Peikoff’s latest howler

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

Tune in later, I am just getting started. I have to decide how far I can "push this envelope" which is an implicit "male" statement in this context.

Adam

Post Script:

I am working also. But my mind has a wonderful ability to maintain a separate fantasy level while I work.

Adam,

I will definitely dial in periodically. This discussion does seem to be headed in a tantalizing direction. It's bizarre how an offhand comment about one specific word can take a thread totally off topic.

The problem with working, of course, is a deficiency of the blood supply to the brain. Especially with the visuals...

[studiodekadent]

Regarding the word "slut" I think its use is a little more complex than "sexually promiscuous." After all, a sexually promiscuous man is a 'stud' or a 'hunk' which are complimentary terms (even admiring terms).

I've been thinking about this for a while. I have some friends that happen to be gay, and I asked some of them how the word was used amongst gay men. Generally speaking, the word "slut" seems mostly applied to promiscuous gay men who have a preference for the receptive role in anal sex, whilst those promiscuous men with a preference for a insertive role in anal sex tend to be considered 'studs' or the like.

I think this gives an important clue here. I must ask Adam, who IIRC is a participant in the D/s scene, are female dominants called "sluts" if they happen to have a lot of sex with a lot of various men?

"Slut" as I've seen the term used has connotations of being defeated or conquered. The Freudian/Christian sex norms our society grew up with implicitly see a desire to fuck something as a desire to conquer/tame/take/rape/obliterate/defeat it, i.e as an act of violence (the radical 'all straight sex is rape' schools of feminism share this exact prejudice as well). Hence the situation where a promiscuous gay or bisexual man with a preference towards being sexually penetrated (i.e. 'be fucked') are called "sluts" just like sexually promiscuous heterosexual (and I'd suspect bisexual) women.

In other words, there's an implicit view of sex-as-conquest with an 'aggressor' and a 'victim' (as opposed to more neutral terms like 'initiator' and 'respondent'). And this implicit view forms the basic backdrop for the double standard of stud vs. slut. Basically, if you're a gay/bi man that exclusively takes the insertive role with men, a straight man that (we'd assume) takes the insertive role with women, or (tentatively) a dominant female, you're a heroic conqueror! You're worthy and triumphal! You've tamed, subdued and defeated so many! But, on the other hand, if you're a gay/bi man that generally takes a receptive role with men, an heterosexual woman (and hence, presumably, takes the receptive role with men), or (tentatively) a submissive male or female, you're pathetic! You're a loser! You've been conquered, defiled and degraded over and over and over! And I bet you totally like your position at the lower rungs of the heirarchy, hey bitch? In other words, you're a slut! Probably with relatively well-stretched and sloppy orifice/s to match (apologies for the gruesome imagery).

This is why I prefer not to use the term "slut" when describing anyone that is particularly fond of sex with quite a few people. I don't believe sex should be about conqueror/conquered (and yes, I find D/s a huge turn off; strength should long for itself, for its equal). The idea that it naturally IS about this seems to me a hangover from centuries of St. Augustine and Sigmund Freud and in my opinion it is this meme complex that is at the basis of the vast majority of the Western World's sexual neuroses.

Rand's own view was essentially an attempt to integrate two things; 1) her D/s fetish which was developed more or less as a way for her to psychologically reclaim and embrace her femininity in a world that considered her improperly feminine for being an intellectual rather than a Stepford Wife (see "Ayn Rand: The Woman Who Would Not Be President" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand), and 2) her (correct, in my view) position that sex should be an act of mutual admiration between two worthy creatures.

But yes, ultimately, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word 'slut' for the assumptions that seem to be related to the word. Of course, if someone deliberately uses the word in an explicitly reclaimed fashion (for instance, the book The Ethical Slut) then my objections are more about my own personal discomfort with the term owing to its common use, rather than the reclaimed use.

Edited July 29, 2011 by studiodekadent

[George H. Smith]

Regarding the word "slut" I think its use is a little more complex than "sexually promiscuous." After all, a sexually promiscuous man is a 'stud' or a 'hunk' which are complimentary terms (even admiring terms).

I've been thinking about this for a while. I have some friends that happen to be gay, and I asked some of them how the word was used amongst gay men. Generally speaking, the word "slut" seems mostly applied to promiscuous gay men who have a preference for the receptive role in anal sex, whilst those promiscuous men with a preference for a insertive role in anal sex tend to be considered 'studs' or the like.

