Talking Dirty to a Lover

[KendallJ]

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.

hmmm. Again, this is what i said above. You are essentially redefining the word to mean what you want it to mean. However, even in the "modern" vernacular, it still means someone who is sexually promiscuous, not sexually open. If you and your partner want it to mean something else, great, go for it. But there is some connotation you're bringing in right? otherwise you'd made up a word, and call her you "googledorfen" or something.

I don't think the rational/irrational distinction is anything like the term selfish. It's just a sloppy concept that you have to put a modifier on to clean up its understanding. I understand where you're coming from, however, I think epistemologically it's just sloppy. I'm just of the camp that words have meanings, and why select a word that doesn't say exactly what you want it to say simply becuase it happens to be popular today, when you could select from many that convey both the strength of emotion and the proper connotation that you want them too.

English is an incredibly powerful language in that it has a huge vocabulary with subtle shades of meaning. A little time spent would give you paths that are much closer to what you actually mean, than simply grabbing something "off the street".

Edited August 14, 2007 by KendallJ

[Mammon]

hmmm. Again, this is what i said above. You are essentially redefining the word to mean what you want it to mean. However, even in the "modern" vernacular, it still means someone who is sexually promiscuous, not sexually open. If you and your partner want it to mean something else, great, go for it. But there is some connotation you're bringing in right? otherwise you'd made up a word, and call her you "googledorfen" or something.

Because I don't even know how I got into this. I was really trying to say "Well, maybe there are times when the word can be used in a better manner?" and then got wrapped up in defending something I'm not too keen on. I'm not even for sure I'd do it unless she wanted me too, or it was just like a "thing" between us. You never know what kind of crazy stuff couples do.

I don't think the rational/irrational distinction is anything like the term selfish. It's just a sloppy concept that you have to put a modifier on to clean up its understanding. I understand where you're coming from, however, I think epistemologically it's just sloppy. I'm just of the camp that words have meanings, and why select a word that doesn't say exactly what you want it to say simply becuase it happens to be popular today, when you could select from many that convey both the strength of emotion and the proper connotation that you want them too.

I see Objectivists talk about irrational/rational selfishness all the time. I guess that's where I picked it up from. But, I'm in the same camp that "words have meanings" but I think meanings do change over time and space. Words have meaning, yes, but some words are more solid in their meaning then others? I guess some concepts are still being hardened?

[eudaemonist]

Because girls "acting slutty" 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

This only makes sense if you buy into Christian morality. A woman outwardly expressing her sexuality for a special person is a wonderful, powerful, amazing thing-- I have nothing to be ashamed of, so why force shameful words on me? There's just no need.

If you enjoy giving or receiving abuse, on some level there's no way around the fact that you lack respect for yourself. Why not choose a partner you don't have to devalue and who doesn't devalue you? People with self esteem problems seriously need to fix themselves before going around inflicting their hang-ups on everyone else.

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.

Yeah, well talking it up like "you're my slut" is just as creepy only worse--because you're evading the fact that you really want to be attached, but don't have the emotional guts to come right out and say so. Emotional distancing by symbolic devaluation, anyone? If she means the world to you, tell her--attachment doesn't have to be scary or creepy. Don't be afraid to express your highest values with positive, life-affirming words. Once again, "words have meaning."

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.

Yep, that's pathetic. He doesn't really care about her, it's all about what she says about him...she's basically just another interchangeable luxury good. If these guys had a firm grasp of their own worth, they wouldn't need to look to anyone else to get it.

[KendallJ]

Because I don't even know how I got into this. I was really trying to say "Well, maybe there are times when the word can be used in a better manner?" and then got wrapped up in defending something I'm not too keen on. I'm not even for sure I'd do it unless she wanted me too, or it was just like a "thing" between us. You never know what kind of crazy stuff couples do.

Hey, that's ok. I wasn't actually saying that it couldn't be used that way. Only that it's a pretty special case of conditions where it would be proper and would mostly amount to a redefinition of the term, and a clear ability to keep connotations that the term already has out of it. I think most people defend it because they already use it and need a justification, not because they've done the work to think it through. I realize you're not in any of those groups.

