Talk:Slut

Definitons

A slut is lykk also know as a DAMPER!! haha lykk HAMILL :L :L :L :* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethduffy2010 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To act as a drudge. Also, to behave like a slovenly woman or a woman of loose morals. e.g.Nor was she a Woman of any Beauty, but was a nasty Slut. a1763 SHENSTONE Odes Wks. (1765) 190 She's ugly, she's old,..And a slut, and a scold. a. A woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade. the cad, rake :: gentlemen and slut::lady is my identification Mrdthree 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one gives a s*** about your fascism or misguided opinion here. This page is to debate factual accuracy, not to boast that you grew up in the bible belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to male synonyms, slut bears similarity to the male pejoratives, 'cad' and 'womanizer' rather than ' stud'. Hence in analogic terms, slut is to lady as a cad is to gentleman. 'Slut', like 'cad' and 'womanizer' is a pejorative term and identifies a person who lacks, either by willfull disregard or constitution and circumstance, a certain degree of discermnent in their actions and relations. In contrast, the word stud is not offensive, carries connotations of merit, and usually denotes the ability, in terms of virility and masculinity, to gain (or keep) the most desirable women. It definitely does not imply a lack of discernment and has a usage and derivation not related to promiscuity.Mrdthree 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added to the alternative definitions. We all have to remember that the word had valid past historical usage, which is largely referenced in the http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Slut entry, but is a word that is currently undergoing change. The common usage in American society (don't know about other places) is one of someone taking pride in their sexual freedom, rather than as a slur. It is also, therefore a word, not slang, as there is no other word for that. --Atom 13:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not complicate things. I see people do this all the time. It's just not necessary. This is an encyclopedia, so the priority is it's definition, not its connotations, which can be left to the end. Slut means a sexually promiscuous woman. End of story. It is being chronically misused, yes, but that doesn't change its meaning. Slut is not an insult, even if it is being used as such. Compare to "Bastard", which is not an insult either, but a genuine phenomenon, the word for which has been misused by the masses to be insulting. None the less, in the definition of Bastard, one would want to read what it actually means, not what it connotes, which can be discerned easily.

I agree with the above poster. The definition of slut is all that is necessary, not how people use it. It means someone who is sexually promiscuous. Whether that is a good or bad thing isn't for Wikipedia to decide. So, I suggest that the word "pejorative" be removed from the definition and also that the sentence "it may also be used as an expression of pride in one's status, or to express envy at the sexual successes of others" is removed. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to speculate on why people use the terms they do. Shinigami27 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So. I originally went to this page to request that this article be added to. A sexually promiscuous woman is, I'm sure I do not need to say, an extremely valuable person in today's sexually oppressive society. Therefor, how to spot one, examples, psychological factors/motivations that make someone a slut, commonalities, typical behavior, links to slut communities, and so on, would be good to cover given that this is an encyclopedia definition of the word "slut". It's good that there is an article on it, now lets cover the subject. 87.254.81.209 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Smart idea. [[1]]. But craigslist isnt something you can cite.Mrdthree (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

A SLUT is also know as a DAMPER lykk jesus.. ermm HAMILL :L :L :L :* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethduffy2010 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moar Rule 34's remark is unremarkably glib but his/her puerile comment shouldn't distract readers from the fact that language is not static. Indisputable evidence that the word slut has evolved, in a particular place with homogeneous Anglo-Irish linguistic traditions, to mean something that is entirely consistent with Elizabethan era (or earlier) usage should trigger critical inquiry into the etymology of the term.

The fact that Wikipedia has blocked public opportunity for further contribution to this topic (and presumably other topics) suggests that the Wiki concept, in the hands of current Wikipedia managers, lacks intellectual integrity and honesty. Further to that, it could also suggest that (without a democratic (Wiki) constitution) communist ideology is the lowest common denominator.

I encourage Wikipedia Inc. not to block empirical evidence of historical or contemporary knowledge. Remember that in the mid 196os Mao Tse Tung, China's "Great Helmsman" closed colleges and universities to control public opinion and social/historcial understanding.

