xssve -> RE: Sluts and Punishment (8/6/2012 8:43:03 AM)
|
Thing is, a slut is, in terms of the current usage as a slander (mostly from the right, re: the recent Limbaugh thing) is an unattached woman who is sexually active - the unattached part is a real bugaboo for the right, and so technically if you are in a relationship, you're not a "slut" by that standard. 'Course, social conservatives seem to have a lot of bugaboos about things that aren't any of their business, so I don't know that it's hard and fast rule, but they do seem have a special disdain for unattached or independent women, feme sole. In fact, the very concept of feme sole as a legal concept is a relatively recent development, dating from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, prior to which women were assumed to be property, and independent thought and action were not only frowned upon, but actively discouraged or punished. At this time, "slut" merely meant a serving girl, a washerwoman or domestic, "slattern", who probably were often unattached, widows, etc., thus it's usage as a slander would appear to be more of a class bias than anything specifically sexual, although given women's legal status, it's quite probably that in many cases these women were considered "fair game", and probably had a great deal of difficulty bringing rape charges against anyone without a man to back her up, which may be where the sexual connotations came in. Anyway, the definition changes somewhat from one generation to the next, but the notion connotation of independence might actually in this instance, be a compliment, if in fact female independence is something you celebrate rather than fear. Although it doesn't deal with sluttery per se, or at least I haven't gotten that far, I suggest reading Consent, by Pamela Haag, if you're interested in the subject of consent, from concept to praxis, I'm just connecting dots here. http://books.google.com/books/about/Consent.html?id=PZuPgkJREV4C
|
|
|
|