I'm reminded of the scene in act 1 of Cyrano de Bergerac where someone insults him by telling him his nose is "large", and he responds by saying "Mon dieu! Why waste your opportunity?" and proceeds to give him 13 or 14 vibrant, witty insults that once you see them make the firsts attempt simply pale. That's sort of how I feel about defending the use of demeaning terms. One has to work awfully hard to defend something that is in and of itself, somewhat lifeless in its best, few contexts, and which risks being downright vulgar in all others, when a little imagination saves one from ever having to defend it at all.

I hopped onto a web thesaurus just to see if I could find images and words that give a tone of sexual openness or prowess without being demeaning. Frankly, I think I'd rather think of someone as "dangerously seductive" or "devastatingly attractive" rather than my "whore". Don't you think?

Main Entry: flirtPart of Speech: nounDefinition: teaseSynonyms: coquette, cruiser*, gold digger, heartbreaker, operator*, philanderer, player, seducer, siren, swinger, tease, trap, trifler, vamp, vixen, wanton, wolf*, wolverine

Main Entry: femme fatalePart of Speech: nounDefinition: dangerously seductive womanSynonyms: coquette, courtesan, deadly lady, deadly woman, enchantress, flirt, seductress, siren, temptress, vamp

Main Entry: beautyPart of Speech: noun 2Definition: charmerSynonyms: Venus*, beaut*, belle, charmer, dream, enchantress, eyeful*, femme fatale, goddess, good-looker*, knockout, looker*, lovely, ornament*, seductress, siren, stunner*, vision

I also looked up "submit" just to see the tone of various lines of words. I prefer the line of connotation that means more to comply, than to bear. I think of a "whore" as someone who tolerates, suffers, or endures sex. I don't want to think about a woman that way. Not saying I think all the ones under comply are ways I woudl want to think about her, but I am kind of partial to where "indulge" is leading me.

Main Entry: acceptPart of Speech: verb 4Definition: bearSynonyms: acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, assent, bear, bear with, bow, capitulate, defer to, endure, fit in, live with, recognize, respect, stand, stand for, stomach, submit to, suffer, swallow*, take, tolerate, yield toAntonyms: demur, disallow, reject

Notes: accept is 'take or agree to' and except means 'exclude, leave out'Main Entry: submitPart of Speech: verb 1Definition: complySynonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, be submissive, bend, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, cry uncle, defer, eat crow*, eat dirt, endure, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, obey, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle*, stoop, succumb, surrender, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield

Edited August 14, 2007 by KendallJ

[dan_edge]

Greetings all,

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling one's lover a "slut" or "whore" in bed, provided both partners are into that sort of thing. Some perfectly psychologically healthy women are very turned on by this kind of pillow talk. If it floats your boat, you're having mind-blowing sex, and there are no negative psychological consequences, then there is no problem. Based on my personal experience and introspection, I have never for one second doubted whether or not this kind of dirty talk is a healthy practice.

It may be a generational thing based on cultural elements, or a kind of role-playing, or something else -- I'm not exactly sure. I propose some experimentation. For experiment #1: When making love, just as you hit orgasm, try shouting, "I love you!" For experiment #2: In the same situation, say, "You dirty f*cking slut!" See which one works better for you and for your partner. Some people may prefer the former, some the latter, some both, some neither. Both are OK in my book, but the latter is preferable for me and my woman.

Months ago, I offered one explanation for why dirty talk is pleasurable. The same explanation could apply to "slut" and "whore":

""Dirty talk" is characterized by what would normally be considered vulgar language. In every day use, words like f*ck and sh*t are often use to express intensity. The "dirtier" the word, the more likely it is used to express greater intensity. That's the way it is for me, at least. So, when I use those words during sex to dictate to my lover what I'm about to do to her, it communicates the highest degree of intensity.

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.)."

--------------

By the way, Part 5 of The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality is now up.

--Dan Edge

[K-Mac]

Hell, the other day at work I was called "white nigger" ....?

Only in Louisiana!

[eudaemonist]

It may be a generational thing based on cultural elements, or a kind of role-playing, or something else -- I'm not exactly sure.

The heart of the matter is this: on some level, you're still buying into the Christian notion that sex is bad and dirty. It's hot because it's forbidden and you still have a guilty conscience. In what sense is a taste for degradation not a self-esteem issue? You show me a woman who likes to be called a dirty fucking slut and I'll show you a woman who has anxiety over whether or not she really is a dirty fucking slut for daring to enjoy herself and express her sexuality.

One of the pioneering psychiatrists in the psychology of sadism and masochism, Wilhelm Steckel, put it like ths:

"All sadomasochists are affect-hungry individuals. Our patients are all incapable of love and consumed with the desire for it. They then transfer this condition to the entire world about them. They feel themselves cheated of their happiness and allay their pain in the pleasure of the wrong they do themselves and others. The compulsion of the external world creates an inner compulsion. Every pressure produces a counterpressure. So long as this world is sick, there will be sick people. Every step which we take toward freedom, inner and outer freedom, reduces the number of parapathics."

[dan_edge]

Hi Eudaemonist,

I don't think it's an issue of degradation, nor do I think it's true that "a woman who likes to be called a dirty fucking slut [is] a woman who has anxiety over whether or not she really is a dirty fucking slut for daring to enjoy herself and express her sexuality."

I've only been with one woman who was uncomfortable with dirty talk, and she happened to be the only one who had "anxiety over whether or not she really is a dirty fucking slut." She (correctly) thought this anxiety was rooted in her Christian upbringing. So we worked on it and slowly started integrating dirty talk into our sex life. The more we got into, the better our sex life became. The more she overcame the anxiety, the more she enjoyed dirty talk.

By contrast, the Objectivists I've been with were much more into dirty talk from the very beginning. You Objectivist chicks are a bunch of super-freaks!

As has been noted before in this thread, I don't think this is an issue of degradation, but of domination. Many strong-willed, rational women love to be dominated. Terms like "slut" and "whore" are expletives like "fuck," and are often used during sex for the same reason as other expletives: to express intensity. A word like "slut" is an expletive that can be used to describe an easy woman who will totally submit to anything you want her to do. Same thing with "whore." I think it's an understandable connection that people make between these terms and intense expressions of dominance. Like I say, I've never questioned it, because 100% of my personal experience leads me to the conclusion that there's no problem with it.

Contrary to your statement, Eudaemonist, I've found that if you show me a woman who is uncomfortable with dirty talk, then I'll show you a woman who is uncomfortable with rough sex, is not open to much experimentation, and is not willing fully to submit to a man. Please don't take offense, I am absolutely not accusing you of being this way, only that it's a general rule I've found to be true in my experience.

--Dan Edge

[Tenure]

Can I pitch in here, having experience in the whole Sadomasochism element of sexual experiences? It's not about degrading your partner or being degraded. That's never, ever entered into it. There is something incredibly exciting, and there are psychological and physiological reasons behind it all, but I can assure you, to the best of my self-understanding, that it isn't a matter of self-deprecation or deprecation of one's partner.

For me, and it might just be a personal thing and not a universal truth, it's all about trust. There's the whole endorphins related business, but a lot of it is to do with trust, and understanding. It's your partner showing they really understand how to push your buttons, and that you trust them to do it right. You trust them to excite you through dirty talk and to not just call you slut in general conversation, and you trust them to inflict the right level of pain in the right way and at the right times - not to just go around hitting you things when you're watching a film.

Perhaps there's a confusion between what Francisco says about sex here. He says he can judge a man based off the kind of woman he chooses for himself and how he attains her. That's what he says the evaluation can be based on. Their actual sexual encounters are private, personal things though.

