Talk:Slut/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bitch - Slut - common link

The term 'bitch', placed upon women, is well known as the term addressed to a female dog. In the 1800's, and indeed into the 1900's, well performed, and quality bitches (racing or producing Greyhounds), were called 'sluts'. Therefore, it is logical to presume that the term bitch, was strengthened as an insult by 'upgrading' the insult to 'slut'. I find this derivitive a more acceptable origin of the modern day use of the term.

How is that more appropriate? At all? Like, even a little bit? Why would it be? How do you determine the appropriateness of this?

Good lord. How does one get to make etymological findings? Word go in book. Word go in dictionary. You can't prove an opinion one way or another. It was always negative. Slovenly --> Ugly/Rubbish --> garbage can ("Slut-hole") which was a 19th century term for garbage... all of that can easily be transformed metonymy/synecdoche into how we use it. Indeed the concept of dishevelment is as related to "loose" as anything... and sex tends to make one disheveled. Both terms begin the etymology game a single degree of Kevin Bacon from what we have. And by the way you need to fill in the gap between bitch applying primarily to women rather than dogs to make this leap, which you didn't do there.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504171729/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/slutwalk_rally.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/slutwalk_rally.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

I suggest we change the wording of 'loose sexually morals' to sexually liberated or free. Ellastoodley (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: "sexually liberated" or "free sexuality" are post-hoc reframings but the negative connotations of "loose" are primary for the negative term defined. The reframings are discussed in the "Alternate usages and culture" section of the body. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Define it as a term for people in general and not exclusively for women and girls as stated. The word slut in modern times has been changed or evolved as describing promiscuous men as well. Animalkingdom1234567890 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  spintendo  22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The article (including the lead) already notes the male aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Woman or girl" for lead sentence

I reverted FT2 per WP:Due weight, including its WP:False balance section. The literature is clear that the term slut rarely refers to men. It's most common definition is in reference to women, and the literature on it is overwhelmingly about women. Therefore, the lead should begin with this, not state "person," as if this term is typically applied to anyone. No. It is very gender-specific. We've also discussed this at Talk:Slut-shaming#WP:Undue weight with regard to changing the lead sentence to "people". If we need yet another discussion, so be it. But it will not change the literature or that we are supposed to follow it with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And "generally" is there for a reason, which indicates "most commonly." Does slut generally refer to any gender? No. It generally refers women/girls. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Restored this material with difference placement, and this tweak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn:I have heard it used by gay men about other gay men but 99% of the time the term is applied to women. I see no reason to use "person" rather than "Woman or girl". --John B123 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

John B123, yeah, the aspect with regard to gay men is also addressed in the aforementioned linked discussion. And, as can be seen, it has a mention in the lead of the Slut-shaming article since that article has a whole section about the use among gay and bisexual men, but we still make it clear in the lead sentence of that article that slut-shaming usually concerns women and girls. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Flyer22. The proposed edits did not improve the article in the least, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not writing an article about the word 'slut' we're writing an article about something that may, or may not be referred to by the word 'slut'. The article almost certainly should be about (for example) thots as well. Wikipedia articles are NOT ABOUT THE WORD IN THE TITLE. They're about something else, that we have to define. What is the scope of the article? If it's only about females, then we HAVE to delete all the stuff about gay men. That's how Wikipedia works- off topic stuff gets completely removed. GliderMaven (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We've been over this in the aforementioned discussion. No one said anything about "only women." Predominantly about women, on the other hand? Yes. We follow the literature with due weight, and we do not allow false balance. That is the way Wikipedia works. And we most certainly have Wikipedia articles about words. This is one of them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"An exact male equivalent of the term does not exist."

An exact male equivalent does exist. The word "fuckboy" according to the Oxford English Dictionary (per Google) is "a man who has many casual sexual partners". The word "slut" in the same dictionary is "a woman who has many casual sexual partners". The page is semi-protected so I cannot edit it myself. Juz16 (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Juz16

While some might quibble over the scope of the word “exact”, I think you make a good initial case for modifying or removing that statement. Let’s see what other editors think. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I generally dislike quibbles but in this case, the "exact" is important. Juz16's suggestion only matches half of the words' definition. While the denotations of "slut" and "fuckboy" may differ in only the gender to which they are applied, there is a huge difference in connotation between the two terms. "Slut" carries with it a huge burden of judgement that "fuckboy" does not. The media does not "fuckboy shame" and nobody calls twelve year old boys in shorts and t-shirts "fuckboy", for merely two examples. "Fuckboy" is applied in very limited ways, in contrast to the multiplicity of ways "slut' is applied. The suggestion does not reflect that connotational difference but instead conceals it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Fuckboy sounds like a slang which WP is not a dictionary. However if you feel it's fitting in this article maybe you can add to the culture section on how it fits in or maybe have a discussion somewhere else in the discussion category on WP. Just an opinion that is all. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I just logged in for the first time in years to suggest "Fuckboy," so, obviously, I agree with Mathglot. I do not think one ever would find most conventional media using that word, because it's profane, so that's maybe not a great test. "Fuckboy" absolutely carries a huge burden of judgment. It is not considered a good thing to be. - Peach (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this thread has been resurrected, I'll comment. Eggishorn has it right. To quote this sourced piece in the article, "An exact male equivalent of the term does not exist. The lack of a comparably popular term for men highlights the double standard in societal expectations (gender roles) between males and females, as negative terms for sexually promiscuous males are rare. Out of the 220 terms ascribed to females and 20 terms ascribed to males, all female terms are disapproving while some male terms signal approval or praise; these include 'stud', 'player', and 'man whore'. While colloquial terms such as 'male slut' or 'man whore' are used in popular culture, they are usually used in a joking manner." And fuckboy is a relatively new slang term. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The only times I've heard this term used outside of this thread is by older gays in reference to late teenagers, particularly smaller built ones, in the same way as "twink" is used. More to do with age/stature than promiscuity. --John B123 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you add Category:English profanity on the article Slut for me please? 75.110.33.200 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding edit request tag as a courtesy. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

Change the caption on the first image from "self identifying promiscuous sluts" to "Two women protest the use of the word slut at the NYC Slut Walk, 2011." The image is used correctly in the Wikipedia entry for Slutshaming. One of the girls in the image is my daughter-in-law and is not a "self-identifying promiscuous slut" per the current caption. Please alter the caption immediately, or allow me to insert the same caption used in the Slutshaming entry. Thank you. Vjyoti (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Have restored the previous caption. It was changed by User:SAMBLAman, on 15 August 2021, here, for some unexplained reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole article has a campaigning feminist tone to it which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It also seems dominated by American undergraduate preoccupations. --Ef80 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Czagore.4, Nicolekappeler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hcoliver.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)