There is no such thing as a "slut"

Think about it. What or who is a slut? In general, it's a derogatory term used to shame women for their sexuality. But everyone's definition varies on what specific qualifiers amount to "sluttiness." Some people think you're a slut if you have sex with more than one person. Others think that you're a slut if you have sex with several or many people. But is there a magic number? A magic line? If 1 or 2 is acceptable, then what makes 9 or 10 suddenly unacceptable? And still more people think that you're a slut if you have sex with anyone before marriage. Or if you've ever been pregnant outside of marriage or had an abortion or had an STD. Or even if you dress or act in a certain manner (too provocative, too loud, too sexually knowledgable.) By that standard, even a so-called virgin can be a slut. So, if everyone's definition varies, does that make all women sluts?

No, more than likely, the simplest answer is that there is no such thing as a "slut." After all, there is no equivalent insult for men. In fact, we have a societal double-standard: male promiscuity is seen as brag-worthy, whereas female promiscuity is seen as shameful. Worse yet, not only is female promiscuity shameful, but even female sexuality itself is considered shameful or embarrassing to most people, unless it is a controlled performance for male viewing and pleasure. Female sexuality for your own self and your own sake -- without the male gaze or objectification -- is seen as shameful. This is where the word "slut" comes from: to try and put women in their "place" when they learn that they can own their sexuality without needing to be seen as coy or submissive, when women realize that sexuality is so much more than a performance for male approval, when women are not afraid to adopt the socially-male role as the pursuers.

Why is it insulting? Because the word "slut" de-personalizes the woman; it ignores every other aspect or achievement as a person and it turns her into a sex object. Once you decide to have sex in any socially "unacceptable" manner (whatever that may be, see paragraph 1 for all variations), people think that it is okay to refer to you as though you are a masturbatory object that has been "used" by men. It is unthinkable for people to see you as an autonomous agent, a person who has chosen, wanted, and pursued sex. And on top of that, there are all kinds of other assumptions associated with the slut -- all of the whys: because she has "low self-esteem," because she has "poor self-control," because she makes "bad lifestyle choices" or because she is "too easy." Once again, it is unthinkable for people to see you as an autonomous person, an emotionally well-adjusted individual who enjoys a healthy sex life.

This is why I do not call anyone a "slut," even if I do not agree with their private sexual choices. Calling someone a slut is anti-sex and anti-woman, and even other women are guilty of reinforcing the old virgin/whore paradigm by shaming and trash-talking girls that do not live up to a certain socially acceptable "standard." Bottom line: It is not my place or anyone's place to degrade another person's sexuality, as long as everything is consensual and mutually beneficial.

It is time that people stop associating sexuality with morality/personal character - they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and the only reason people today still associate sexuality with morality is because of historically misogynistic Abrahamic religious beliefs. There is no way for you to discern why somebody has sex and there is no reason why you should care, even if you assume they are for the wrong reasons like "poor self-control." Sex and sexual expression are normal parts of human biology and sociology, and everyone has different preferences. You would be hard-pressed to find someone in this day and age who calls someone morally flawed for eating "too much" food (how much is too much? and why is it any of your business?) or eating the "wrong" type of food; the same should apply to sex.



If there is no such thing as a slut, then there is no such thing as a virgin. And if you think about it, you come to realize that it's true. There is no medical or scientific definition for virginity. None. It is nothing but a social construct. And how do you define a "virgin"? Some people think that a virgin is somebody who has never had penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse. In that case, does the concept of virginity only apply to heterosexuals? Does that mean that sexually-active gay men and women are still "virgins"? Does that mean that you can still be a virgin if you have oral, manual, and/or anal sex (but never PIV sex) with one or more people? All of these rhetorical questions are meant to illustrate the abstract, made-up qualities of "virginity" and "sluttiness." Both words are rooted in the ancient obsession with the purity of the female as vessel and the fear of female sexual power.

A woman is so much more than her sexual history/sexual expression. Abstinence and virginity fetishists often refer to your "virginity" as the "greatest gift you can give to your spouse." They directly imply that your entire worth as a person and as a partner is measured by whether or not you have had sex. Your achievements and skills and personality don't matter, because apparently all of that can be sullied and dirtied by PIV sex. It is time to reject this virgin/whore paradigm once and for all. It is time to call on all women and men to end "slut-shaming" and educate each other about healthy sexuality and the importance of mutual consent. This will make the world a safer and healthier place for all women, regardless of how they act or dress or how many people they've slept with. I look forward to a time when the violent crime of rape is taken seriously every single time, and a woman's outfit or sexual history is deemed irrelevant. I look forward to a time when women and girls are judged for who they are as people, not for how many people they have or have not slept with.