He says nothing of whether french ticklers or leather catsuits suggest something about a deep pscyhological or philosophical issues. That's a matter for someone to decide personally, and if they are unhappy, then there's obviously something to investigate, for themselves. If not, then there's not a problem.

[KendallJ]

We seem to be talking past one another here. I haven't said absolutely that there can't be senarios where mild dirty talk can be a valid expression (not my taste, but someone's no doubt). That said tho, it's not entirely a subjective thing right? That is, one can't say simply that if my buttons "get pushed" by having someone degrade me, that that simply makes it ok. Or that I'm "into" bondage, that that makes it ok.

The question that arises is what causes you to be "into" such things, and to have your "buttons" pushed by them. I think this is exactly why Locke/Kenner only advocated mild forms of this type of stuff. Because the other stuff, regardless of whether you're "into" it or not carries with it more than likely some indication of psychological issues? Look, if someone tells me he is "into" cutting himself, I'm going to tell him he should see a shrink. If this is a valid judgement, then are there similar ones you can make about sexual practice.

Are there acts that in and of themselves carry with them the indication of psychological issues? That's what were really into here. Where is that line in the grey area? Does act, per se, demarcate it?

Dan, your example of someone who is not open and also not a "dirty talker" seems to be based upon little data, so I'm not sure if that is a fair generalization either. The real distinction or question to me is can you draw any distinction between groups of people who are all quite open wrt sex, and one group talks dirty and the other doesn't...

Edited August 14, 2007 by KendallJ

[dan_edge]

Kendall,

I was replying more to Eudaemonist's posts. That said, I acknowledge that you both have good points, and no, I do not think the issue is totally subjective. You ask a good question: whether or not there are "acts that in and of themselves carry with them the indication of psychological issues." Clearly, the answer is "yes," but what is the line, and "does [the] act, per se, demarcate it?" I believe the answer to this latter question is "no." Certain acts may be indicative of psychological issues, but there is not necessarily a direct causal relationship. For instance, one person's dirty talk may be motivated by a psychological dysfunction; for another it may be healthy sexual exploration. One woman may desire rough sex because she feels she deserves rough treatment; another may desire it because she loves the intensity.

You are right that I don't have enough information about people who eschew dirty talk in order to form a generalization, but I do have enough information about those who enjoy it. Most psychologically healthy people I know (who I know well enough to have this kind of discussion with) have at least experimented with some form of dirty talk or role-playing that could be viewed as "demeaning" by the some of the standards being suggested here. On the contrary, I have never even heard of a rational person who said something like: "I used to love being called a 'slut' in bed, but now I realize that this was a result of my poor self-esteem."

Let's poll the audience in here.

How many men are turned on by calling their lover a "dirty slut" (or something similar) in bed, and how many women enjoy being called such in the heat of passion?

*raises hand*

How bout you, Kendall?

You know you like it, you slut.

--Dan Edge

Edited August 14, 2007 by dan_edge

[stellavision]

Let's poll the audience in here.

How many men are turned on by calling their lover a "dirty slut" (or something similar) in bed, and how many women enjoy being called such in the heat of passion?

My man doesn't actually use the word "slut," but I will say that I like it when he uses language that lets me know he's in control. And that's as much as I'm going to say about that

[Tenure]

The question that arises is what causes you to be "into" such things, and to have your "buttons" pushed by them. I think this is exactly why Locke/Kenner only advocated mild forms of this type of stuff. Because the other stuff, regardless of whether you're "into" it or not carries with it more than likely some indication of psychological issues? Look, if someone tells me he is "into" cutting himself, I'm going to tell him he should see a shrink. If this is a valid judgement, then are there similar ones you can make about sexual practice.

Self mutilation is not a case of making yourself happy by cutting. When someone does it, they aren't doing it to gain any sort of value, but to physically destroy themselves as a value. For truely masochistic people, it's a case of adrenalin, but cutting is usally a case of clinical or manic depression.