I think this gives an important clue here. I must ask Adam, who IIRC is a participant in the D/s scene, are female dominants called "sluts" if they happen to have a lot of sex with a lot of various men?

"Slut" as I've seen the term used has connotations of being defeated or conquered. The Freudian/Christian sex norms our society grew up with implicitly see a desire to fuck something as a desire to conquer/tame/take/rape/obliterate/defeat it, i.e as an act of violence (the radical 'all straight sex is rape' schools of feminism share this exact prejudice as well). Hence the situation where a promiscuous gay or bisexual man with a preference towards being sexually penetrated (i.e. 'be fucked') are called "sluts" just like sexually promiscuous heterosexual (and I'd suspect bisexual) women.

In other words, there's an implicit view of sex-as-conquest with an 'aggressor' and a 'victim' (as opposed to more neutral terms like 'initiator' and 'respondent'). And this implicit view forms the basic backdrop for the double standard of stud vs. slut. Basically, if you're a gay/bi man that exclusively takes the insertive role with men, a straight man that (we'd assume) takes the insertive role with women, or (tentatively) a dominant female, you're a heroic conqueror! You're worthy and triumphal! You've tamed, subdued and defeated so many! But, on the other hand, if you're a gay/bi man that generally takes a receptive role with men, an heterosexual woman (and hence, presumably, takes the receptive role with men), or (tentatively) a submissive male or female, you're pathetic! You're a loser! You've been conquered, defiled and degraded over and over and over! And I bet you totally like your position at the lower rungs of the heirarchy, hey bitch? In other words, you're a slut! Probably with relatively well-stretched and sloppy orifice/s to match (apologies for the gruesome imagery).

This is why I prefer not to use the term "slut" when describing anyone that is particularly fond of sex with quite a few people. I don't believe sex should be about conqueror/conquered (and yes, I find D/s a huge turn off; strength should long for itself, for its equal). The idea that it naturally IS about this seems to me a hangover from centuries of St. Augustine and Sigmund Freud and in my opinion it is this meme complex that is at the basis of the vast majority of the Western World's sexual neuroses.

Rand's own view was essentially an attempt to integrate two things; 1) her D/s fetish which was developed more or less as a way for her to psychologically reclaim and embrace her femininity in a world that considered her improperly feminine for being an intellectual rather than a Stepford Wife (see "Ayn Rand: The Woman Who Would Not Be President" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand), and 2) her (correct, in my view) position that sex should be an act of mutual admiration between two worthy creatures.

But yes, ultimately, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word 'slut' for the assumptions that seem to be related to the word. Of course, if someone deliberately uses the word in an explicitly reclaimed fashion (for instance, the book The Ethical Slut) then my objections are more about my own personal discomfort with the term owing to its common use, rather than the reclaimed use.

Interesting post, Andrew.

Nowadays the word "slut" seems frequently directed against a woman by another woman. In such cases it seems to have nastier connotations than if a man were to use the word.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

"Slut" as I've seen the term used has connotations of being defeated or conquered. The Freudian/Christian sex norms our society grew up with implicitly see a desire to fuck something as a desire to conquer/tame/take/rape/obliterate/defeat it, i.e as an act of violence (the radical 'all straight sex is rape' schools of feminism share this exact prejudice as well). Hence the situation where a promiscuous gay or bisexual man with a preference towards being sexually penetrated (i.e. 'be fucked') are called "sluts" just like sexually promiscuous heterosexual (and I'd suspect bisexual) women.

In other words, there's an implicit view of sex-as-conquest with an 'aggressor' and a 'victim' (as opposed to more neutral terms like 'initiator' and 'respondent'). And this implicit view forms the basic backdrop for the double standard of stud vs. slut. Basically, if you're a gay/bi man that exclusively takes the insertive role with men, a straight man that (we'd assume) takes the insertive role with women, or (tentatively) a dominant female, you're a heroic conqueror! You're worthy and triumphal! You've tamed, subdued and defeated so many! But, on the other hand, if you're a gay/bi man that generally takes a receptive role with men, an heterosexual woman (and hence, presumably, takes the receptive role with men), or (tentatively) a submissive male or female, you're pathetic! You're a loser! You've been conquered, defiled and degraded over and over and over! And I bet you totally like your position at the lower rungs of the heirarchy, hey bitch? In other words, you're a slut! Probably with relatively well-stretched and sloppy orifice/s to match (apologies for the gruesome imagery).

