Tristan Taormino writing in the Village Voice
attempts to bring legitimacy to sluts the world over by resorting to the most popular tactic--claiming that men are also sluts! I've noticed this assertion is becoming increasingly popular as evidenced by the newest Christina and 'Lil Kim song touting the female's "playa" abilities. Despite how pathetic and trashy this makes these women appear, I would like to examine the logic. In short, we are presented with the following puzzle: why is it that "society" finds it amusing when my friend--let's call him Adam--sleeps with 50 women in a 12 month span, yet Clarissa is labeled a slut for having several sexual partners?
First, let us remember what a reputation
really is: the perception of each individual about another individual stored in their own mind. Sure I can tell you what I think about all the women I know and their assorted sexual proclivities, but its up each individual to assimilate the data. There is no such thing as "society" here, folks. But, basically, if a girl is labeled a slut its because everyone knows . . . she IS a slut.
Next, let's look at several of Tristan's ideas about whores. First, she claims that not "all sluts are women." Thanks, Sherlock, but we all know that plenty of sluts are still girls
, not having graduated to the rank of "woman" quite yet.
Then, she goes and repeats that whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" (or was it "one man's trash is another man's treasure"?) phrase. Once again, this all goes back to each individual's subjective valuation of another individual. What's your point?
Third, she takes on the notion that being a slut is a morally bankrupt hobby (or occupation judging by some of the girls I know). Apparently one can discover much about themselves through the careful, calm reflection while staring at the ceiling of a boy's college dormroom. I'm sure plenty of self-reflection also takes place over the toilet in the college dorm bathroom. I still see no point.
Fourth, she says basically that sluts are actually selective. Tristan, hunny, I think you are really just lost in the semantics. I mean either you define a slut as someone who will do anything and anyone, or you define it as something else. This is turning into a rather pointless defense of promiscuity.
Fifth, our slut defender asserts that there is no standard for evaluating someone as being "addicted to sex." I agree. For instance, this last weekend . . . nevermind.
Sixth, she claims sluts are better informed about sex and sexually transmitted diseases. Hmm . . . maybe you just pick up on a few things after HAVING A LOT OF SEX AND SPENDING PLENTY OF TIME AT THE HEALTH CLINIC!
Seventh, we must understand that sluts are not anti-commitment, they just don't like to be committed. Thanks, Tristan.
And last, why must we all think that sluts are unstable human beings? Her proof to the contrary: Hey, virgins are crazy, too. Another glowing example of impeccable, Teflon-coated logic, folks.
But, what does this all mean? Well, Tristan, if being a slut is so wonderful, why not just try popularizing the word slut? In fact, too many women I've met spend an inordinate amount of time lying, sneaking around and concealing the fact that they are just plain slutty. So drop the b.s. and show the world how you really feel. If they don't like it, then---well, you know what to do, sluts!Editor's note: The LJ is a kind, romantic, caring, sensitive and gorgeous young male with an addiction to cuddling, not sluts.