It becomes an issue when the benefits of doing something, if it is self-mutilation in this instance then that'd be the endorphins, are weighed out by the risks, such as scarring, blood loss and infection. In the case of two lovers talking dirty, it can only become an issue when the dirty talk is actually assimilated as meaning that the person truely is a dirty whore, and it isn't just part of a fantasy.

[K-Mac]

Let's poll the audience in here.

How many men are turned on by calling their lover a "dirty slut" (or something similar) in bed, and how many women enjoy being called such in the heat of passion?

It would get me going. Of course, I know that I'm no dirty slut in real life, so I would accept it as a role playing invitation.

On a lighter note, all of this is reminding me of that episode of Seinfeld where his girlfriend is dirty talking about per panties and Seinfeld's response is, "you mean the the Panties your mother laid out for you?" Just so we're clear, THAT type of comment would NOT get me going.

[KendallJ]

Let's poll the audience in here.

How many men are turned on by calling their lover a "dirty slut" (or something similar) in bed, and how many women enjoy being called such in the heat of passion?

*raises hand*

How bout you, Kendall?

You know you like it, you slut.

Ah Dan, I like you. You're provocative.

I think we see pretty much eye to eye.

If I differentiate what you've called "dirty language as explatives" and "other dirty language", into which I would lump words that are demeaning in connotation (such as "slut" or "whore"). I'll buy into the first. I've used the first! I've even liked the first. But sorry, never the 2nd, and I've been asked to before. Couldn't do it - that's just me.

Now, I'm not saying that the contexts you've described (mutual "into", no psychological issues, etc.) don't make it ok, but I'm also not saying as some have implied that the eschewing of such makes one repressed or less than "fun".

If someone made the case that you couldn't be open about sex and not use those words, well then I'd take issue. But the variations are a zillion-fold and I'm just one of those people to whom the word means something particular which I can easily get around and still enjoy myself without using.

[~Sophia~]

How many men are turned on by calling their lover a "dirty slut" (or something similar) in bed, and how many women enjoy being called such in the heat of passion?

I enjoy some mild dirty talk but nothing like what you describe (the first but not the second).

I don't need to experience degradation in order to submit psychologically and physically, to be fully sexually uninhibited, instead, for me, it is a natural sexual state of being. In order words, since I don't consider such behavior dirty both on a conscious conceptual level and in my subconscious - I don't need to allow myself to feel dirty or be called a dirty whore in order to experience lack of inhibition. There is no barrier that I have to get myself through.

Strength, physical domination, possesion, and sexual confidence or boldness can be easily expressed/communicated without the verbal slurs - I assure you. I find that using such words makes it less.

I would not go as far as saying that doing so is unheathy - it is just not my cup of tea.

Edited August 14, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[eudaemonist]

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing degrading about rough, intense, explosive sex and strong language per se. If I know my partner loves it for me to beg to eat his cum and scream "fuck me harder!!!", I'll definitely do it because it makes me excited to see him so excited. That's not what I'm objecting to. My point is there are literally thousands of ways to express your sexuality in a healthy way without using culturally loaded words that are bound up with bad premises.

There's got to be a point at which ugly words start to regain their original meaning for you and domination is clearly degradation-- where do you draw the line? For instance, if your Jewish partner asked you to play concentration camp, would you do it?

[Moebius]

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing degrading about rough, intense, explosive sex and strong language per se. If I know my partner loves it for me to beg to eat his cum and scream "fuck me harder!!!", I'll definitely do it because it makes me excited to see him so excited. That's not what I'm objecting to. My point is there are literally thousands of ways to express your sexuality in a healthy way without using culturally loaded words that are bound up with bad premises.

There's got to be a point at which ugly words start to regain their original meaning for you and domination is clearly degradation-- where do you draw the line? For instance, if your Jewish partner asked you to play concentration camp, would you do it?

I don't think calling your partner derogatory names in bed (consensually) is degrading at all. It is in fact just role play, a release mechanism. When I call a woman a slut during sex, it is generally fairly clear that I do not think that she actually is a slut. It's just playful.