This is why I prefer not to use the term "slut" when describing anyone that is particularly fond of sex with quite a few people. I don't believe sex should be about conqueror/conquered (and yes, I find D/s a huge turn off; strength should long for itself, for its equal). The idea that it naturally IS about this seems to me a hangover from centuries of St. Augustine and Sigmund Freud and in my opinion it is this meme complex that is at the basis of the vast majority of the Western World's sexual neuroses.

You seem to suggest that Rand’s idealization of male dominance in the bedroom is pathological or unhealthy in some way. I think that’s making the same mistake Rand made when she suggested that a healthy woman should want to be a “hero-worshipper.” The fact is that the science of psychology is a long, long way from being advanced enough to make such general pronouncements. That’s one reason why I disagree with the ethical implications of Francisco’s speech to Hank Rearden about ‘the psychology of sex’ in Atlas Shrugged. Our knowledge of psychology is far too primitive for anyone to be making claims about the deeper significance underlying the complex diversity of human sexual inclinations.

Personally, I think sex is vastly more exciting when one partner is dominant. The level of passion seems heightened immeasurably when that is the case. But I freely admit that this is my personal viewpoint. I don’t claim any inherent universality for it.

I would be fascinated to know, however, how many people would rather see a movie sex scene between Angelina Jolie and either a youthful Clint Eastwood or Leonardo DiCaprio. I would be willing to bet that most people would much prefer to see the sexual fireworks when Dirty Harry was treating her like a helpless, wanton slut than when DiCaprio was smooching and giving her a nice, warm hug. And if I'm right, I think that says something important about what many (if not most) of us are looking for when it comes to sex.

[Brant Gaede]

Just let the woman be on top every now and then.

--Brant

toss her a crumb

[Selene]

Regarding the word "slut" I think its use is a little more complex than "sexually promiscuous."

I think this gives an important clue here. I must ask Adam, who IIRC is a participant in the D/s scene, are female dominants called "sluts" if they happen to have a lot of sex with a lot of various men?

Interesting aspect of female dominants, or, a dominatrix is that the tendency is to have virtually minimal "sex" with their submissive males. The total power exchange, or TPE tends to humiliation, worship of various aspects of the Domme, e.g., feet, boots, etc., bondage and punishment of varied severity, orgasm denial, infantilism and fetishes to varied to list.

"Slut" as I've seen the term used has connotations of being defeated or conquered. The Freudian/Christian sex norms our society grew up with implicitly see a desire to fuck something as a desire to conquer/tame/take/rape/obliterate/defeat it, i.e as an act of violence (the radical 'all straight sex is rape' schools of [gender] feminism share this exact prejudice as well). Hence the situation where a promiscuous gay or bisexual man with a preference towards being sexually penetrated (i.e. 'be fucked') are called "sluts" just like sexually promiscuous heterosexual (and I'd suspect bisexual) women.

In other words, there's an implicit view of sex-as-conquest with an 'aggressor' and a 'victim' (as opposed to more neutral terms like 'initiator' and 'respondent'). And this implicit view forms the basic backdrop for the double standard of stud vs. slut. Basically, if you're a gay/bi man that exclusively takes the insertive role with men, a straight man that (we'd assume) takes the insertive role with women, or (tentatively) a dominant female, you're a heroic conqueror! You're worthy and triumphal! You've tamed, subdued and defeated so many! But, on the other hand, if you're a gay/bi man that generally takes a receptive role with men, an heterosexual woman (and hence, presumably, takes the receptive role with men), or (tentatively) a submissive male or female, you're pathetic! You're a loser! You've been conquered, defiled and degraded over and over and over! And I bet you totally like your position at the lower rungs of the heirarchy, hey bitch? In other words, you're a slut! Probably with relatively well-stretched and sloppy orifice/s to match (apologies for the gruesome imagery).

Here, Andrew, you are completely on target as to the "darker," primitive and "naked ape" aspect of sexual "conquest." In essence, it is a tactic today in African civil and tribal wars where rape of men, women and children is a strategy of conquest and dominance. The diminishing of the subjugated populace to that level of use for the "pleasure" of the conquerors dehumanizes completely.

