|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 129 responses total. |
lelande
|
|
response 5 of 129:
| 
May 16 22:54 UTC 2002 |
i want pussy.
for free.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 6 of 129:
|
May 16 23:45 UTC 2002 |
Don't we all
|
jazz
|
|
response 7 of 129:
|
May 16 23:55 UTC 2002 |
A true player succeeds because of quality, but a slut succeeds because
of quanitity.
|
senna
|
|
response 8 of 129:
|
May 17 00:56 UTC 2002 |
That's an interesting way to look at it. I think a lot of people never go
through slutty phases, playah phases, or other phases that emphasize
promiscuity, and the difference is probably as much environmental as anything
else. YOu get the right combination of noncommittance and collaberative
grouping, and there you go.
|
oval
|
|
response 9 of 129:
|
May 17 02:36 UTC 2002 |
a slut just wants sex, doesn't care about the other person's personality, or
the experience itself - just wants someone to get them off or vice versa..
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 10 of 129:
|
May 17 07:28 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 11 of 129:
|
May 17 17:20 UTC 2002 |
The way I think of it, a playah is generally only particular about the
more superficial things, and more what their relationships look like than what
they actually are. But your mileage may vary.
I was thinking about what qualities are really important to me
yesterday. I'd like to think that I prefer emotionally stable, but, for
instance, I know I've compromised on that many times - if they're cute enough,
then personality flaws are quirks and damage can actually be incredibly
attractive. I won't compromise on being able to talk intelligently with a
partner, though, or being able to actually go out rather than stay home.
|
viper2
|
|
response 12 of 129:
|
May 17 18:38 UTC 2002 |
see I totally dont' see playah as someon who looks for quality... most of the
people around my area who call themselves playah's are guys who just want to
go out with (and sleep with if possible) as many women as they can...
I recently just stopped dating a guy who was a self-proclaimed playah. He
was seeing who knows how many women, but was trying to pretend like he
wasn't.. I told him flat out I ddint' mind being number 2 or 3 on his list
but I wasn't going to be number 120. So to me a playah is someone like him
who just wanted to date as many people as possible with little regard to the
actual person.
A slut I see as someone who uses sex to get what they want... as well as for
entertainment. *shrugs* just my views which are obviously skewed by my
environment =P
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 13 of 129:
|
May 17 21:44 UTC 2002 |
It's odd to see the term 'boy slut' on teen mag covers, but hey, if
the society considers the word bent to the female gender, so be it.
(Hard to explain "male chauvinist" by that same logic, though.)
What's the difference between a player and a hater (ok, playah and
hatah in Ebonic spelling) really? Hip-hop artists seem to use the
terms rather interchangeably. For that matter, what *is* a dog/dawg,
then?
|
emblem
|
|
response 14 of 129:
|
May 19 16:01 UTC 2002 |
or foo (fool)? heh as far as sluts go, a girl can be in a slut phase but
not a slut....i think.....
maybe im just confused in this mixed up fucked up world we all live in....
crazy people... ;p
|
jazz
|
|
response 15 of 129:
|
May 19 18:07 UTC 2002 |
I've never seen the terms used interchangably - player-haters and
players are on the opposite sides of the fence, 'far as I can tell.
|
senna
|
|
response 16 of 129:
|
May 19 23:45 UTC 2002 |
Naturally, "playah" and "slut" tends to be a gender-specific term,
free-thinking magazines or otherwise. Thus, the definitions are sexist.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 17 of 129:
|
May 20 05:42 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure if I agree with that. If I call a man a player, everyone knows
what I'm saying -- I'm saying he gets around, but I'm also hinting that he's
skillful with a pickup line, good in bed, and in control of whatever situation
he's in. If I call him a slut, again, everyone knows what I'm saying -- and
it's not the same thing. Calling him a slut, I'm hinting that he only gets
play because he has low standards, and that he lets himself be used because
he likes it.
Same thing goes for women. I don't hear many women called players, but I've
heard that usage a few times, and everyone's understood what it meant.
If more men are called sluts, and more women are called players, that's
because our assumptions about sex are sexist, not because there's anything
wrong with the terms.
|
senna
|
|
response 18 of 129:
|
May 20 13:14 UTC 2002 |
That's the point, it's all determined by our usage and emphasis of the words.
