Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
The Wrath

Talking Dirty to a Lover

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I was about to make a comment ranting and raving against dirty talk, but Dan's last post made me reconsider.

In my experience, most dirty talk is either a pure expression of intensity (Oh sh*t!, Oh shi*t) or an expression of dominance or submission (I’m gonna f*ck the sh*t out of you, f*ck me, etc.).

If that is the extent of "talking dirty", where dominance/submission is established by those sort of statements, then I don't think it should even be called "dirty". It is solely dirty in that context because it involves the words f*ck and sh*t, which really have become colloquialized today. It's been some time since I brushed up on my French, but I remember that there are different words to distinguish between sex, having sex passionately, wanting someone, wanting someone voraciously, etc. I think the version of the word f*ck that we use today just accomplishes that. If we didn't have that distinction, what would a man say instead, "I'm having sex with you"?

The kind of dirty talk I was prepared to lambaste is the kind that involves degrading one's partner, where insults are thrown around or one forces one's partner to speak negatively about themself. Yes, the man is in control during sex, but if he needs to call his girlfriend awful things to prove that to himself, or if she needs to hear herself degraded to feel that she is submitting, then I suggest there are seriously flawed thought processes at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between dirty talk and sensual talk is the same as the difference between f*cking and making love.

But there is no difference between f*cking and making love. These are two words, with different moral evaluations, of the same act.

The only way that I could understand people being thrilled by specifically *dirty* talk, as *opposed* to sensual talk, unless they are depraved, would be because of some sense of irony.. As in, "I know this act is not dirty at all, but is beautiful, yet I'm going to call it low and dirty, just to emphasize how non-low and non-dirty it is." Or something like that. But I've never been into talking dirty during sex.. When women I've been involved with have tried to talk dirty to me during sex, I usually just try not to let them see me rolling my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one forces one's partner to speak negatively about themself.
Charlotte, I think all this dirty talk has effected your grammar. : P (Themself is not a word!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JGL, I agree with your previous post. I would never use degrading language during sex, but that isn't really what I meant by dirty talk."

And I must admit I was surprised to see this thread suddenly resurrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, please!

The more my guy talks, the more it turns me on. He should tell me what he's going to do and how much I'm going to love it. And I'm not sure what words/attitudes JLG is referring to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with calling me a whore or slut, either, because at that moment, that's what I want to be--his whore. I don't want him to be thinking about how smart I am. He should want me for everything I am, which includes--just as much as my mind--my body, and in the middle of sex, it ought to be all about my body. Plus, he should feel welcome to tie me up. There is nothing wrong with fantasy/roleplay within the context of a normal, healthy sexual relationship. Both dirty talk & bondage can be great, fun ways to concretize the fact that I am his--he can do whatever he wants with me. Think of it like art; it helps you see your values in action. :dough:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always like to say "Yeah, thats right, I'm gonna spill my plate of cheese on the floor, and oooh look at the trash bin."

My girl loves that kind of dirty talk.

LOL.. Plate of cheese? I'll have to remember antipasto next time I'm with someone who insists on dirty talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He should want me for everything I am, which includes--just as much as my mind--my body, and in the middle of sex, it ought to be all about my body.
That seems like a contradiction.. Is it everything you are, or all about your body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That seems like a contradiction.. Is it everything you are, or all about your body?

There is no contradiction here. Sex is a physical act which can represent shared values. This does not mean that one must be focally aware of those shared values in the moment during sex. Those value-judgments are automatized, leaving one free to focus 100% on the physical experience.

Bold Standard, you should realize that your question could be interpreted as being insulting to Ramare. She said nothing to imply that she views sex as a purely physical thing, divorced from spiritual values. Indeed, quite the opposite. I respectfully suggest withdrawing the question.