Now, it's probably true that sometimes the words regain their original meaning, at least in the heat of the moment. But that's just an emotional response, and not a rational one. I think it's actually very healthy to have this kind of release, in a controlled environment, with someone you love. Sort of like how beating the shit out of a punching bag while you're angry is a healthy way to release feelings of violence and aggression. Man is a rational animal, but also an emotional one. Finding a harmless psychological outlet is far better than holding it in. Of course if neither you nor your partner have such impulses, this is a non-issue.

So yeah, if my Jewish partner really wanted to play concentration camp, sure, I'd do it -- as long as it does not cause physical harm and does not bleed over into real life. There is no definitive answer on where to draw the line that applies to everybody. Use your head to figure it out.

[~Sophia~]

Sort of like how beating the shit out of a punching bag while you're angry is a healthy way to release feelings of violence and aggression. Man is a rational animal, but also an emotional one. Finding a harmless psychological outlet is far better than holding it in.

[eudaemonist]

No kidding.

It's all "real life", and there is a bright line that applies to everyone: if you need to degrade someone and turn them into your own personal emotional punching bag to feel better about yourself, you have a self-esteem problem. What in the hell kind of sick, twisted sense of life would you have to even consider playing concentration camp? That's as nihilistic as it gets. Ideas have consequences...as Rand said, "a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the [person] he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

Looks like Rand made my EXACT point herself:

"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of [person] he can find, the [person] he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut."

There you have it.

Edited August 15, 2007 by eudaemonist

[Moebius]

It's all "real life", and there is a bright line that applies to everyone: if you need to degrade someone and turn them into your own personal emotional punching bag to feel better about yourself, you have a self-esteem problem. What in the hell kind of sick, twisted sense of life would you have to even consider playing concentration camp? That's as nihilistic as it gets. Ideas have consequences...as Rand said, "a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the [person] he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

I don't personally find concentration camp sexually attractive. But given the values I look for in a mate, if she for some reason is, I am sure there would be a good reason. If I truly love her, yes, I would indulge her. The very fact that I love her in the first place would mean that she has already proven to me that she possesses all the positive values that I seek (including, of course, a high self-esteem), and I would not need to second guess myself about her character because she has a concentration camp fetish. The same goes with rape fantasies, prison fantasies, or any other type of S&M-ish fantasies. They are just that -- fantasies. I personally think that most fantasies of this sort are just plays on power themes, between that of a dominant one and a submissive one.

Of course, the question is whether or not a person with a high self-esteem is necessarily incompatible with a desire to play concentration camp. I don't know, because I have never had first hand experience with one. But I wouldn't say that a person like that does not exist. The bottom line is the fact that I am willing to have sex with the person in the first place means she has met the fundamental values I seek.

"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of [person] he can find, the [person] he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut."

This statement, while absolutely correct, does not make your point at all. That is, unless you have trouble understanding that there is a difference between playing a slut in bed with someone you love, and actually actually living your life as a brainless slut.

[Mammon]

This only makes sense if you buy into Christian morality. A woman outwardly expressing her sexuality for a special person is a wonderful, powerful, amazing thing-- I have nothing to be ashamed of, so why force shameful words on me? There's just no need.

First off, I want to clarify I still have mixed bagged on the word "slut", a friend asked me what would be the sign of that I found my dream girl... I told him she would find the word "slut" offensive in some degree. But I really dont find that, most people seem to not have a problem with it. So, I'm kind of reevaluting my position on it. I only said the things in my previous posts for examples on "dirty talk" or whatever.

But, to kind of play devils advocate, you said you have nothing to be ashamed of, so wouldn't you be immune to these shameful words. When people call me selfish, i'm not ashamed but it, even though that's there intended affect.

If you enjoy giving or receiving abuse, on some level there's no way around the fact that you lack respect for yourself. Why not choose a partner you don't have to devalue and who doesn't devalue you? People with self esteem problems seriously need to fix themselves before going around inflicting their hang-ups on everyone else.

