What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[Grenartia]

Yeah, you've just proved you know nothing about this subject.

Words aren't meaningless sounds. They have meaning. They can indeed cut sharper than any knife, burn hotter than any flame, pierce farther than any arrow, whether the person on the receiving end wants them to or not (which you seem to be failing to understand). If you think that you can choose to not be affected by words, and that choice means you won't, then you've been lucky in that nobody's ever insulted you so harshly that they proved you wrong.

Just stop caring what others think of you.

Why should you let other, close minded, hypocritical, people bug you? Stop caring about what they have to say, about anything that they feel towards you. In the end, if someone is to say harsh things over a personal choice, just drop them. They aren't worth your time anyway.

Done it plenty of times in my life.

Not as easy as you think.

Contrary to what you want to believe, even if you don't want to be affected, you can be.

There should be absolutely no shaming of promiscuity. If it affects a person's career and life with friends, and health, then an intervention of sorts is necessary. Otherwise, it is completely unwarranted and wrong.

Now see I agree to a point, just because someones promiscuous doesnt mean they should be treated like shit or anything. But on the other hand people should be taught to limit themselves or show a bit of self control, I mean women should go out the house and screw 20+ guys and guys shouldnt chase after every girl they see.

Who are you to say what somebody should and shouldn't be doing with their lives, so long as they aren't depriving anybody of their rights without informed consent? Were you somehow magically granted the role of arbiter, with the ability and authority to do so, by the fairy fucking godmother or something? Does being Juggalo land somehow magically grant you those powers?

There should be absolutely no shaming of promiscuity. If it affects a person's career and life with friends, and health, then an intervention of sorts is necessary. Otherwise, it is completely unwarranted and wrong.

The old "women aren't responsible for their actions" routine

Intellectual dishonesty at its prime, folks.

Note how at no point, did Kelin make mention of women, or state that nobody is responsible for their actions. In fact, if anything, he affirmed that people are responsible for their actions.

[Llamalandia]

Do you know how many weird sects there are out there with a few dozen or a few hundred members (i.e. the same size as the westboro baptist church)?

Nope. Thousands probably.
Does it matter how many followers they have to determine correctness of their beliefs though ?

Think hard on this, and remember that 70% of the worlds population is nonchristian before you answer

Yes, for instance it's how we can distinguish between Islamic terrorists and mainstream moderate Muslims. If we judged all Muslims by the actions of a few well, needless to say that wouldn't be very fair would it?

[Distruzio]

Well, I haven't posted in this thread before (or read it, for that matter), but count me as one of those many Christians who oppose misogyny and find it to be one of the biggest problems with porn.

As for the Bible, I find its overall message to be one of universal equality and respect for all human beings. If you disagree - well, it is common for people to disagree about the overarching message of a book with over a thousand pages, hundreds of stories, dozens of authors, and multiple running themes. So we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

Just as I wouldn't agree to disagree with someone who siad huck fin is a pro slavory book, I CANNOT agree to digress. The bible is MORE misogynistic than Mine Kompf is antisemitic, and this is coming from a sys man.

No. It isn't. If the Bible were a single book written by a single author then you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It isn't a single book written by a single author. It's a collection of books written by many authors over many hundreds of years. Of course there will be some statements within that don't quite jive with the overarching cultural consensus of propriety. The "blatant and commonplace" misogyny found in the Bible is hardly either - it's subtle and rare. Where it does exist, it expresses the opinion of that particular author. Remember, the Bible is not the sole authority for Christianity. Hell, Christianity isn't even in the Bible. The Church is the primary authority over both faith and scripture and the Church says something quite different than "blatant and commonplace" misogyny is acceptable. In fact, it says precisely the opposite. It has said that for generations.

[Cannot think of a name]

Just as I wouldn't agree to disagree with someone who siad huck fin is a pro slavory book, I CANNOT agree to digress. The bible is MORE misogynistic than Mine Kompf is antisemitic, and this is coming from a sys man.

No. It isn't. If the Bible were a single book written by a single author then you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It isn't a single book written by a single author. It's a collection of books written by many authors over many hundreds of years. Of course there will be some statements within that don't quite jive with the overarching cultural consensus of propriety. The "blatant and commonplace" misogyny found in the Bible is hardly either - it's subtle and rare. Where it does exist, it expresses the opinion of that particular author. Remember, the Bible is not the sole authority for Christianity. Hell, Christianity isn't even in the Bible. The Church is the primary authority over both faith and scripture and the Church says something quite different than "blatant and commonplace" misogyny is acceptable. In fact, it says precisely the opposite. It has said that for generations.

