Let's talk about slut shaming

[Rosa Partizan]

I guess everyone of you knows what this is. To those of you having slept in a closet the last couple of years: It means mocking and calling out a woman for having casual sex, having had sex with several guys, being open about her sexuality, wearing cleavage, short skirts etc. As a sexually outgoing and confident woman in her mid-twenties, I have heard "slut" several times. For talking openly about my sexuality, for having one night stands, for having had more than 2 or 3 guys and so on. You know how it goes. From my own experience, from some girlfriends' experiences, from what I observe in society, I take this very seriously. Slut shaming is no myth, slut shaming is happening everywhere all the time, not only by men, but in the same way by women, kissing patriarchie's ass.

BUT I noticed that within feminist discussions, there is a discourse taking the whole concept ad absurdum. It kind of started bothering me how often it was used, but I could't call out what was so striking. Then this Miley Cyrus-thing started and made furor within feminist circles, all those blogs and so on. All of a sudden, I realized what had become so fucking annoying about it: This term was used to shut down any discussion that evolved around objectifying women. Some women were like "leave her alone with that slut shaming, she is discovering her sexuality and you give her bad names for it". So, here we go: Miley Cyrus, who used to be a teen idol, wants to get rid off this whole good girl-image. Fair enough. So, what can she do? Let's learn from other female pop stars and be as sexually provocative as one can be, rubbing your ass at some rape culture-approving douchebag's crotch called Robin Thicke (it is a shame that only she was the issue and he was ignored, being the older one and in the superior position), pretending to masturbate, hanging your tongue out all the time, all for the male gaze, making some fat, old, white label company guys richer than they've ever been before.

Rashida Jones wrote an article about it, maybe not very succeeding in her choice of words, but most def having a valid point. She got a lot of encouragement for that one, but also some critic like "don't slut shame". When did this concept of slut shaming become a method of shutting down critical opinions about woman's presentation of sexuality, sexual exploitation, objectification in the media? Those "feminists" are like "well, it's her choice, and whatever choice she makes, it is empowering for her". Would you stop bs, please? We ALL grew up in patriarchy, meaning that we internalized so many of its ideas, images and so on. Every choice a woman makes won't be equally good and empowering as long as we have this context of patriarchy and inequality. Some choices are just more appropiate to keep patriarchy alive than others. This doesn't mean that we are in the position to judge or something, but we are entitled to have an opinion about the stuff Miley, Rihanna etc do publicly to gain attention. On the one hand, I know that this is for many women the only way to get big, to become famous, to be seen. On the other hand, isn't it insulting women's intelligence to be like, well, they have no other choice, they are not aware of it?

Your thoughts, please.

[Loony Le Fist]

I guess everyone of you knows what this is. To those of you having slept in a closet the last couple of years: It means mocking and calling out a woman for having casual sex, having had sex with several guys, being open about her sexuality, wearing cleavage, short skirts etc. As a sexually outgoing and confident woman in her mid-twenties, I have heard "slut" several times. For talking openly about my sexuality, for having one night stands, for having had more than 2 or 3 guys and so on. You know how it goes.

As a male, I don't know if I can speak authoritatively on slut shaming. But I liked the points brought up in this post, and figured I'd chime in.

I hate how the patriarchy and society makes me out to be inferior, if I don't choose to act "alpha" and bed as many women as possible. Indeed I'm tired of the "alpha male" bs, myself. And it's a shame that women have to put up with it from men. And then of course suffer through slut shaming on top of it. I suppose the problem for men is the sort-of the reverse, in that we are expected by the patriarchy to be pimps with a stable or something. Of course women are trapped between a rock and a hard place. If they are sexually outgoing they are sluts, if they choose to not do so they are considered frigid. I think those conflicting things can really have a negative impact on women emotionally.

As a male, I can't claim to know exactly how it goes for you. Having observed it however, I can empathize with your situation.