This is why I prefer not to use the term "slut" when describing anyone that is particularly fond of sex with quite a few people. I don't believe sex should be about conqueror/conquered (and yes, I find D/s a huge turn off; strength should long for itself, for its equal). The idea that it naturally IS about this seems to me a hangover from centuries of St. Augustine and Sigmund Freud and in my opinion it is this meme complex that is at the basis of the vast majority of the Western World's sexual neuroses.

Here again, I agree with you and I eschewed the words slut, cunt, etc. because of my complete concept of equality between myself and my lady. The D/s awareness came latter to me. I also believed that it was antithetical to my belief system. However, I did not have a clue as to its nature until I did my due diligence and incorporated what I learned into what I knew. Surprisingly, it immeasurably improved my understanding of the dynamics of sex, love and ecstasy. Additionally, I understood the power of submission when trust and communication are the standards of the relationships integrity.

Rand's own view was essentially an attempt to integrate two things; 1) her D/s fetish which was developed more or less as a way for her to psychologically reclaim and embrace her femininity in a world that considered her improperly feminine for being an intellectual rather than a Stepford Wife (see "Ayn Rand: The Woman Who Would Not Be President" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand), and 2) her (correct, in my view) position that sex should be an act of mutual admiration between two worthy creatures.

But yes, ultimately, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word 'slut' for the assumptions that seem to be related to the word. Of course, if someone deliberately uses the word in an explicitly reclaimed fashion (for instance, the book The Ethical Slut) then my objections are more about my own personal discomfort with the term owing to its common use, rather than the reclaimed use.

Agreed. The Slut Walks thread is an aspect of the reclamation of the word by women - see Toronto Slut Walk Last Saturday

Good post. Hope I advanced your quality mind.

Adam

clearly need more work on the multiple quote function

Edited July 30, 2011 by Selene

[studiodekadent]

You seem to suggest that Rand’s idealization of male dominance in the bedroom is pathological or unhealthy in some way.

"Pathological" and "unhealthy" are probably too harsh terms for what I am trying to suggest. What I'm suggesting is that Rand's fetish for bodice-ripper ravishment was a way she fulfilled a psychological need of hers (a need to reclaim a sense of femininity for herself), within the specific context of a set of gender/sexuality norms she accepted. I think that the specific set of norms she accepted was incorrect, and I believe that if she accepted a different set of norms her psychological need would've manifested itself in a different fashion.

Do I think that it is pathological for any individual to wish to experience themselves as 'proper' for their gender (or, additionally, their species, for example)? No, I don't think so. The desire to experience oneself as a 'proper man' or a 'proper woman' is absolutely widespread. Whilst I reject gender essentialism, I don't think its necessarily wrong for any man or woman to want to experience themselves as a 'real man' or a 'real woman' (I don't think its necessarily gender-essentialist for someone to want such an experience either). I've made plenty of criticisms of the socially-accepted content of gender categories, but none of these arguments invalidate the fact that people want to feel like proper members of said categories (after all, people don't like it when other people accuse them of being 'inhuman'... same principle here).

I think that’s making the same mistake Rand made when she suggested that a healthy woman should want to be a “hero-worshipper.” The fact is that the science of psychology is a long, long way from being advanced enough to make such general pronouncements. That’s one reason why I disagree with the ethical implications of Francisco’s speech to Hank Rearden about ‘the psychology of sex’ in Atlas Shrugged. Our knowledge of psychology is far too primitive for anyone to be making claims about the deeper significance underlying the complex diversity of human sexual inclinations.

A reasonable point. I should clarify, I'm not attempting to make categorical statements that "certain sexual tastes automatically prove said person has philosophical-psychosexual deficiencies A, B, and C." Each individual person needs to be comprehensively looked at in context, their specific mental processes analyzed, etc. Its fair to say that two people could have the same turn-on, and yet have very different attitudes towards it. The attitude is a crucial factor. I'm not attempting to turn sexual turn-ons per se into a mechanism for "Philosophical Detection" and the Purging Of The Heretics, here (like "oh, s/he likes Beethoven and/or nipple clamps! Therefore, s/he must have a malevolent sense of life!").

Personally, I think sex is vastly more exciting when one partner is dominant. The level of passion seems heightened immeasurably when that is the case. But I freely admit that this is my personal viewpoint. I don’t claim any inherent universality for it.

Each to their own tastes.

[studiodekadent]

Regarding the word "slut" I think its use is a little more complex than "sexually promiscuous."

