What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[Zypern]

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.

I'm not quite sure how I'd preserve myself by knowing that Joey was shagging his sheep next door. In fact, I'd probably be more perturbed just knowing that. It's not like he's going to shag his sheep on my lawn.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Well then you have nothing to worry about obviously. I mean, i think if people actually could keep such things to themselves then we wouldn't even be talking about the issue of slut shaming.

[Shie]

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

I'm not quite sure how I'd preserve myself by knowing that Joey was shagging his sheep next door. In fact, I'd probably be more perturbed just knowing that. It's not like he's going to shag his sheep on my lawn.

You should know, that way you can report Joey to the authorities.

[Zypern]

I'm not quite sure how I'd preserve myself by knowing that Joey was shagging his sheep next door. In fact, I'd probably be more perturbed just knowing that. It's not like he's going to shag his sheep on my lawn.

You should know, that way you can report Joey to the authorities.

But what if his sheep is consenting? Why should I know, other than the novelty of a talking sheep?

[Llamalandia]

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

I'm not quite sure how I'd preserve myself by knowing that Joey was shagging his sheep next door. In fact, I'd probably be more perturbed just knowing that. It's not like he's going to shag his sheep on my lawn.

That what you think, bahhhh.

No I don't know keep that stuff in the bedroom/barn where it belongs in my opinion.

[Llamalandia]

You should know, that way you can report Joey to the authorities.

But what if his sheep is consenting? Why should I know, other than the novelty of a talking sheep?

Something about animal abuse maybe?

Anyway sheep can't consent only humans can. Which I guess technically means all animal breeding is actually rape, kinda weird when you think about it like that.

[New Lexington]

I'm not quite sure how I'd preserve myself by knowing that Joey was shagging his sheep next door. In fact, I'd probably be more perturbed just knowing that. It's not like he's going to shag his sheep on my lawn.

You should know, that way you can report Joey to the authorities.

Thats an extreme situation. They do not need to know about a consensual, normal relationship.

[Grenartia]

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

1. Why does someone have to be directly harmed for something to be considered bad? 2. Prevention is better than cure, 3. 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.

1. Because anything else is obviously overly restrictive and unnecessary infringements on basic human rights and freedoms.

2. Implying that you can't prevent people from infringing others' rights without informed consent without violating everybody's rights.

3. No. We are capable of analyzing the consequences of ours and others actions, and predicting from there what's wrong and what's not. And in this discussion, there's one thing that's objectively wrong (slut shaming), and one thing that's not (having consensual sex with whoever you want, how often you want). This should be obvious.

[Grave_n_idle]

What when they start telling lies about you behind your back which cost you your job, your relationship and your public image ?

Their lies are false. Therefore I deny them. If anyone believes such lies, then they do not deserve to associate with me. Besides, I don't keep many friends. Not many people who would talk, and even then, I know how to smoke out a rat.

Words are meaningless, and forgettable.

Depeche Mode. Nice.

Unfortunately, much as I'd like to agree with you (Depeche Mode, after all) it's just not true that words are that weak. People are shaped by what they hear - either positively or negatively. In your own narrative, you are made stronger because of negative things people say about you. Even if that's true, clearly other people will be made weaker, just as you are made stronger. We are shaped by what we hear, and what we allow ourselves to hear, or speak.

Also, of course - if a lie is spread about you that costs you your job - for example - it doesn't matter if you know it's not true, or even if your former employer knows it's not true - the simple fact is that it cost you your job - i.e. words can have real, physical impact.

[Distruzio]

You should know, that way you can report Joey to the authorities.

But what if his sheep is consenting? Why should I know, other than the novelty of a talking sheep?

It's a sheep.

It can't consent.

It doesn't speak Joey's language.

[Grenartia]

Their lies are false. Therefore I deny them. If anyone believes such lies, then they do not deserve to associate with me. Besides, I don't keep many friends. Not many people who would talk, and even then, I know how to smoke out a rat.

Words are meaningless, and forgettable.

Depeche Mode. Nice.

Unfortunately, much as I'd like to agree with you (Depeche Mode, after all) it's just not true that words are that weak. People are shaped by what they hear - either positively or negatively. In your own narrative, you are made stronger because of negative things people say about you. Even if that's true, clearly other people will be made weaker, just as you are made stronger. We are shaped by what we hear, and what we allow ourselves to hear, or speak.

Also, of course - if a lie is spread about you that costs you your job - for example - it doesn't matter if you know it's not true, or even if your former employer knows it's not true - the simple fact is that it cost you your job - i.e. words can have real, physical impact.

But that can't possibly be true! That means I'd have to *GASP* think before I speak!

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

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.

Well then you have nothing to worry about obviously. I mean, i think if people actually could keep such things to themselves then we wouldn't even be talking about the issue of slut shaming.

OR we can not be prudish about sex and eliminate slut shaming all together. Oh my god, so what if Tina mentioned that she had really good sex last night with Greg from IT, does her mentioning it hurt you?

[Grave_n_idle]

Well then you have nothing to worry about obviously. I mean, i think if people actually could keep such things to themselves then we wouldn't even be talking about the issue of slut shaming.

OR we can not be prudish about sex and eliminate slut shaming all together. Oh my god, so what if Tina mentioned that she had really good sex last night with Greg from IT, does her mentioning it hurt you?