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bold Standard, you should realize that your question could be interpreted as being insulting to Ramare. She said nothing to imply that she views sex as a purely physical thing, divorced from spiritual values. Indeed, quite the opposite. I respectfully suggest withdrawing the question.
I didn't intend my question to be insulting, but I don't withdraw it. It still seems like a contradiction to me. When Ramare says, "He should want me for everything I am," I interpret that as meaning he should be sexually attracted to her for everything she is, including her mind.. But then she says, "in the middle of sex, it ought to be all about my body." If the man "should" want her for her mind as well as her body, why shouldn't he think about her mind, and, for instance, the beauty of the spiritual connection between them, during sex? Is the implication that I'm a pervert for being turned on by thinking about these things during sex? I guess it's the "ought to" and the "all about" that I don't get--I don't think it would be bad or immoral to think only about a someone's body during sex (assuming that's not the only reason for having sex with that person) but I don't think it's wrong to think about other things either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, you said it quite well. Thank you.

Incidentally, DPW said some smart and interesting things that I think are related about how physical attraction works specifically for women in this thread. The only post I can find right now about it is Post 125, but I thought there was another one somewhere, too.

Edited by Ramare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, DPW said some smart and interesting things that I think are related about how physical attraction works specifically for women in this thread. The only post I can find right now about it is Post 125, but I thought there was another one somewhere, too.

DPW's David DeAngelo'ish advice is pretty good (if not taken too far) but I disagree with his "when women get sexual, they disengage their logical mind". He is assuming "letting go" way too early.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'm not sure what words/attitudes JLG is referring to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with calling me a whore or slut, either, because at that moment, that's what I want to be--his whore. I don't want him to be thinking about how smart I am.

I'm just not seeing anything positive here...if the act of sex means anything at all to you, you're not a whore or a slut. Why would anyone want her partner to use such ugly, culturally-loaded terms? What kind of self-esteem does a man have who feels the need to cut his partner down that way? It's a far cry from saying "You're mine!! ALL MINE!!"-- which is kind of a similar sentiment, but not ugly and disrespectful.

whore (hôr, hōr)1. A prostitute.

2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.

3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

slut (slŭt) 1. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.

2. A woman prostitute.

3. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

Also, I think there is something to what Rob said about dirty talk being “a way of expressing ownership of and entitlement to your partner, as well as just showing general masculine boldness.” In my experience, most dirty talk is either a pure expression of intensity (Oh sh*t!, Oh shi*t) or an expression of dominance or submission (I’m gonna f*ck the sh*t out of you, f*ck me, etc.). I would disagree that “dirty sex” is not love making. Physically intense sex can be just as emotionally symbolic and psychologically satisfying as slow, sweet sex. It depends on what kind of baggage you bring with you.Hope that was some good feedback for you!--Dan Edge

That's great, and I think it's hot too-- but still a far cry from calling someone filthy, trash or a whore; i.e. something of no value.

Edited by eudaemonist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear: the context is a monogamous relationship in which I find the man worthy of not only my respect, but my worship. Obviously, neither one of us actually thinks that I’m a whore, and his calling me such in the privacy of our bedroom is not going to confuse either one of us into thinking that I might be.

Sex, for a psychologically healthy woman, is about surrendering herself to the man she worships. It’s about submission. It’s about showing, in terms of a physical act, “You are so absolutely fantastic that you can do whatever you want with me—and I trust you.” Using demeaning words like “whore” or “slut” is one way to symbolically underline that submission—thus heightening it and making the whole experience more intense. Other means might include bondage or role play involving rape.

Did you find anything positive in Roark’s “rape” of Dominique? Or Galt’s taking of Dagny on the train tracks? That’s the type of thing I’m thinking of here. (Possibly think, too, of the tennis game between Dagny and Francisco. Definitely some parallells there. She's happy to be brought down a notch, so to speak, by the man who's worthy of it.)

But this is an area in which personal preference is really all that matters. If this isn’t your kind of thing, it doesn’t need to be.

And, you know, just as a little side note, lest we forget . . . as serious and important as sex is, it should also be FUN. Lots of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related note, I am about to publish part 5 of my Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality essay, which will discuss principles that can be applied to this issue. It should be up tomorrow on my blog.

