What is wrong with "slut shaming"?

From my perspective you first need to deal with why you believe sex is wrong.

Than two, deal with the notion that the sex life of others is your business.

 

You want to bend over for Buttigieg....
That’s your business.

 

This says it all...

 

Good post !!

I have found that those who don't have a sex life are the most critical of those who do.

 

what gives you that idea? Sex is like almost anything else. Good even great under the right circumstances. As in within a marriage.

 

We have a very low birthrate in the USA, in fact record low, yet 4 of every 10 births is outside of wedlock.Does that make these 40% giving birth with no husband sluts????I don't think so,they are in fact performing a much needed service in trying to maintain our shrinking population.
Like beauty who is and is not a slut is like beauty,it is in the eye of the beholder.Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

Why are you suggesting that Dayton3 is gay?

 

you mean like we hear about Clinton;s and Trump's adultery and his wives nude photo's on the web, some with other women?

Personally not a issue to me unless they are cheating on their spouse or girlfriend as then it becomes a risk to them as well - if they are single, not really a issue

I think there would be less domestic violence if it was a crime to commit adultery, also be less adultery

 

There are many things people do with no real positive or redeeming attribute for which we do not shame them. Sexual promiscuity gets exceptionally negative attention relative to other personal liberties. People should, perhaps, be shamed for causing harm in some way, whether it is to themselves or others, such has happens with obesity. But why should they be shamed for doing something enjoyable and harmless?

If you feel that sexual promiscuity should be treated as shameful, then it seems this warrants some justification from you. I would feel compelled to condemn irresponsible parenting, including getting pregnant on purpose without being able to provide for the child, but then only because it is bringing harm to the child and possibly to others. Even then, it need not be promiscuity that is the issue, but rather it could be simply that the woman in question is lacking the means to provide for the child on her own and will be dependent on others, and has chosen this rather than to use some form of birth control or otherwise avoid becoming pregnant.

Sexual promiscuity by itself does not seem to be a problem. It is the consequences of it that are of possible concern. Then again, even married couples who are strictly monogamous can make some very bad life choices and end up raising children in far from ideal conditions. Should they not be shamed or condemned, then? Or do they get a pass simply because they're married and failing their children together?

 

Women who get knocked up from whoring around are indeed sluts. If you're gonna act like a tramp, at least get on the pill.

Performing a service? Now that's some friggin spin. I suppose Mexican sluts dropping anchor bambinos at the county hospital is doing us a service as well.

 

What's wrong with it is that it is universally aimed at women, exclusively whereas when a man behaves in the same way he gets an "atta boy" and a pat on the back.

What a stress free life you must have in where your biggest worry is who Suzy's giving some leg to?

 

I also condemn all men who behave the same way.

 

So why would you care who I'm getting busy with?

Do you also condemn people for having too many cars?

 

Firstly, I don't see it as productive to shame anyone about anything. What purpose does it serve, except to make the shamer feel superior?

Secondly, how is someone's sexual behavior anyone else's business?

 

You might not see anything wrong with calling someone a slut but I'll bet you would have a big problem with someone if they called you a 'dumbass old redneck hillbilly' or 'brain damaged Trumper'. See what I mean, it didn't feel so good, did it? Those terms are generally used for people that can't comprehend facts or truths, like Trumpers.

Calling someone a slut is not Christian-like and don't all you Trumpers at least pretend to be "good moral Christians" ? The point is, it's just not Christian-like to shame any human being for who they are.

 

Not only that, but how would anyone know what really happened, and that's assuming that it's anyone's business or place to make judgments?

 

If you want to get to the religious argument then Christians are also supposed to point out sin.

 

For those who are pushing the false equivalence of "well men don't get shamed!" consider the following irrefutable facts:

1. Even an extremely ugly woman can stay in her bedroom, dial random numbers on the phone, and get all the sex she could ever want right to her bedroom.
2. If a man who is not in the tippy top 1% or higher in looks and wealth does not -persistently- seek sex, he will get -no- sex whatsoever.
3. The male skill of assertively approaching and seeking sex is highly valued and attractive to females. The female innate ability of getting sex whenever they want is neither attractive nor unattractive to anyone.

To offer an analogy, two people, one has endless amounts of oranges delivered to their door daily with no possibility of ever becoming genuinely hungry. The other is blind, and there is a single apple somewhere on a tree in the acreage around their house, if they do not go hunting for it, they will go hungry and eventually starve.

It's apples and oranges, and there is no equivalence, so stop pretending that there is.

 

I suppose you would be one of those in the crowd with a stone in your hand when the mob called Mary Magdalene a 'whore' and a 'slut'. You have quite conveniently forgotten your Christian teaching; "let ye without sin cast the first stone'.

And you are very wrong about Christians being the ones who are 'supposed to point out sin'. That's very wrong. That's YOU making judgements that are not yours to make.

 

I would never slut-shame. I was taught it was good to share what one has with those that have not.

 

If you're going to bring in a religious argument at least know what the hell you are talking about:

1) Mary Magdalen is NOT identified anywhere in the Bible as a "whore" or a "slut".
2) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was a direct reference to those who challenged Jesus to say the adulterous woman should be stoned. But it was the sabbath when they were not supposed to stone anyone anyway and they didn't bring in the man she was committing adultery with thus they were committing two violations of the law in an attempt to force Jesus to violate the law also.

Jesus "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was effectively Jesus saying "All of you are violating the law by bringing this woman here in the first place. If you aren't guilty of that then you can stone here" (Jesus knowing full well that they were guilty and knew they were).

 

All that you just said leads to one conclusion. It is not YOU that should be judging any other human being. Keep your stones in your garden.

 

Fine, then first look in a mirror when "pointing"....your Jesus said no one is without sin.....and if you throw a rock make sure you don't live in a glass house.

Now, again, why is someone ele's sex life your business ??

Have you gotten into "distracted driver" shaming? Those people can actually do HARM to others...


How about tax cheater shaming?

 

In other words you don't agree with that interpretation of the Bible because it is not what you want to believe.

You do know that of all the people in the Bible, Jesus was the one who mentioned "hell" more than any other don't you?

 

All you and anyone else needs to remember about judging others is what Jesus Christ taught. "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Period.