It hurts me. I've been after Tina for years, and she acts like I don't exist.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well then you have nothing to worry about obviously. I mean, i think if people actually could keep such things to themselves then we wouldn't even be talking about the issue of slut shaming.

OR we can not be prudish about sex and eliminate slut shaming all together. Oh my god, so what if Tina mentioned that she had really good sex last night with Greg from IT, does her mentioning it hurt you?

We could do away with the concept for both sexes. What you do, no matter the number of people you do it with, is no one else's business but your own.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

OR we can not be prudish about sex and eliminate slut shaming all together. Oh my god, so what if Tina mentioned that she had really good sex last night with Greg from IT, does her mentioning it hurt you?

It hurts me. I've been after Tina for years, and she acts like I don't exist.

OKay but if the sex was really bad you can totally make a move

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

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.

That is a void statement.

I don't see to any of us relevant potential "negative consequences" taking place from two people consensually pleasing themselves in a manner that law rules as none of your business. There's no objective moral or ethical violation in their actions, full stop.

What is potentially unethical and illegal is slut-shaming and more specifically the consequences possibly originating from it, especially the more extreme forms.

[The Batorys]

What when they start telling lies about you behind your back which cost you your job, your relationship and your public image ?

Their lies are false. Therefore I deny them. If anyone believes such lies, then they do not deserve to associate with me. Besides, I don't keep many friends. Not many people who would talk, and even then, I know how to smoke out a rat.

Words are meaningless, and forgettable.

Words aren't meaningless when they're the difference between making rent and failing to do so.

[The Batorys]

Your actions will be described by words. And those words are all that shall remain - no matter if they are truthful or not.

The impact of my actions will be permanent. That will be more important than what people say...

Nothing is permanent.

[The Batorys]

The only limits on "slut shaming" is whatever the feminst and liberals say it is to further their goals. So basically anything they disagree with.

...well do you want to give your interpretation or do you just want to say "uhh liberals"?

I wouldn't bother. He's already been DEATed once for this kind of thing. He's just trying to get a rise out of you.

[The Batorys]

Prove "the Lord" exists.
Prove "the Lord" created sex.
Prove "the Lord" only wanted married people to engage in it.

Prove 'the Lord' does not exist.
Prove 'the Lord' did not create sex.
Prove 'the Lord' did not want only married people to engage in it.

That's not how the burden of proof works, bro.

You made the claim that this lord guy created sex, you made the claim that said lord wanted only married couples to experience it.

It's on you to back up that claim. So far, not seeing any evidence of either part.

[The Batorys]

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.

No, if we're going to shame people for something they're doing, it needs to be demonstrated that what they're doing is actively causing harm.

Otherwise, you're just bullying people for no reason.

Which would make you a despicable, shitty excuse for a human being.

[Shie]

Slut-shaming is not objectively wrong, just the opposite.

1. Why does someone have to be directly harmed for something to be considered bad? 2. Prevention is better than cure, 3. 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.

1. Because anything else is obviously overly restrictive and unnecessary infringements on basic human rights and freedoms.

2. Implying that you can't prevent people from infringing others' rights without informed consent without violating everybody's rights.

3. No. We are capable of analyzing the consequences of ours and others actions, and predicting from there what's wrong and what's not. And in this discussion, there's one thing that's objectively wrong (slut shaming), and one thing that's not (having consensual sex with whoever you want, how often you want). This should be obvious.

[Llamalandia]

Well then you have nothing to worry about obviously. I mean, i think if people actually could keep such things to themselves then we wouldn't even be talking about the issue of slut shaming.

OR we can not be prudish about sex and eliminate slut shaming all together. Oh my god, so what if Tina mentioned that she had really good sex last night with Greg from IT, does her mentioning it hurt you?

I don't know, but i doubt that's going to happen anytime soon. Also, depends if youre say Greg's wife, yeah, you'd probably be pretty pissed off that he cheated on you with Tina.

[Llamalandia]

1. Why does someone have to be directly harmed for something to be considered bad? 2. Prevention is better than cure, 3. 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.

1. Because anything else is obviously overly restrictive and unnecessary infringements on basic human rights and freedoms.

2. Implying that you can't prevent people from infringing others' rights without informed consent without violating everybody's rights.

3. No. We are capable of analyzing the consequences of ours and others actions, and predicting from there what's wrong and what's not. And in this discussion, there's one thing that's objectively wrong (slut shaming), and one thing that's not (having consensual sex with whoever you want, how often you want). This should be obvious.

1. That would be problematic then in regards to say prostitution as that's a victimlesss crime. Or better yet, child pornography, in which the child isn't necessarily directly harmed. After all it's "just pictures". Or statutory rape in which all parties have consented, we couldn't go after that either (not that I necessarily think we should it's just an example).

Lot's of things don't necessarily cause direct harm to the participants yet, we can criminalize them anyway apparently.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Slut-shaming is not objectively wrong, just the opposite.

1. Because anything else is obviously overly restrictive and unnecessary infringements on basic human rights and freedoms.

2. Implying that you can't prevent people from infringing others' rights without informed consent without violating everybody's rights.

3. No. We are capable of analyzing the consequences of ours and others actions, and predicting from there what's wrong and what's not. And in this discussion, there's one thing that's objectively wrong (slut shaming), and one thing that's not (having consensual sex with whoever you want, how often you want). This should be obvious.

Verbally abusing one over something tbat isnt you damn businuess in the firstplace is now objectively right?