From my own experience, from some girlfriends' experiences, from what I observe in society, I take this very seriously. Slut shaming is no myth, slut shaming is happening everywhere all the time, not only by men, but in the same way by women, kissing patriarchie's ass.

I agree. I had a gf that would do nothing but "slut shame". In her case, it seemed that it emboldened her, and she considered herself to be feminist. I'm no longer with this person for that and other reasons. Until you mentioned it, I didn't think about how she played into the patriarchy's game. And it makes me feel sad when women themselves choose to participate in their own objectification.

...
Then this Miley Cyrus-thing started and made furor within feminist circles, all those blogs and so on. All of a sudden, I realized what had become so fucking annoying about it: This term was used to shut down any discussion that evolved around objectifying women
...
Let's learn from other female pop stars and be as sexually provocative as one can be, rubbing your ass at some rape culture-approving douchebag's crotch called Robin Thicke (it is a shame that only she was the issue and he was ignored, being the older one and in the superior position), pretending to masturbate, hanging your tongue out all the time, all for the male gaze, making some fat, old, white label company guys richer than they've ever been before.

Well said. Being sexually outgoing and confident doesn't mean being an apologist for behavior that only works to objectify women further. It plays directly into the hands of rape-culture, and it's important for the feminists who recognize it, such as yourself, to stand up.

...
She got a lot of encouragement for that one, but also some critic like "don't slut shame". When did this concept of slut shaming become a method of shutting down critical opinions about woman's presentation of sexuality, sexual exploitation, objectification in the media? Those "feminists" are like "well, it's her choice, and whatever choice she makes, it is empowering for her". Would you stop bs, please? We ALL grew up in patriarchy, meaning that we internalized so many of its ideas, images and so on. Every choice a woman makes won't be equally good and empowering as long as we have this context of patriarchy and inequality. Some choices are just more appropiate to keep patriarchy alive than others.

Well I think you are off to good start fighting the patriarchy with recognizing it exists, and understanding how you have internalized certain ideas, expected behaviors. As a male I too have internalized a lot of it as well. As I've mentioned before, everyone loses in the patriarchy. All while the capitalists get rich taking advantage of our alligator brains.

This doesn't mean that we are in the position to judge or something, but we are entitled to have an opinion about the stuff Miley, Rihanna etc do publicly to gain attention. On the one hand, I know that this is for many women the only way to get big, to become famous, to be seen. On the other hand, isn't it insulting women's intelligence to be like, well, they have no other choice, they are not aware of it?
...

Well I think you can judge the content of people's character and call it like you see it. I think that the more women that take a stand against this sort of thing, and stop playing into the patriarchal white old rich man rape culture that generates the money, the better off you will be. But I do think it's hard to have a choice in a society like the one we have. We all know how capitalism essentially makes us all slaves. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything about it.

[Sasha]

as an openly BI male i always found the different dynamics i faced interesting, when i was younger i actually always had far more casual (and drunk) sexual encounters with women than with men, yet only when going to queerish parties if i was very flirtatious with (often a bit older than me) males (who i most often didnt even sleep with, i just like to dance and flirt when i'm drunk) i got branded a "slut" and "jailbait" and "tease" etc etc while when i showed the same behavior in a opposite sex situation (flirtatious but not actually pushing it towards sex) i was labeled a "decent guy" at best and "weak" at worst.
i think thats very exemplary for how women a treated (though for women it must be even a lot worse), if your sexually assertive in a situation society demands you to be a doe eyed introvert madonna you get attacked, while in a reversed situation... etc etc
its all very much enforcement of patriarchal societal norms.

[Loony Le Fist]

This is a question more directed at the females. What are some of things men can do to be a little more pro-active against slut shaming?

I'll give you an example. Say I'm in a social situation and I see someone being slut shamed. What would you like to see a pro-active male, that is against this kind of thing, do in this kind of situation? Would intervening in and of itself be misogynistic? In that, if I intervene, I'm merely acting as if women are incapable of taking care of themselves? Is it better to just let the parties be? Should men even get involved in situations like this?