Which church are we talking about, the Catholic Church? Can women be priests?

[Llamalandia]

No. It isn't. If the Bible were a single book written by a single author then you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It isn't a single book written by a single author. It's a collection of books written by many authors over many hundreds of years. Of course there will be some statements within that don't quite jive with the overarching cultural consensus of propriety. The "blatant and commonplace" misogyny found in the Bible is hardly either - it's subtle and rare. Where it does exist, it expresses the opinion of that particular author. Remember, the Bible is not the sole authority for Christianity. Hell, Christianity isn't even in the Bible. The Church is the primary authority over both faith and scripture and the Church says something quite different than "blatant and commonplace" misogyny is acceptable. In fact, it says precisely the opposite. It has said that for generations.

Which church are we talking about, the Catholic Church? Can women be priests?

Actually originally they could like way back when the church first started. That changed quite quickly of course once the institutional church became official in Rome. That said, technically there's nothing preventing the catholic hierarchy from allowing female ordination other than some made up rules that as far as I'm aware don't really have much basis in scripture.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

No. It isn't. If the Bible were a single book written by a single author then you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It isn't a single book written by a single author. It's a collection of books written by many authors over many hundreds of years. Of course there will be some statements within that don't quite jive with the overarching cultural consensus of propriety. The "blatant and commonplace" misogyny found in the Bible is hardly either - it's subtle and rare. Where it does exist, it expresses the opinion of that particular author. Remember, the Bible is not the sole authority for Christianity. Hell, Christianity isn't even in the Bible. The Church is the primary authority over both faith and scripture and the Church says something quite different than "blatant and commonplace" misogyny is acceptable. In fact, it says precisely the opposite. It has said that for generations.

Which church are we talking about, the Catholic Church? Can women be priests?

Women can be priests in the Anglican and Scandinavian Communions; Orthodox, Orientals and Romans haven't caught up with the program YET.

[Distruzio]

No. It isn't. If the Bible were a single book written by a single author then you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It isn't a single book written by a single author. It's a collection of books written by many authors over many hundreds of years. Of course there will be some statements within that don't quite jive with the overarching cultural consensus of propriety. The "blatant and commonplace" misogyny found in the Bible is hardly either - it's subtle and rare. Where it does exist, it expresses the opinion of that particular author. Remember, the Bible is not the sole authority for Christianity. Hell, Christianity isn't even in the Bible. The Church is the primary authority over both faith and scripture and the Church says something quite different than "blatant and commonplace" misogyny is acceptable. In fact, it says precisely the opposite. It has said that for generations.

Which church are we talking about, the Catholic Church? Can women be priests?

There was only one Church when the Bible was finally compiled - the Imperial Church. It later endured schisms giving rise to the Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Is the lack of female priests an example of misogyny? I assure you it isn't. In the Orthodox Church, women are encouraged to take the role of "mother" (essentially) of the parish. While they do not perform the sacraments that a priest does, the presbytera does provide for the spiritual nourishment of the parish in other, just as important ways.

[Genivaria]

If everything is Safe, Sane, and Consensual then it's nobodys fucking business.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Yes, the people who made her life a living hell absolutely convinced her of this. Jesus, she fucking died. What the hell is the matter with you?

Nothing. People can go on all day with their nonsense. But at the end of the day, you have to decide to defend yourself or make the necessary changes to ensure your wellbeing rather than simply saying, "Well fuck it", and killing yourself.

That being said, when you go into society, there is a basic standard of decency individuals are expected to meet. There is a reason why people are shamed for their actions, and that reason is because more often than not, said behavior in question is not acceptable or healthy.

Me thinks this one has lived a spoiled ife and free from bullying, and therefore you have not the faintest fucking idea what youre going on about.

[Gaelic Celtia]

That is undoubtedly the most horrendous and despicable "reasoning" I have ever laid eyes upon.


So by your logic most devout Christians I know or hear from are b igotted, hateful homophobes, therefore most to all christians are the same. Tell me, is this now true?