I think this gives an important clue here. I must ask Adam, who IIRC is a participant in the D/s scene, are female dominants called "sluts" if they happen to have a lot of sex with a lot of various men?

Interesting aspect of female dominants, or, a dominatrix is that the tendency is to have virtually minimal "sex" with their submissive males. The total power exchange, or TPE tends to humiliation, worship of various aspects of the Domme, e.g., feet, boots, etc., bondage and punishment of varied severity, orgasm denial, infantilism and fetishes to varied to list.

Okay, so in other words there seems to be an equation between sexual penetration and conquest (hence why a female dominant would rarely get sexually penetrated). In other words, the precise premise I indicated before is in effect.

"Slut" as I've seen the term used has connotations of being defeated or conquered. The Freudian/Christian sex norms our society grew up with implicitly see a desire to fuck something as a desire to conquer/tame/take/rape/obliterate/defeat it, i.e as an act of violence (the radical 'all straight sex is rape' schools of [gender] feminism share this exact prejudice as well). Hence the situation where a promiscuous gay or bisexual man with a preference towards being sexually penetrated (i.e. 'be fucked') are called "sluts" just like sexually promiscuous heterosexual (and I'd suspect bisexual) women.

In other words, there's an implicit view of sex-as-conquest with an 'aggressor' and a 'victim' (as opposed to more neutral terms like 'initiator' and 'respondent'). And this implicit view forms the basic backdrop for the double standard of stud vs. slut. Basically, if you're a gay/bi man that exclusively takes the insertive role with men, a straight man that (we'd assume) takes the insertive role with women, or (tentatively) a dominant female, you're a heroic conqueror! You're worthy and triumphal! You've tamed, subdued and defeated so many! But, on the other hand, if you're a gay/bi man that generally takes a receptive role with men, an heterosexual woman (and hence, presumably, takes the receptive role with men), or (tentatively) a submissive male or female, you're pathetic! You're a loser! You've been conquered, defiled and degraded over and over and over! And I bet you totally like your position at the lower rungs of the heirarchy, hey bitch? In other words, you're a slut! Probably with relatively well-stretched and sloppy orifice/s to match (apologies for the gruesome imagery).

Here, Andrew, you are completely on target as to the "darker," primitive and "naked ape" aspect of sexual "conquest." In essence, it is a tactic today in African civil and tribal wars where rape of men, women and children is a strategy of conquest and dominance. The diminishing of the subjugated populace to that level of use for the "pleasure" of the conquerors dehumanizes completely.

Regarding my lack of the use of the term "gender feminism," I think the term is inaccurate to a degree. It seems to implicitly assume that any form of feminism which makes a distinction between sex and gender is anti-male and radically leftist. I disagree; after all there are plenty of feminists that believe in an essential femininity whilst being misandrist radical leftists (see Carol Gilligan for a great example). I think the more relevant distinction is methodologically collectivist feminism (which treats the sexes as if they are in a Class War against each other) and methodologically individualist feminism. Methodological collectivism is actually in theory more compatible with gender essentialism (since that naturally leads to methodological collectivism) and methodological individualism would logically be more skeptical about it (because it would pose the danger of treating a universal as more real than individual entities). But I digress.

As for your other point, you're totally right that rape in war is a complete reflection of the premise I oppose. What I'm arguing is that premise (sex-as-conquest) is not the 'true' nature of human sexuality (or, like the rad-fems, Freudians, Lillian Rearden and some of the gays might argue, the true nature of male sexuality specifically).

Here again, I agree with you and I eschewed the words slut, cunt, etc. because of my complete concept of equality between myself and my lady. The D/s awareness came latter to me. I also believed that it was antithetical to my belief system. However, I did not have a clue as to its nature until I did my due diligence and incorporated what I learned into what I knew. Surprisingly, it immeasurably improved my understanding of the dynamics of sex, love and ecstasy. Additionally, I understood the power of submission when trust and communication are the standards of the relationships integrity.

And you're entitled to your tastes as well. I admit, I don't share them and I don't believe I can fully grasp your perspective. However, I'm thankful we've been able to discuss such a delicate matter without anyone taking offense.

Speaking of that, allow me to suggest a webcomic you might enjoy; www.collar6.com

Even in spite of my ethical problems with D/s (and yes, ESPECIALLY the 24/7 lifestyle variety), I've actually managed to enjoy this comic. The writing is actually good and the characters are in many respects endearing. Go back to the start and archive-binge it. You'll probably love it.