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sex, for a psychologically healthy woman, is about surrendering herself to the man she worships. It’s about submission. It’s about showing, in terms of a physical act, “You are so absolutely fantastic that you can do whatever you want with me—and I trust you.”
Ok, up to this point you had me.
Using demeaning words like “whore” or “slut” is one way to symbolically underline that submission
I'm not exactly sure how it is that you equate submission with demeaning. They are not the same thing. I think this is the point that is being made. What sort of psychology equates demeaning or debasement with submission? I agree that there is some personal preference involved here, but if the words above are used, do you mean them in your literal meaning or as place holders for the sort of symbolic submission you're talking about? If as placeholders, then I'd put this almost in the category of fantasy or role-play. You're in effect changing the meaning of the words to mean submission rather than debasement.
thus heightening it and making the whole experience more intense. Other means might include bondage or role play involving rape.
At OCON last year, in the Kenner/Locke class on Sex & Romance, they discussed role-play and rape fantasies, and generally approved, although they stipulated only in their "mild" and "healthy" forms, and as long as it's clear that the submitting person is still in control. Also, Dr. Kenner read the Dagny evening gown description (something about chains and bondage) and was very clear that some women absolutely hate those types of allusions. Dr. Locke also suggested that the lines of personal preference are ones that you can only demarcate as healthy by some honest introspection, so I'm not going to try to tell you have a screwed up psychology.

So the question is, what makes such actions unhealthy? Where is the dividing line? Are you suggesting that any sort of bondage or rape role-play is healthy?

Personally, I can see where you're coming from, but I just prefer to not equate submission and demeaning. I prefer to worship my woman's nobleness even as she submits, and I don't think there is any contradiction there. I can think of a million things I could do that would even emphasize submission but keep that distinction very clear, and I think using the terms above are just unimaginative. Also, continuing to use the terms after a woman has said she doesn't like them is absolutely inconsiderate.

Did you find anything positive in Roark’s “rape” of Dominique? Or Galt’s taking of Dagny on the train tracks? That’s the type of thing I’m thinking of here. (Possibly think, too, of the tennis game between Dagny and Francisco. Definitely some parallells there. She's happy to be brought down a notch, so to speak, by the man who's worthy of it.)
hmm. I don't think these are analogous at all.

1. The "rape": I'm unconvinced that Dominique has a healthy perspective here. Specifically because she's acting according to her mind-body dichotomy. I think she wants to be debased.

2. sorry didn't find it right off. Reference would help. Dont remember it specifically, but I know I don't remember how it was in any way demeaning.

3. Dagny / Fransisco tennis: umm. Dagny won. How was she "taken down a notch"? The whole scene is her exerting herself, and her competence, but always relative to him. That's why in the end he "seems to have won". It's not at all demeaning. It's a great scene by the way. One of my favorites, and an example of just the opposite idea, that submission and demeaning are not the same things; that strong independant women can still submit and don't have to be demeaned to do it.

She felt an arrogant pleasure in seeing the skill of his movements, because this was the thing which she would beat, so that his every expert gesture became her victory, and the brilliant competence of his body became the triumph of hers....

She approached him slowly. She stood over him, looking down at his body stretched at her feet, looking at his sweat-drenched shirt and the strands of his hair spilled across his arm. He raised his head. His glance moved slowly up the line of her legs, to her shorts, to her blouse, to her eyes. It was a mocking glance that seemed to see straight through her clothes and through her mind. And it seemed to say that he had won.

But this is an area in which personal preference is really all that matters. If this isn’t your kind of thing, it doesn’t need to be. And, you know, just as a little side note, lest we forget . . . as serious and important as sex is, it should also be FUN. Lots of fun.
That I agree with wholeheartedly. However, it only extends so far. It's not subjective. There are some acts and forms of debasement that are wholly signs of psychological problems. Would you agree? I'm curious though, do you think someone is implying that sex shouldn't be fun?
On a related note, I am about to publish part 5 of my Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality essay, which will discuss principles that can be applied to this issue. It should be up tomorrow on my blog.--Dan Edge
Waiting impatiently. The rest have been quite interesting. ;) Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear: the context is a monogamous relationship in which I find the man worthy of not only my respect, but my worship. Obviously, neither one of us actually thinks that I’m a whore, and his calling me such in the privacy of our bedroom is not going to confuse either one of us into thinking that I might be.

