So are you going through your slutty phase?  What is your slutty phase?  Does
everyone have a slutty phase?  Are you ever not in a slutty phase?

129 responses total.

slut? naw. dawg. i'm a playah

humm looks like this didn't come up right (hate using bbs at work)
We were talking about people's slutty phases in party today.  Just wondering
what everyone's opinions on slutty phases is?  Does everyone go through one?
Do some people ever phase out of theirs etc...

Of course you are greg ;)

Is there a difference between being a player and a slut? other than just
gender?

not really. well yha.
a playah vs. slut is like gormet vs. gormond

i want pussy.
for free.

Don't we all

        A true player succeeds because of quality, but a slut succeeds because
of quanitity.

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.

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..

This response has been erased.

        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.

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

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?

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

        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.

Naturally, "playah" and "slut" tends to be a gender-specific term,
free-thinking magazines or otherwise.  Thus, the definitions are sexist.

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.

That's the point, it's all determined by our usage and emphasis of the words.
The application is rather uneven, still.

        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.

Ok - I'm going through a phase where I am involved with several people, not
all sexually.  It's not a permanent thing.

        Not all ... heh ...

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. 

        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.

salon.com has an interesting article on that today
,.

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.

whoops, wasn't clear-- my implication was negative female authority, 
especially from moms, might be expressed in submissive sexuality in 
sons.

        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.

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. 

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 =)

        Re #28:

        Different characteristics have different weights in genetic decisions.
Though you're always going to see physical appearance - which translates, in
genetic terms, to health and social status - as being important, both for the
good things that health and social status can directly provide for a child,
and indirectly provide through the passing on of good genes, other factors
may vary by situation and gender.  A mate's ability and willingness to support
a child is markedly more important for women;  even in today's liberated
society, it's much more common to see single mothers raising their children
than single fathers, partially due to the huge investment that is pregnancy,
and therefore a willing male provider is less of a given.

        Re #29:

        That doesn't happen around here much, and though it's more common in
some subcultures - the Peace Posse in Ypsilanti seems to be entirely made of
female pursuers and male deciders - and I don't think it's that common
throughout midwestern America.  I could be biased by my perceptions, though.

It seems to me that on most issues, everyone thinks their own side is doing
all the work and the other side is having all the fun.  This one's probably
no different.

Re #30:  Okay, what's the Peace Posse?

        I'm not saying that men are doing all the work here;  what I am saying
is that men tend to do the lion's share (biology pun intended) of the work
asking people out, and women the lion's share of the work discriminating
between suitors.  Still.  Despite the advances that our society has made in
equality.
        
        The burden of discrimination lies upon the person who isn't asking,
but is being asked.

Wait a second, John, am I hearing you say essentially what I think I'm hearing
you say?  What it sounds like is that you're saying that because all a woman
has to do is flex her hip muscles enough to open her legs when a guy comes
along, it's okay to hold her to a higher standard than the guy who does the
seeking and pursuit?  It sounds like you're putting a higher level of value
on the work the man does in a sexual encounter, that of choosing who to sleep
with and making it happen, than the woman, and thus defending (devil's
advocating or otherwise) the use of separate, differing terms for promiscuous
members of the two genders. 

That's a wild overstatement, obviously, but it still sounds like you're
holding a woman more responsible for who she sleeps with since she basically
just has to give a "yay" or "nay."  I'm sure my impression is innacurate, but
still.  

More responsible?  where do you get that?

This response has been erased.

        Hrm, that didn't make sense.  Let's try that again.

        The role of the pursuer and the role of the pursued are different, as
you mentioned.  A successful pursuer must be able to make quick decisions as
to who they are interested in, and must have the ability to pursue and create
new relationships, and often must be willing to pursue more than one person
with the understanding that pursuit sometimes does not work out.  A successful
pursuee must be able to make effective decisions on much less superficial
qualities, and often must be willing to hold back on getting into a
relationship if they aren't sure about a person.

        The role that, in this simplified duality, makes the final decision
is the pursuee.  Shouldn't the one who makes the final decision be held to
a different standard than the person who originally proposes the idea? 
Shouldn't managers who approve a product to be released be held to a different
sort of standards - not higher or lower, but different - than the engineers
that came up with the product idea?

It would be logical to hold the manager who approves the release to the
same standard as the manager who approved development of the product in
the first place. The factors involved in the decision are essentially
the same - given the available information, is it reasonable to conclude
that action would have a high probability of success/profit? Is the
product/proposal of high quality? You get the idea.

Tying this analogy into the main topic of the discussion, this means that
the decision to pursue someone should be evaluated by the same standard
as the pursued's decision to accept the pursuer's advances. 

thanks you. i didn't quite buy #37.

if someone pursues me, it's probable that they would be showing off their
finer qualities. if i accept and then they do something horrible to me, i
really don't want to be held accoutable for their actions.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss