“Slut-shaming” does not exist because there is no such thing as a “slut.”

Meghan Murphy, who always writes stellar entries at Feminist Current, points out that the whole anti-“slut-shaming” movement is very silly because the idea of a “slut” is an invention of the Patriarchy.

The solution to the sexual double standard that shames women for having casual sex, being promiscuous, enjoying sex, having female bodies, leaving the house, whatever, is not, as a very smart lady on Twitter put it recently, to “turn ‘sluts’ into a special-interest group“. You see, there is no such thing as a ‘slut’ or a ‘non-slut’. There are women. This whole ‘slut-pride’ thing and terms like ‘slut-shaming’ reinforce the very dichotomies feminism works to destroy. Us vs. them. Good girls vs. bad girls. Reinforcing the idea that some women are ‘sluts’ and that ‘sluttishness’ is attached to female sexuality (i.e. that whole — now ‘slut’ means a ‘woman who likes sex‘ crap) is not useful in terms of defining our own lives and sexualities. Like sex, don’t like sex, whatever. You aren’t a ‘slut’ either way. You’re a woman.

4 thoughts on ““Slut-shaming” does not exist because there is no such thing as a “slut.”

  1. A Neal August 17, 2013 at 05:43

    I believe in reclaiming the word slut, just as LGBT have reclaimed the word queer. I don’t think it’s juvenile at all, and it’s an important facet of fighting for women’s sexual liberation. I’m a slut. I’m proud to be a slut. I’m liberated, I’m a free spirit, I live like sort of like the hippies did back in the 70s. It’s very important to me to call myself a slut because people will always try to slut shame promiscuous women, unless they start following suit.

    • DefyEntropy August 19, 2013 at 08:37

      Referring to yourself as a “slut” is hardly empowering. Enabling women to become as promiscuous and sexually active as men is not an advancement in the field of feminism. Integration into patriarchal institutions, such as the military, and the adoption of standards that are, frankly, insulting to human intelligence and dignity (sexual promiscuity) are not examples of liberation for women. Your statements are almost as absurd as the statements that deem pornography to be a “liberating” venue for women to express their sexuality, despite the fact that there are obvious undercurrents of degradation and implicit coercion within the sex industry. Similarly, you neglect the historical application of the term, “slut”, and embrace an incredibly naive and superficial methodology of achieving sexual liberation for women.

  2. Matthew Chiglinsky September 25, 2013 at 21:27

    Sex is dangerous. It can cause unplanned pregnancy and disease, and a woman’s body can easily become a host for disease (more than a man’s).

    That’s why sexually loose women are called sluts.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: