldn't more tjan likely because misogyny was a part of life in his day.

1. No, Jesus's arrival on earth is an event that completely changes the world, what he said makes up the new law, his words supersede Mosaic law and Saul's sayings are not as important, it is not cherry picking.
2. Do that. I don't care about porn as long as you don't make me watch it and as long as it doesn't make people want to hurt each other.
3. Jesus is God, God always existed, he didn't have one time, he always existed, since he is God, what he said is eternal, in my opinion at least, it goes beyond time.

[Llamalandia]

Condoms are not 100% effective, and their use as an enabler of promiscuity makes them immoral when used for that purpose as well.

Condoms.
Immoral.
I think I've had enough brain cell loss for a day.

Depends, condoms are about what like 97-99% effective when used correctly? Thus assuming a failure rate of 1 in 100, condoms would have to increase promiscuity by over 100x for them to even logically be debatable as immoral on net.