If you think you can overgeneralize and label an entire group of people based solely on your narrow personal expierience you are the most ignorant and arrogant being to ever walk the earth.

Here, ill leave this for you
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

No, that is not equivalent.

Most devout Christians i encounter are bigoted homophobes, thus it is reasonable to say that a good amount of devout Christians are homophobes.

It is 100% equivalent.

Just because now I am using your beliefs in your own piss poor reasoning doesnt mean it is now somehow different.

[Llamalandia]

Nothing. People can go on all day with their nonsense. But at the end of the day, you have to decide to defend yourself or make the necessary changes to ensure your wellbeing rather than simply saying, "Well fuck it", and killing yourself.

That being said, when you go into society, there is a basic standard of decency individuals are expected to meet. There is a reason why people are shamed for their actions, and that reason is because more often than not, said behavior in question is not acceptable or healthy.

Me thinks this one has lived a spoiled ife and free from bullying, and therefore you have not the faintest fucking idea what youre going on about.

No but setting any policy based on the idea that some people will figuratively and literally put a gun to their own head, isn't a smart way to go about things either. I mean, the reality is at the end of the day some form of social ostracism, harassment bullying whatever is always gong to exist in life. We can't eliminate it all even if we tried. Further, the free speech implications of even attempting to do so are enormous and not to be taken lightly either. Hence the only viable approach is to educate people, and work to prevent the victims of this kind of thing from taking drastic actions.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Me thinks this one has lived a spoiled ife and free from bullying, and therefore you have not the faintest fucking idea what youre going on about.

No but setting any policy based on the idea that some people will figuratively and literally put a gun to their own head, isn't a smart way to go about things either. I mean, the reality is at the end of the day some form of social ostracism, harassment bullying whatever is always gong to exist in life. We can't eliminate it all even if we tried. Further, the free speech implications of even attempting to do so are enormous and not to be taken lightly either. Hence the only viable approach is to educate people, and work to prevent the victims of this kind of thing from taking drastic actions.

Yes, true, though it is absurdly arrogant to think that just because you personally have no issue with words, then clearly everyone else needs to "man up"

[Llamalandia]

No but setting any policy based on the idea that some people will figuratively and literally put a gun to their own head, isn't a smart way to go about things either. I mean, the reality is at the end of the day some form of social ostracism, harassment bullying whatever is always gong to exist in life. We can't eliminate it all even if we tried. Further, the free speech implications of even attempting to do so are enormous and not to be taken lightly either. Hence the only viable approach is to educate people, and work to prevent the victims of this kind of thing from taking drastic actions.

Yes, true, though it is absurdly arrogant to think that just because you personally have no issue with words, then clearly everyone else needs to "man up"

Well, fair enough. I would just point that the appropriate recourse here is not nor will it ever be to rely on govt or some other "institutional solution" for this or any similar bullying-type problem.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Yes, true, though it is absurdly arrogant to think that just because you personally have no issue with words, then clearly everyone else needs to "man up"

Well, fair enough. I would just point that the appropriate recourse here is not nor will it ever be to rely on govt or some other "institutional solution" for this or any similar bullying-type problem.

I could tell you that from personal expierience. The school does NOTHING to try and prevent serious bullying, a friend of mine who took his life in junior high is evidence of that. But im not going to pretend to know what the solution is, if there even is a viable one

[Llamalandia]

Well, fair enough. I would just point that the appropriate recourse here is not nor will it ever be to rely on govt or some other "institutional solution" for this or any similar bullying-type problem.

I could tell you that from personal expierience. The school does NOTHING to try and prevent serious bullying, a friend of mine who took his life in junior high is evidence of that. But im not going to pretend to know what the solution is, if there even is a viable one

In some cases there may simply never be one. I mean, I also doubt your friend just up outta no where killed himself without having other issues, whether they were known or unknown, and at the end of the day tragedies like this are always likely to happen. Not to be cavalier or dismissive about, I mean, I feel bad for you and all, that must have been an extremely unpleasant experience.

[Gaelic Celtia]

I could tell you that from personal expierience. The school does NOTHING to try and prevent serious bullying, a friend of mine who took his life in junior high is evidence of that. But im not going to pretend to know what the solution is, if there even is a viable one

In some cases there may simply never be one. I mean, I also doubt your friend just up outta no where killed himself without having other issues, whether they were known or unknown, and at the end of the day tragedies like this are always likely to happen. Not to be cavalier or dismissive about, I mean, I feel bad for you and all, that must have been an extremely unpleasant experience.