My gut tells me to intervene (as in pulled the guy aside and had a little private chat). And I have done so in the past. But, I wonder if that can also be disempowering. Thoughts?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I get called 'ratchet' a lot, does this count?

[radiocaroline]

Hegemonic ideologies in the media do more than anything.

Men seek to earn "lad points" by having casual, no commitment sex with women, often whilst indulging in alcohol and drugs - which is seen as the desirable image of the youth.

Whereas for women to do it as you say, they are branded slags, sluts and all sorts. Its all to do with attitudes and the patriarchal media superstructure. It glorifies the sex, drugs and rock and roll culture of the male youth, pushing them into a life of neglecting females.

Its also similar when looking at the treatment of openly gay males in society. Men seem to get so pissed off when gay men have camp accents and "openly gay" mannerisms. Often claiming that "its alright for men to be gay, but don't be in my face about it". Media has promoted the ignorant, hegemonic behaviour of men which has created a view of xenophobia to other sexual orientations and genders.

[FSL]

Though I'm not too well read on the subject I think this "Miley's finding her sexuality" thing is a result of the so called third-wave feminism?


See how women are finding their sexuality though. 50 shades of grey is a book about a female masochist that became so wildly popular women would read it in the subway. And it started as fanfic (?) from twilight, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've read many people thinking that's a celibacy-abstinence story but it seems more like an equally masochist story where the girl is afraid her much more powerful partner will devour her despite his love.

So women finding their sexuality is twerking and then phantasizing some guy beating them up. Which I guess is the same kind of sexuality you'd find in the average bedroom in the 50s or if not there, then surely in the halls of a roman emperor.


There is of course a huge difference between that and wearing short skirts but many women do aim at that and not just at being or feeling attractive. Some women have developed a very male-oriented view of their sexuality and this is much more prominent in the media than it is in actual life (so it will be getting more prominent in actual life in the coming years).


Rashida Jones is awesome!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I wasn't overly enthused on the Rashida Jones article, to be perfectly honest. It's negative use of "whores" (without any contextualizing framing) seems to reflect the tone of the article generally. It's too bad, because her general point (there's more than one way to be "sexy") is a pretty good one - it could have stood some elaboration, especially since "sexiness" in pop culture often has so much racist baggage, such an obsession with certain body types, etc.

That, in my mind, is at the crux of this: White pop-culture feminists rush to defend Miley Cyrus (a rich white woman who acts out appropriative caricatures of racialized sexualities), while failing to grapple seriously with those whose sexualities are criminalized (the aforementioned "whores" - and particularly the most marginalized "survival" sex workers), while failing to confront the implicit white supremacist attitudes in performances like Miley's, and so on.

"Slut shaming" of course, remains a serious problem - women's autonomy is constantly attacked - but, in many cases, it is not the problem. As long as the discourse of "slut shaming" is rooted in affirming the "right" of rich white women to exercise their privilege at the expense of other women, it will remain useless. Which is frustrating, since, of course, it isn't rich white women whose sexualities are by any means subject to the strictest regulation.

The situation in Canada is instructive: indigenous women continue to risk being thrown out of their bands (or having their children or grandchildren loose status) based on their sexual and procreative choices. Where are the "Slut Walk" organizers in anti-colonial struggle? Etc.

[Rosa Partizan]

awesome, keep going, I like the way this thread develops.

This is a question more directed at the females. What are some of things men can do to be a little more pro-active against slut shaming?

I'll give you an example. Say I'm in a social situation and I see someone being slut shamed. What would you like to see a pro-active male, that is against this kind of thing, do in this kind of situation? Would intervening in and of itself be misogynistic? In that, if I intervene, I'm merely acting as if women are incapable of taking care of themselves? Is it better to just let the parties be? Should men even get involved in situations like this?

My gut tells me to intervene (as in pulled the guy aside and had a little private chat). And I have done so in the past. But, I wonder if that can also be disempowering. Thoughts?

That totally depends on the type of woman. I'm pretty good when it comes to verbal defense, but I wouldn't feel patronized if a guy helped me out. I like helpful people in general and I LOVE guys being aware of sexism and willing to show their support.

Though I'm not too well read on the subject I think this "Miley's finding her sexuality" thing is a result of the so called third-wave feminism?


See how women are finding their sexuality though. 50 shades of grey is a book about a female masochist that became so wildly popular women would read it in the subway. And it started as fanfic (?) from twilight, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've read many people thinking that's a celibacy-abstinence story but it seems more like an equally masochist story where the girl is afraid her much more powerful partner will devour her despite his love.

So women finding their sexuality is twerking and then phantasizing some guy beating them up. Which I guess is the same kind of sexuality you'd find in the average bedroom in the 50s or if not there, then surely in the halls of a roman emperor.


There is of course a huge difference between that and wearing short skirts but many women do aim at that and not just at being or feeling attractive. Some women have developed a very male-oriented view of their sexuality and this is much more prominent in the media than it is in actual life (so it will be getting more prominent in actual life in the coming years).


Rashida Jones is awesome!

This is GREAT! Don't know where to start, you mention a lot of good stuff.

To me, 50 shades of grey was total garbage. This wasn't a healthy (BDSM)-relationship at the same level, but rather a guy having power over a woman, her sexuality, her obsession about him. NOT okay. Female sexual submission is a very interesting topic. As a feminist, you come across that if you yourself enjoy being submissive and what it means in the context of patriarchy, (humiliating) porn and so on. I guess it's kind of important to deal with your own sexuality and be aware of the fact that such preferences may partly be a product of society, environment, experiences in the past and so on. I'm not against females being sexually submissive (I myself am), but I am against kind of a laisser faire-attitude towards oneself. Reflect yourself, reflect your actions, reflect everything in the context of this patriarchial, unequal world and be aware of why you like what you like.

And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me. According to my attitude towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn etc I would be sex negative as fuck, which is ridiculous. As I mentioned above, not everything a woman decides for i equally empowering, equally free from patriarchal influence, equally well-reflected. You don't have to think that gangbang porn, Miley Cyrus, strip clubs and so on are awesome in order to have a sex positive view. This term is annoying and misleading as fuck. And of course, all of this is not restricted to media. Women do this in everyday life, you know, adapting this male gaze. Dieting all the time, getting dressed up although they sometimes don't feel like it, all this stuff to look good. But let's be clear about two points: I myself do this stuff, I'm not judging. You won't find me without make up and in washed-out jeans in the city. I AM aware that this has influence on me and that I'm not only doing this for myself. And well, yeah, sometimes women can be the toughest competition. You know, wanting that other females notice you, that they realize you look great. But what for? What's the higher aim? Getting the best guy? There are societies in which the worth of a woman is defined by what kind of man she marries. So, if she doesn't marry at all, she's weird at best or even worthless.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
To me, 50 shades of grey was total garbage. This wasn't a healthy (BDSM)-relationship at the same level, but rather a guy having power over a woman, her sexuality, her obsession about him. NOT okay.

I've never read 50 shades of grey (but I am familiar with Twilight--and hate it ), so I'm certainly not an SME when it comes to that. BDSM relationships can be healthy if this is what both partners enjoy. It isn't my cup of tea, but there are studies that show that people in those types of relationships have lower stress levels. And there is no requirement that any particular partner play a given role. Though it is true, that in those relationships, women tend to be the sub.

As long as everyone understands that it's a sexual role-play that doesn't translate into real life, I don't think it has to be degrading. And it helps if partners switch roles once in a while. So I've heard. BDSM is not really my area of expertise, nor is it something I plan to partake in.

Nonetheless, I see where your coming from. In the sense that if that kind of relationship is translated into real non-sexual life it would definitely be degrading and humiliating.

Female sexual submission is a very interesting topic. As a feminist, you come across that if you yourself enjoy being submissive and what it means in the context of patriarchy, (humiliating) porn and so on. I guess it's kind of important to deal with your own sexuality and be aware of the fact that such preferences may partly be a product of society, environment, experiences in the past and so on. I'm not against females being sexually submissive (I myself am), but I am against kind of a laisser faire-attitude towards oneself. Reflect yourself, reflect your actions, reflect everything in the context of this patriarchial, unequal world and be aware of why you like what you like.

Well I think it's good that your drawing a distinction between submissive and humiliating. This is something that I think people often times have a problem with.

And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me. According to my attitude towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn etc I would be sex negative as fuck, which is ridiculous. As I mentioned above, not everything a woman decides for i equally empowering, equally free from patriarchal influence, equally well-reflected. You don't have to think that gangbang porn, Miley Cyrus, strip clubs and so on are awesome in order to have a sex positive view. This term is annoying and misleading as fuck. And of course, all of this is not restricted to media. Women do this in everyday life, you know, adapting this male gaze.

Could you elaborate some more on your attitudes "towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn"? I'm not particularly familiar with the in-language of feminism and how sex-positivism and negativism fit in here.

Dieting all the time, getting dressed up although they sometimes don't feel like it, all this stuff to look good. But let's be clear about two points: I myself do this stuff, I'm not judging. You won't find me without make up and in washed-out jeans in the city. I AM aware that this has influence on me and that I'm not only doing this for myself. And well, yeah, sometimes women can be the toughest competition. You know, wanting that other females notice you, that they realize you look great. But what for? What's the higher aim? Getting the best guy? There are societies in which the worth of a woman is defined by what kind of man she marries. So, if she doesn't marry at all, she's weird at best or even worthless.

Good for you! Don't ever let societal expectations dictate who and what you are. I think it's great that you see these problems, and how the patriarchy is basically the cause of all of these things. Again, I'm not a SME on this being a man, but I notice the same thing. A lot of intrafemale competition and adversity is about them falling into the trap of letting the patriarchy define them.

[tallguy]

Slut shaming is having a go at women for shagging who they want when they want? If it is, then slut shaming is a shameful behaviour.

Criticizing women who let the side down by deliberately cultivating a sexually objectivised view of women by men by the creation of, for example, that nasty video by Mily Sirus? Well, that's fair play as far as I can see. Particularly, if such criticism comes from other women. However, she is no slut for doing so (in fact, I reject the word as having any valid meaning anyway). She's just a bloody fool. That, or selfish/greedy. Probably both.

[synthesis]

I get called 'ratchet' a lot, does this count?

I think that's more classist than misogynist, honestly.

[BIXX]

I honestly can't say I know how to help the situation in the here and now. But here are some thoughts...

Call people out on slut shaming, period. You can explain to then why it is not beneficial to these people to reinforce patriarchy, and also explain (if you're a moralist) why it's wrong, and you can explain how mathematically slut shaming doesn't make sense if you later go on to congratulate a guy for sleeping with a new girl every week.

Second, I think we ought to be careful with how we critique figures like Miley Cyrus. Of course, most people who criticize her are simply slut shaming. However, if you explain how she is playing into the hands of oppression (self-objectification) then that can be a good critique. You can explain why a woman can wear revealing clothing and it would be ok, but it should be for her, not for the enjoyment of some man. Why she can sleep around and that's fine, but she shouldn't simply be doing it for a man. She should be doing what she does because she enjoys them.

Third, it is important for is all to recognize how our actions are influenced by patriarchy, and try to rid ourselves of that influence.

Regarding my personal experience with slut shaming, I dated a girl who was a huge slut-shamer but she was also slut shamed. She claimed she was a feminist, but she refused to stop slut shaming girls who dressed more "preppy" than her, or really, non-punks. But if someone slit shamed a punk, she'd freak out about it (she said it was worse because punks were already marginalized because of the way they dress- but punks have shit on me for "not being punk enough" so I don't really buy that).

I wonder what made her feel that she should be allowed to slut shame but others shouldn't.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

When did this concept of slut shaming become a method of shutting down critical opinions about woman's presentation of sexuality, sexual exploitation, objectification in the media?