Like Miss Rand said, "words have meaning"... I'm still not sure how you reconcile this. If somebody I respected called me a whore "on a symbolic level", in reality, I'd have to conclude it meant something negative because the concept of "whore" is hideous and repugnant.

I don't believe a psychologically healthy person of any gender needs to experience degradation as part of a loving relationship. If I get the idea a man needs to psychologically degrade me to somehow prove his manhood or "have power over me" or whatever, I run like hell. "Loving abuse" is still abuse. I'm a decent, kind person with real achievements and don't have the slightest desire to be "torn down" or treated badly by anyone for any reason whatsoever. What's so great about enacting rape fantasies, anyway? Why isn't my consent as a rational, loving, aroused human being exciting enough? Call it whatever you want, but declaring it "healthy" because Rand's characters liked it is a huge mistake.

Anyone holding up Dominique as a model of mental health and a guide to behavior seriously needs to check their premises.

Edited by eudaemonist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think talking dirty can be an awesome thing if you do it right. As the prior notions already laid it down, if your healthy about it and you know each other, your limits and your expectations then it can be a good thing.

For instance, the word "slut." I see eudaemonist has a problem with it but, it depends on context; it depends on supply and demand really. Sexual promiscuty (that should be the word) is despicable for many reasons, mainly to do with values. If the girl walks around calling herself a slut and letting people call her a slut and sleeping with tons of different guys, then it reduces her value in a way. It's like, what does it mean if you give this treatment to everyone else? If she sleeps with you, you're not anything special, just another dick attached to a sack of organs with a million year in the making drive to hump enough to gaurantee your progeny will carry your dim light of self-destruction on while you rot in the ground.

But it changes if she isn't a slut in public, in front of her, whiny bitchy friends, nagging, annoying family and lazy, incompetent co-workers. If she sleeps with you, and lets you call her your slut, and your whore ... then it shows that you are something special and worthy enough. Your not just the next guy in line humping away into half-assed happiness; you're strong, noble, worthy, being praised as you conquer ever square inche of this beautiful curvy feminine creation of awe-inspiriting glory and gorgesnous. She shines, and it's just for you too see. She grits her teeth and squells and moans and it's just for you to hear, you can call her yours -- not the worlds. You can give each other pleasure only you too will ever known, safe from the prying eyes and envious snorts of the rest of humanity.

I think their is something erotic there and something special, something that soldifys the bond between you. As long as it's not degrading and you know she enjoys being talked to like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it changes if she isn't a slut in public, in front of her, whiny bitchy friends, nagging, annoying family and lazy, incompetent co-workers. If she sleeps with you, and lets you call her your slut, and your whore ... then it shows that you are something special and worthy enough.

I would suggest that connotation is conveyed by the possessive "your" and not the derogatory "slut" or "whore". That is, insert one of many words behind your and you can get the same sense. Slut and whore would just serve to cheapen it. How does "slut" and "whore" show that you're something "worthy enough"?

Frankly, I think the possesive in and of itself carries better and more powerful connotations than these derogatory statements. I want a woman to know that I think of her as mine in that context. Because it carries a standard with it, just in and of the possessive. Not just anyone can be mine. That is dominance without being demeaning. What does being my "slut" do to that standard? Thanks, but no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but in that case, she's your PERSONAL TREASURE, your PRECIOUS PRIZE...you don't need to call her the opposite to know you're a very fortunate and special guy! I agree-- "you're all mine" is very hot. It expresses being valued and being valuable...win win!

Edited by eudaemonist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would suggest that connotation is conveyed by the possessive "your" and not the derogatory "slut" or "whore". That is, insert one of many words behind your and you can get the same sense. Slut and whore would just serve to cheapen it. How does "slut" and "whore" show that you're something "worthy enough"?