I won't go out on the internet and say his issues out of respect, but the Severe bullying was at least the straw that broke the camel's back.

But because of personal expierience I take great offense to the whole victim should have just been stronger willed BS.

[Llamalandia]

In some cases there may simply never be one. I mean, I also doubt your friend just up outta no where killed himself without having other issues, whether they were known or unknown, and at the end of the day tragedies like this are always likely to happen. Not to be cavalier or dismissive about, I mean, I feel bad for you and all, that must have been an extremely unpleasant experience.

I won't go out on the internet and say his issues out of respect, but the Severe bullying was at least the straw that broke the camel's back.

But because of personal expierience I take great offense to the whole victim should have just been stronger willed BS.

Well, I can certainly respect that, I'm also not here to ask you dredge up unpleasant memories, nor expose things, that you feel are best left respectfully, private.

That said, I agree to an extent that there is an extreme end of the spectrum that tends to suggest that, yea, you should "just man up" which sure may be ok, in some circumstances, but obviously in other cases, "asking for help" is perfectly appropriate, what I'm always worried about and on guard for though, is demands of help, especially when such demands, would see a restriction on speech.

As far as slut shaming, goes, I don't know, I don't honestly have a huge problem with it. I mean, it's an opinion, not one I necessarily agree with personally in all cases, but none the less it seems to be often employed as a form of social sanction, and not merely as form of "bullying" or Harassment just "for fun".

I mean, generally though, I'm of the opinion, that as long as everything is safe, sane, legal, consensual, and private, then it's not really anyone elses business what someone does in the bedroom. Of course when they choose to, or are careless enough, to let their private intimate lives, become public, then I don't see how it's unfair for people to judge them accordingly.

[Shie]

Don't "slut-shame", unless someone is actually being harmed.

Why does someone have to be directly harmed for something to be considered bad? Prevention is better than cure, negative consequences don't have to be happen for us to realize that things are morally objectionable when there's numerous guides on the subject present.

[New Lexington]

Don't "slut-shame", unless someone is actually being harmed.

Why does someone have to be directly harmed for something to be considered bad? Prevention is better than cure.

And verbal abuse and nosing into someones sex life is supposed to be some sort of prevention then?

[Shie]

Why does someone have to be directly harmed for something to be considered bad? Prevention is better than cure.

And verbal abuse and nosing into someones sex life is supposed to be some sort of prevention then?

No, the point of abstinence is to keep a community clean.
Regarding intimacy, before that can be engaged there has to be a basic level of respect for the community people are taking part in.

[New Lexington]

And verbal abuse and nosing into someones sex life is supposed to be some sort of prevention then?

No, the point of abstinence is to keep a community clean.
Regarding intimacy, before that can be engaged there has to be a basic level of respect for the community people are taking part in.

And why is it any of the community's b usinuess who youre sleeping with?

[Shie]

No, the point of abstinence is to keep a community clean.
Regarding intimacy, before that can be engaged there has to be a basic level of respect for the community people are taking part in.

And why is it any of the community's b usinuess who youre sleeping with?

Relationships between people are the building block of any community. A completely open community leaves itself susceptible to the subversion of long-established institutions.

[New Lexington]

And why is it any of the community's b usinuess who youre sleeping with?

Relationships between people are the building block of any community. A completely open community leaves itself susceptible to the subversion of long-established institutions.

And so....that means that the neighbourhood needs to be informed of all of ones sexual encounters? Not seeing the logic here.

[Shie]

Relationships between people are the building block of any community. A completely open community leaves itself susceptible to the subversion of long-established institutions.

And so....that means that the neighbourhood needs to be informed of all of ones sexual encounters? Not seeing the logic here.

No, the neighborhood simply needs to be aware of who it's members are interacting with to preserve itself.

[New Lexington]

And so....that means that the neighbourhood needs to be informed of all of ones sexual encounters? Not seeing the logic here.

No, the neighborhood simply needs to be aware of who it's members are interacting with to preserve itself.

Its called intimacy for a reason. I will not be pinning up a notice saying who I am dating or sleeping with as it is not anybody's concern but me and my partner's.