Good post. Hope I advanced your quality mind.

Thank you. You have indeed given me some great food for thought. I hope I've been able to do the same.

Edited July 30, 2011 by studiodekadent

[Xray]

Nowadays the word "slut" seems frequently directed against a woman by another woman. In such cases it seems to have nastier connotations than if a man were to use the word.

Could it be that the deprecating terms for 'promiscuous females' are indeed often used by women frowning upon their fellow sisters' sex life if it goes agains their own moral standards?

Also, the "slut" always constitues a danger to other women, because they think she won't have any moral qualms to snatch their men away from them for a short sexual adventure.

And women are of course well aware of how appealing a sexually responsive woman is to men.

Sometimes, women wonder how a physically not that attractive woman has managed to get a man coveted by many other women, and then quickly suspect that the "certain something" of this woman must lie in the sexual sphere.

I like "trollop", which like Schlampe meant more of a sloven or slattern than a sleeparound.

Interesting that being a rotten housekeeper segues so easily into promiscuity in the semantic psyche!

... the unmade beds evoking the mental image of frequently changing male company in there.

I suppose the rotten housekeeper as such had already something of a rebel about her, since she obviously did not care enough about what was expected from her as a "dutiful woman".

From this disregard for a female role expectation, it was only a small step to interpret a disregard for 'appropiate female sexual behavior' into such women as well.

Maybe "trollop" also had to do with sexually promiscuous women often being placed outside society, possibly living in poor housing conditions where traditional female household virtues like keeping the house clean indeed played no role.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Sometimes I reminisce about the time when a “tolerationist” like me knew exactly where he stood with respect to orthodox Objectivism. Then came the McCaskey affair, and suddenly things got really muddled. Well, they just keep getting murkier all the time.

Take the Oh So Tolerant Dr. Peikoff’s latest podcast (7-25-2011), for instance.

The jealous, angry questioner demands to know: Isn’t my girlfriend immoral for not refraining from sex with other men before she met a truly great man like me?

Early in his answer, Peikoff says: “If her partners were men that she admired, even if she didn’t love them, there is nothing whatever wrong with that.” But then he throws out this little nugget of wisdom:

“If she was a slut sleeping around or whatever, you don’t need to worry about what to do.”

(Gee, Dr. Peikoff, you say ‘slut’ like it was a bad thing.)

So. Clearly, if she’s promiscuous, then she’s immoral, and that’s that. Right?

Per Peikoff, no. For if it was with "men that she admired", everything is okay.

The implication is quite clear: only if she sleeps around with non-admired men, she qualifies as a "slut".

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Four about the last four or five years, when I am "bantering," in other words, flirting with a woman, I will slip in the middle of a discussion the following:

"Now me, I am a complete male slut!" It is fascinating the breathless relief that you hear or see in the conversation.

I have even have some women say, well that is refreshing that you can be honest.

Adam

laughing to myself because the pattern interruption always works to my advantage

Can't help it, but with "male slut" I associate more images like the following:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=tim+curry&um=1&hl=de&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&biw=1280&bih=885&tbm=isch&tbnid=KA9tyEKHKq0s7M:&imgrefurl=http://rundumsprache.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html&docid=HNn1v3DBcUDp5M&w=328&h=400&ei=B-wzTtvqCYKf-wb2w-38DA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=540&page=2&tbnh=131&tbnw=100&start=25&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:18,s:25&tx=45&ty=66

No moral judgement involved of course. But the term "slut" has too much of a feminine connotation for me that I just don't think of it in connection with 'virile' behavior shown by a man (no matter what his sexual orientation is).

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

SDK's exposition on the connotative change of 'slut' is interesting. It seems it has evolved from the sternly moralistic, to the self-ironic.

It's almost a mirror image (and simultaneous with) of the political shift from neoconservatism, to progressivism/neo-Modernism.

Like them, I'd suspect another false dichotomy.

We have become so knowledgable, so 'open' and communicative about sex, but also so public, coy, and self-congratulatory - and dare I say, 'mechanical'?

As always, knowledge is the way forward, but I don't think understanding has moved much.

Where we don't understand, we justify. Which explains 'slut'.

Can one begin to understand 'Sex' when it is so completely individualistic? (As put forward by Kinsey, et al.) All one can really do is understand their own sex, and maybe extrapolate a tad.

