Slut-Shaming

Have you yet encountered the new social crime of “slut-shaming”? Apparently, these days, among feminists, it is not only permissible to be as promiscuous as you choose; it is not permissible to object to another’s promiscuity (so long as they are a women—men do not have the same rights, of course). Even if they are underage, and even if you are their father or mother.

That is the message of this latest commentary, which I have lately seen posted with approval on Facebook.

Let’s get down to basics here: is promiscuity okay? No, it is not. Let’s leave aside the issue of contracting and spreading venereal diseases, and simply point out that sex leads to children. Promiscuous sex is heedless of the welfare of those children. Not, again, to mention the dangers of sexual jealousy. Consequently, every established moral code known to man says that promiscuity is immoral. One therefore ought to feel shame, or rather guilt, if one has acted promiscuously. Moreover, it is the duty of parents to educate their children in morality—to “shame” them in this regard.

In responding to the article, I am hampered by the fact that one of the two articles “Insomniac” herself is responding to is blocked by the national firewall here in Saudi Arabia. I can read only the first one cited. But let’s look at some of the author’s specific claims and assertions:

“For starters, why are we still teaching teenage girls that their sexuality is a commodity that they should protect at all costs? Why are we perpetuating the idea that the very thing that makes young girls valuable loses its worth the second it’s ‘given up’? Doesn’t that seem a bit fucked up to everyone?”

No, it does not. This is what we expect for any valuable “commodity.” For example, money tends to lose its value if you “give it up,” or hand it out randomly. So do family heirlooms, or stock issues, or bonds, or promises. If sex is somehow different, why?

1. “Girls, you are allowed to express yourself, even if that expression does not include wearing a bra.“

If there are legitimate limits to dress, why is this not a legitimate limit? If, on the other hand, there are no limits, then it is okay to go naked in public. No more complaints, let alone prosecutions, about men “flashing” or exposing themselves in the park, including to small children.

2. “Boys, ONLY YOU are responsible for all of your actions, and no one should ‘feel sorry’ for you if you are unable to control yourself in the presence of a revealed female body. Grow the fuck up.”

Dressing yourself is an action. Women as well as men are responsible for their actions. Therefore, it is legitimate to criticize women for their choice of dress.

3. “Using words like ‘slut’ is a pretty transparent attempt at controlling something you find threatening.”

How about “grow the fuck up”? How about saying man have a “misguided sense of sexual entitlement,” or a “life-long struggle with a Madonna/Magdalene complex”? How about saying that advice to a teenage daughter to dress modestly is “non sequitur to anything a sane person would believe or think”? How about calling such advice “hate-filled,” “fear-ridden,” and a “sea of hate”?

And as a matter of fact, the article “Insomniac” objects to—the one I am able to access—never uses the word “slut.” It is “Insomniac” who uses it, repeatedly. Presumably, if she is to be believed, in an attempt to control someone and something she finds threatening.

4. “Girls, the kind of boy who uses a word like ‘slut’ is not the kind of boy you want to hang out with, let alone marry one day.”

That is true. A real gentleman does not use the word “slut.” Nor a real lady. But there is a reason for this: it is because he finds the thing so objectionable. Just as he will not even use the word, a gentleman will not enjoy or seek the company of a woman who seems to be sexually promiscuous.

A girl who acts promiscuously will therefore be left in the company of men who are comfortable with both the term and the reality—not just for the girl, of course, but for themselves as well.