I don't enjoy giving abuse, if you're implying that. I guess what i'm saying is that, what if both parties don't see it as abusive or being devalued? What then? Yeah, i'd love to choose a partner I don't have to devalue but, sometimes, that seems impossible. Not everyone is as good as you are in the self-esteem and brains department eudaemonist.

But, do you think everyone will be able to work out their own self-esteem issues all the time? What if their self-esteem issues have to do with the fact that all they get is rejection all the time?

I think I have a pretty good level of self-esteem but, I have "hang-ups." I have a facial birth defect and I've never been called good-looking or handsome ever in my entire life, beside my mother but I don't think that counts in the romantic sphere . It does become an issue but, not something I have to beat down women for, you know? Being devalued isn't the way to solve it, in fact I really want to be valued for once. It'd be great. Self-esteem issues don't always lead to having to hurt oneself or others.

Yeah, well talking it up like "you're my slut" is just as creepy only worse--because you're evading the fact that you really want to be attached, but don't have the emotional guts to come right out and say so. Emotional distancing by symbolic devaluation, anyone? If she means the world to you, tell her--attachment doesn't have to be scary or creepy. Don't be afraid to express your highest values with positive, life-affirming words. Once again, "words have meaning."

*grinds hear into desk*

I know words have meanings. They MEAN things. They MEAN things to PEOPLE. Some give a shit about what it means, others don't. That's my entire point.

Actually, I've observed that large quantities of the female section of humanity seem to approve of being called "my slut" as opposed to "my treasure" ... But that's just me. It doesn't mean I'd rather call her a slut. I think the woman can be the one avoiding the attachment here too. Call a girl "you're treasure" and it means you possesive; call a girl a "slut" and you're like HHHAAAAWWWWTTTTT.

While we are talking about the word. Have you noticed how girls call guys "pimps" "playas" and "hustlers" all the time now? Guy's never seem to take offensive to it, in fact, they call themselves those names for whatever reason.

Yep, that's pathetic. He doesn't really care about her, it's all about what she says about him...she's basically just another interchangeable luxury good. If these guys had a firm grasp of their own worth, they wouldn't need to look to anyone else to get it.

Good. Because my dream girl is dating a guy who said exactly that. He called me a loser a too when I told her she needs to stop hanging out with peices of shit (not even refering to her boyfriend, yet, at all). But, he is a piece of shit and he's good at covering it up so she doesn't see it.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing degrading about rough, intense, explosive sex and strong language per se. If I know my partner loves it for me to beg to eat his cum and scream "fuck me harder!!!", I'll definitely do it because it makes me excited to see him so excited. That's not what I'm objecting to. My point is there are literally thousands of ways to express your sexuality in a healthy way without using culturally loaded words that are bound up with bad premises.

[Moebius]

Well I mean, you could replace beating on a punching bag with running, sparring, playing sports, drawing, playing music, or whatever. Punching bag just seemed like the most direct example.

[dan_edge]

Just so you all don't think I'm completely nuts, I would never play "concentration camp" with my little Jewish love. In fact, I won't even mention this discussion to her, because I'm pretty sure she would be offended and upset by it.

--Dan Edge

[JMeganSnow]

I can add an actual poll to this topic if you'd like.

As for myself: the *words* don't bother me. I like words, even *nasty* ones: they serve their purpose quite well. What gets me is *context*.

If I go out to the store and get a shirt that's lower-cut than usual, then show it off to my guy, I might cheerfully tease him about how he'd better watch out because I'm l'm lookin' like a hot mama today and his friends will be all over me. If he then says (jokingly) something like "you're such a slut" it will make me laugh.

If I'm wearing a suit and heading out to give a business presentation and he says the same thing, that's *completely different*.

I suspect that to some people it's all the same, but I never act that way: I take each aspect of my life somewhat separately and I devote almost an entire persona to it, which is one of the reasons I get along better with people that can also switch operational modes in the same way.