The Miley Cyrus incident is when I first noticed charges of "slut shaming" to shut down a feminist critique of Cyrus objectifying herself within the context of a pro-rape culture song. In a very real way, charges of "slut shaming" was used to shut down a critique of rape culture, which is disturbing, especially coming from feminists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me.

It's a reaction to second wave feminism's simplistic, black and white worldview where all sex work is evil, all porn is evil, etc.

[bropasaran]

I don't understand women who see some use of women in the media (e.g. women being somewhere basically just as "eye candy") as objectification and disapprove of it, but get offended when objectification in personal life is pointed out, of course, being called "slut" is insulting, but I guess that it can be pointed out in other, polite ways. I mean, either they're both objectifications to be disapproved of, or they're neither to be disapproved of, it seems to me contradictory if it's treated otherwise.

I'm not favouring one or the other- if a women wants to see both or neither as objectification, okay, I don't have any clear opinion of which option is 'correct', I'm pretty messed up sexually myself, so I don't have any right to tell anyone what should they think about topics concerning it; I'm just saying that to think that women objectification in the media is wrong but that a single women is objectified in her personal life it's okay, seems inconsistent.

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?

[Redistribute the Rep]

When there was a shift towards settled agriculture and private property and wealth began to accumulate, men needed to start taking inheritance into consideration. Because paternity is disputable, men need their partners to be monogamous to make sure they know who their rightful heir is, and thus, there is a need to control women's sexuality. Engels discusses this in "the Origin of the Family Private Property and the State"

[tallguy]

When there was a shift towards settled agriculture and private property and wealth began to accumulate, men needed to start taking inheritance into consideration. Because paternity is disputable, men need their partners to be monogamous to make sure they know who their rightful heir is, and thus, there is a need to control women's sexuality. Engels discusses this in "the Origin of the Family Private Property and the State"

Males in our species will always have been twitchy about monogamy even way back before the settlement to an agrarian way of life, if only for the duration of a relationship insofar as the rearing children is concerned. That is to say, unlike other species where the female may only be in oestrus for a limited period, thus ensuring that so long as the male in question maintains exclusive sexual access to her during that time, he can be sure that any resultant offspring are his and his alone, he can also be sure that any resources he spends on their rearing will not be wasted on a non related offspring. Where monogomoy may have possibly less of a grip would be in communalist set-ups consisting of several families fully commingling in terms of resource consumption and child rearing. Thus ensuring that even if the resources spent by a given man went to a non related offspring, that man could be equally sure an equivalent amount of resources would be spent by another man on his offspring.

In short, reproductive strategies run deeper than mere civilisational structures. They are fundamentally based on cold, hard, Darwinian imperatives.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In short, reproductive strategies run deeper than mere civilisational structures. They are fundamentally based on cold, hard, Darwinian imperatives.

Or it's just an ideological imperative that arose with property.

[tallguy]

Or it's just an ideological imperative that arose with property.

Except that most/all human cultures at all (or none) stages of industrial development share a similar pattern of male preoccupation with female monogamy, at least certainly for the duration of the procreative part of a relationship. This pattern of behaviour is seen similarly in other non-human species. Particularly social-mammalian ones like ours. It comes down to the difference between eggs and sperm. That is to say, a human female will always know that her offspring will contain her genes. A human male, however, can never know this with the same biological certainty. This, then, leads to behavioural strategies being employed by males to ensure that any offspring do, indeed, contain their genes. A preoccupation with female monogamy being one of them. Not all males, not all to the same extent, not all of the time. But, rather, as a weighted probability of behaviour across a population. It is also true to say that complex patriarchal civilisations develop complex, ritualised and, even, deeply oppressive social structures that coercively formalise all of the above and extend it in ways that are only tortuously and indirectly foundationed by the Darwinian imperatives outlined previously. Nevertheless, those foundations do exist and there is no point in denying them.

If you want to beat the Devil, Danielle, first you must name him.