One objective starting point to understanding, in my half-serious opinion, is the acknowledgment of sex as nature's most incredible confidence trick on us.

Tony

[anthony]

No moral judgement involved of course. But the term "slut" has too much of a feminine connotation for me that I just don't think of it in connection with 'virile' behavior shown by a man (no matter what his sexual orientation is).

'Good on yer', Ange! - as the Aussies say.

I feel so much better about my "virile" past.

Of course I was never a slut. Nor, actually, was any woman I was 'with'.

But before me, and afterwards - hmmm... who can say?

(Damn - justifying again.)

[Selene]

Even in spite of my ethical problems with D/s (and yes, ESPECIALLY the 24/7 lifestyle variety), I've actually managed to enjoy this comic. The writing is actually good and the characters are in many respects endearing. Go back to the start and archive-binge it. You'll probably love it.

Good post. Hope I advanced your quality mind.

Thank you. You have indeed given me some great food for thought. I hope I've been able to do the same.

Andrew:

Yes, you have. I like the fact that you explore an idea/concept with what I consider direct innocence.

As to the 24/7 D/s, or, as some practice, Master/slave dynamic, I also find it an untenable choice for myself. I have been friends with one or two couples where it works for them, but they are an extreme rarity. There is too much abuse by "wanna be" "Doms" or "Masters" who prey on folks who have some real issues and permit themselves to be abused because "any attention is better than no attention at all." I detest a person who preys on a person who is emotionally, psychologically or sexually needy because it is flat out wrong. I have earned the trust of a number of submissives who were "new" to this experience. Essentially, before they would decide to get involved with someone, they would have me interview them as a safety precaution. As with any choice, self policing works best.

As for myself, I am a person who requires an equal, or, as close as possible to that, for a love relationship. I am extremely selective, but it is worth it. I am not enmeshed in the "scene" any more than I am in some other interests, but it is a valuable asset that enhances a relationship with the right folks who approach it with honesty, integrity and communication.

To be continued Andrew.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

The jealous, angry questioner demands to know: Isn’t my girlfriend immoral for not refraining from sex with other men before she met a truly great man like me?

Early in his answer, Peikoff says: “If her partners were men that she admired, even if she didn’t love them, there is nothing whatever wrong with that.” But then he throws out this little nugget of wisdom:

“If she was a slut sleeping around or whatever, you don’t need to worry about what to do.”

My two cents: many (most?) women go through a period of sexual discovery, when they experiment with different partners as they develop their sexual identity. These days we have safe sex, birth control, etc., so the consequences prior generations had to worry about aren’t such a problem anymore. However, there remain cultural attitudes and taboos from times when such experimentation could have very bad repercussions for both the individual and her family.

If Peikoff’s questioner is concerned that his lover had 20 different partners in college, he ought to be glad that she (hopefully) got it out of her system, and now has the experience to know that he’s her ideal match. We don’t get enough of a fact pattern to know, that’s what I found myself assuming when I listened to it.

If we ever have an Objectivist trivia game, this question will have to be on one of the cards: What do Arnold Schwarzenburger, Jerry Seinfeld and Leonard Peikoff have in common?

Such extraordinary good fortune: finding the embodiment of all your most treasured values in the woman you hired to do your laundry. Talk about a benevolent universe!

I don’t get the reference. Did Peikoff get involved with his laundress?

[Xray]

[bolding mine]

I would be fascinated to know, however, how many people would rather see a movie sex scene between Angelina Jolie and either a youthful Clint Eastwood or Leonardo DiCaprio. I would be willing to bet that most people would much prefer to see the sexual fireworks when Dirty Harry was treating her like a helpless, wanton slut than when DiCaprio was smooching and giving her a nice, warm hug.

With the term "slut", I don't connote helplessness at all.

Take the Oh So Tolerant Dr. Peikoff’s latest podcast (7-25-2011), for instance.

The jealous, angry questioner demands to know: Isn’t my girlfriend immoral for not refraining from sex with other men before she met a truly great man like me?

I'm pretty certain that this questioner simply made fun of Peikoff. The element of satire he used, calling himself "a truly great man" is just too obvious.