Frankly, I think the possesive in and of itself carries better and more powerful connotations than these derogatory statements. I want a woman to know that I think of her as mine in that context. Because it carries a standard with it, just in and of the possessive. Not just anyone can be mine. That is dominance without being demeaning. What does being my "slut" do to that standard? Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't know why I used to the word "whore." It sort of has the same connotations I guess, but I think you guys are stuck on the actual definition. To me, it's turning something bad into something good. It's also a way say "you enjoy your sex woman!" but just cut out all the words and simplify in under the umbrella of "slut" ...? Because girls "acting sluty" usually means they are behaving in a outwardly sexual manner. I guess it's about having that sexual manner but having it all in private? It's like, she is a slut but you're the only person she would sleep with, you get it all, all you desire. That's by what I meant by it being worthy. If she, again, sleeps with everyone who tries then it just cheapens her. If she only sleeps with you, then it's great because you know she wants you, not just every guy who walks into her life.

Maybe it's a generational thing but, the word "slut" means a lot of different things to people know. Publicly being sexual and devaluing it compared to being incredibly sexual but only in the private and only for someone they hold very very dear is where I think the difference comes in.

Is it safe to say "irrational" slut versus "rational" slut? Kind of like being selfish? That's sort of the trail of thought i'm going down here.

The difference also comes in like this.

A) Girl wants to have sex, is horny, sexual, whatever; but has sex with a lot of guys, not holding up very many standards in choosing, only superficial ones.

;) Girl wants to have sex, is horny, sexual, whatever; but only has sex with you and only shows that sexual side too you, when you've met all the right conditions based off her values.

Does that make any sense? With A, everyone is worthy so it cheapens it. With B, it actually takes something earn the right to call her a slut, your slut.

I guess it means different things in different contexts, that's what i'm trying to say.

Yeah, but in that case, she's your PERSONAL TREASURE, your PRECIOUS PRIZE...you don't need to call her the opposite to know you're a very fortunate and special guy! I agree-- "you're all mine" is very hot. It expresses being valued and being valuable...win win!

Well, I could be cynical here and say that any girl you call you're personal treasure is going to shy away because your some creepy guy who wants to be attached to her.

Also, since you have a firm grasp on this, what do you think about guys who literally say things like "She is all mine, be jealous, that's right, shes with MEEE!" to everyone. I think if it's a public display then the guy is just using her for a trophy to show off to get attention and praise from others. Didn't Rand comment on that?

I think making "all yours" should be something subtle and sometimes unspoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how "slut" is any different from "fag" or the "n" word. Each of these terms categorically dismisses (and demeans) individuals in terms of their race, gender... or some other unchosen collective. As such, none of these words are appropriate in any context.

Edited by Tabitha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how "slut" is any different from "fag" or the "n" word.
That comparison probably holds true, if one is considering the real meaning of the word "slut". So, if the man is using the term in the sense of "you who sleep with anyone at the drop of the hat", or the woman is understanding it that way, then it would be similar to calling one's lover a nigger or a fag, while meaning them in a typically negative way. However, in the context of sex, the only important question is what the word (and not just the word but everything else in the context) means to the two people involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how "slut" is any different from "fag" or the "n" word. Each of these terms categorically dismisses (and demeans) individuals in terms of their race, gender... or some other unchosen collective. As such, none of these words are appropriate in any context.

The same concept of "different meanings in different context" applies to both of those words. I already talked about this in chat one night. Perhaps i'll start a new thread about it? But for how it's relevant here, say, the word "fag" ... it can be used to degrade gay people. But what if you refer to a straight guy as a fag? What does that mean? Because, it has different meanings for different people and different places. I know that's being subjective, but it's true that people see it differently.

I called guys "fags" who are the type of guy who would hate being called a fag. Like the Christian bigot who acts all meterosexual. I call him a fag because he does things associated with being gay but that the same time, blasting and damning gay people. I call him a fag because that's what he hates to be called. But that doesn't mean I don't like gay people, and some gay people even call each other fags. Black people call each other and everyone esle niggers all the time. Hell, the other day at work I was called "white nigger" ....? ;)

With the word slut, I have two different concepts that depend on the context. That's just me though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...