The application is rather uneven, still.
|
jazz
|
|
response 19 of 129:
|
May 20 17:18 UTC 2002 |
It's not necessarily sexist to say that the same behaviour is okay in
one gender, and not in another, when members of that gender have different
roles to play.
|
edina
|
|
response 20 of 129:
|
May 20 20:27 UTC 2002 |
Ok - I'm going through a phase where I am involved with several people, not
all sexually. It's not a permanent thing.
|
jazz
|
|
response 21 of 129:
|
May 20 23:24 UTC 2002 |
Not all ... heh ...
|
viper2
|
|
response 22 of 129:
|
May 21 14:04 UTC 2002 |
I don't argue that we have different roles to play in society, but I do
think that it is unacceptable (not necessairly sexist) to say it is ok
for men to sleep around and not ok for women.
Firstly, if women don't sleep around then who are all the men sleeping
with?
Secondly, though we do have different roles in society it doesn't mean
we are on different levels in society. Women have been second class
citizens in the past and that is no longer the case.
|
jazz
|
|
response 23 of 129:
|
May 21 17:03 UTC 2002 |
The argument I'm putting forth - which may or may not be as a devil's
advocate - is that, in a very real sense, there is still a marked gender
difference. Men generally pursue women. Therefore, the implications of a
man not being discriminatory are different than a woman's not being
discriminatory, in the same way that the implications of a man not going out
and pursuing someone are different from the implications of a woman not doing
so.
It's not quite a right versus wrong issue; but it is fair to say that
if the burden of discrimination should be the same, then the burden of pursuit
should too, and that isn't happening.
|
phenix
|
|
response 24 of 129:
|
May 21 17:22 UTC 2002 |
salon.com has an interesting article on that today
,.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 25 of 129:
|
May 21 19:48 UTC 2002 |
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/05/21/boys_and_girls/index.html
Not bad-- it provokes some thought.
I think part of the psychology is that some men want to be sexually
experienced when they reach marriage, to therefore be able to teach
their virgin brides. The ideal, apparently, is to get someone
untouched, unfettered, and inexperienced.
There are exceptions, however. I don't doubt for a moment that my
relationship with my perfectionist mother, and some subsequent bad
dating relationships, provoked some dark fantasies of domination.
To be more general and realistic, I can see that children develop
sexual attitudes based on their parents'-- so if fathers are winking,
nudging, and encouraging their sons to swagger and go with their
hormones, and mothers and passive and silent-- then I can see boys
developing bad attitudes. But conversely, I would expect to see
opposite behavior if mothers humiliate, berate, and abuse their sons.
That's not to say D/s is entirely based on this, and that it's not a
preference, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a possible factor.
Even more so, I think it has mystique based on the notion that the
opposite is the norm.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 26 of 129:
|
May 21 19:49 UTC 2002 |
whoops, wasn't clear-- my implication was negative female authority,
especially from moms, might be expressed in submissive sexuality in
sons.
|
jazz
|
|
response 27 of 129:
|
May 21 20:23 UTC 2002 |
The parental involvement for a woman is much higher than with a man,
though, so there's a strong genetic reason for a man to impregnate as many
women as possible, and a strong genetic reason for a woman to find a partner
who will care for her children and remain monogamous. It's oversimplifying
the case, but there are good reasons why this hasn't changed markedly.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 28 of 129:
|
May 22 07:49 UTC 2002 |
I've heard that theory, and I generally agree with it. However, I've
heard comments on the somewhat opposite situation-- that a woman may
find a mate that is not necessarily physically attractive but provides
and nutures for the child, and then she occasionally mates on the
side.. (basically a bio/psychological argument for cheating).
I may be inaccurate in summarizing the argument-- the discussion was
on NPR quite a while back as a comparison of biological advantages of
monogamy and polyamory.
|
viper2
|
|
response 29 of 129:
|
May 22 15:20 UTC 2002 |
re #23 you think that the burden of pursuit isn't equal? I don't if
it's just me and my friends or just the area in which I live but for
myself and most of my single girl friends the female does most of the
pursuit. The male might make the inital gesture, but it is the female
who pursues.
One example my roomie met a guy who was "very interested" [his words]
in her and asked for her number. He "tried to call" 3 or 4 times but
didn't leave a message, but instead told a mutual friend that he'd
tried to call and to have my roomie call him. So she pursued him for a
week leaving messages etc... That is just one example but I find that
more and more the women are doing the pursuing and the men are enjoying
being pursued.
Of course this isn't always the case. In my current "relationship" we
pretty much take turns for the dates. I suggest doing something, I
pick him up [bring him flowers ocassionaly], pay for dinner, open his
doors, etc... and the next time he does it.
I think maybe in the majority of the general population men still
pursue women, but there are numerous women who pursue as well =)
|