But Peikoff probably has no more sense of humor than a lamppost, so he fell for it.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

[bolding mine]

I would be fascinated to know, however, how many people would rather see a movie sex scene between Angelina Jolie and either a youthful Clint Eastwood or Leonardo DiCaprio. I would be willing to bet that most people would much prefer to see the sexual fireworks when Dirty Harry was treating her like a helpless, wanton slut than when DiCaprio was smooching and giving her a nice, warm hug.

With the term "slut", I don't connote helplessness at all.

Angela:

Correct. Very astute. One of the reasons that men are sometimes as dumb as rocks!

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Four about the last four or five years, when I am "bantering,"...

Adam,

"Four" about...?

Why 4?

Why not "seven about the last four or five years" or "sixteen about the last four or five years"?

... laughing to myself because the pattern interruption always works to my advantage

How's that FOUR pattern interrupt?

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Just let the woman be on top every now and then.

--Brant

toss her a crumb

Omigod! Now there's a flashback I will never forget! Nathaniel Branden, answering questions following a lecture on sex at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. The year: 1967. Ayn Rand was sitting three rows in front of me.

Question: Can a male continue to take the dominant role if the woman is on top?

Branden (with a big grin on his face): Yes! The man is still in control of what is happening. A man does not have to be on top in order to be on top!

Entire audience cracks up!

[Xray]

If we ever have an Objectivist trivia game, this question will have to be on one of the cards: What do Arnold Schwarzenburger, Jerry Seinfeld and Leonard Peikoff have in common?

Such extraordinary good fortune: finding the embodiment of all your most treasured values in the woman you hired to do your laundry. Talk about a benevolent universe!

I don’t get the reference. Did Peikoff get involved with his laundress?

I don't get the reference either. I just googled 'Schwarzenegger laundress' and got info that he groped his laundress (no surprise at all here!), but does there exist evidence about LP having groped his laundress too?

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Just let the woman be on top every now and then.

--Brant

toss her a crumb

Omigod! Now there's a flashback I will never forget! Nathaniel Branden, answering questions following a lecture on sex at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. The year: 1967. Ayn Rand was sitting three rows in front of me.

Question: Can a male continue to take the dominant role if the woman is on top?

Branden (with a big grin on his face): Yes! The man is still in control of what is happening.

But is he really? Looks more like male wishful thinking to me. ;)

Actually, men are far more 'vulnerable' than women in that field. For as opposed to women, who are - technically - able to perform the sexual act at any time, a man without sexual excitement cannot carry out the act.

So suppose a man loses his erection while the woman is on top, he is definitely not in control of what is happening.

Even without the man losing his erection, to claim that he is in control over anything would be pure fiction. Just as it would be pure fiction to claim that the woman is in control over what is happening.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Just let the woman be on top every now and then.

--Brant

toss her a crumb

Omigod! Now there's a flashback I will never forget! Nathaniel Branden, answering questions following a lecture on sex at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. The year: 1967. Ayn Rand was sitting three rows in front of me.

Question: Can a male continue to take the dominant role if the woman is on top?

Branden (with a big grin on his face): Yes! The man is still in control of what is happening. A man does not have to be on top in order to be on top!

Entire audience cracks up!

LOL. I got that from Branden a decade later when someone in my therapy group was discussing sexual positions and his woman on top. Branden heartily approved, saying she would likely love that.

--Brant

French boy exchange high school student sex ed American style: "I know 100 different ways to make love." Fellow student: "I only know one--face to face, the missionary position." French student: "101."

[Dennis Hardin]

What I'm suggesting is that Rand's fetish for bodice-ripper ravishment was a way she fulfilled a psychological need of hers (a need to reclaim a sense of femininity for herself), within the specific context of a set of gender/sexuality norms she accepted. I think that the specific set of norms she accepted was incorrect, and I believe that if she accepted a different set of norms her psychological need would've manifested itself in a different fashion.

Apparently she has a lot of company.

Women’s Rape Fantasies: How Common?

From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them.

Psychology Today

[Selene]

Rape fantasies are extensive. We have had quite a few threads that have discussed them.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Selene

[Dennis Hardin]

Per Peikoff, no. For if it was with "men that she admired", everything is okay.

The implication is quite clear: only if she sleeps around with non-admired men, she qualifies as a "slut".

You may be exactly right about that, as far as Peikoff's use of the term 'slut' is concerned.

What I found fascinating was that, later in his answer, Peikoff advised letting bygones be bygones regardless of whether she qualified as a 'slut' or not.