Wikipedia now equals Mao Tse Tung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.156.178 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

a strip of cloth or rag, from Roman times. See slut lamp in this page http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/firefromsteel/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.11.208 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kettles

Although it is now rarely used with this meaning, the word slut at one time referred to a kettle in Newfoundland. The Dictionary of Newfoundland English, 2nd Edition, Eds. G.M. Story, W.J. Kirwin, and J.D.A. Widdowson, University of Toronto Press (1999) defines it as follows:

slut n

1 A tin kettle, often one with a large flat bottom and tapering to the top, used to boil water on an open fire; cp PlPER, SMUT.

1924 ENGLAND 11 Some were drawing water at an icicled faucet near the cropping shed, bringing 'sluts' (kettles) aboard, and brewing tea. 1937 DEVINE 46 ~ A large tin teakettle. P 102-60 Everybody would line up 3 times a day for salt meat, potatoes and figgy duff or saltfish and brewis and a slut full of boiled tea, no milk but good old Barbados molasses, no sugar. P 54-67 A hotwater kettle, of the familiar type locally made by tinsmiths and much used on outdoor picnics, hunting trips etc, is called a slut—especially the very large sort, holding about 4 gallons and made of sheet copper, used on board the old sealing steamers, being always kept full of boiling water on the galley stove, whence sealers would take small kettlesful to take to their bunks and brew tea with. 1973 MOWAT 69 Twice a week ... we got duff, made out of condemned flour put into bags and boiled in a slut—a big kettle—with a bit of salt pork.

2 Attrib slut kettle: see sense 1 above.

T 181-65 An 'we had a large kettle [that was shaped] up like that. They used to call 'em the slut kettle.

slut tea: strong tea brewed in the kettle in which the water is boiled.

P 145-74 There was nothing on the table but bread, molasses and slut tea.

MJMK (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, can someone removes the pic ? Because someone's complaining http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/18/t900437-desperately-need-someone-with-wikipedia-account/

Lazzara 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) before anyone freaks out about the gay reference, i'm gay, and i hear it all the time... --JonMoore 10:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re possible move to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Slut (which already exists, btw) whilst such a move makes sense for pages which have no content above a basic DicDef, the current page certainly does - indeed it has multiple usages and many cross-links. I'm removing the flag and will do some re-write also. --Vamp:Willow 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The anon IP which keeps adding a line about a word that supposedly also means slut, the word is actually a person's name (quite easy to prove). As they are rotating through different IPs though they can't easily be blocked. They are getting annoying though! -Vamp:Willow 22:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted this once. Hopefully they will give up.---[jon] 23:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Had to revert from vandalism again. Wish the kiddies would find something else to do -- can't you go steal hubcaps or rob old ladies, like normal kids?StrangeAttractor 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the last part about "Gangsta Rap" and "Internet Porn" circles really necessary?

I read it, and it seems to really deride the credibility of article overall. Perhaps you could do without it, but I'm not gonna edit it until I get an OK from some other users.

Slut isn't a slang term, so someone sould remove that pharse and simply say "is a term used to refer to a person with multiple parterns." I know because I checked all four dictionaries I have and none list it as slang.--HistoricalPisces 18:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- "slut" is not slang. It is a slur, but it is still standard English. I removed the link to slang. StrangeAttractor 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?--HistoricalPisces 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I also wonder if we should cite some tangible examples of individuals who embody the personification of the word? I nominate one " Matthew Burke" as a paramount figure in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.245.16 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC) most chicks got a price and so are in my eyes" sluts" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.150.119 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

'Principally By Women'? Bullshit.

I request that the bit in brackets that says slut is used "principally by women" be deleted. It seems a little biased; the person who added that part has obviously never been to a high school, a pub, or even listened to groups of men in conversation. Men and boys frequently call women "sluts"; both sexes do. It is not "principally women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.229.150 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a couple of sentences that were made by what looks like a vandal.

Condensed and overhauled article

I took the liberty of condensing several redundant passages, and reordering the article into three sections -- Overview, Etymology, and Alternate Usages. The article still needs work (some of my edits are still cludgy), but I think it's in better shape for editing now. I also put one citation in for the etymology section. StrangeAttractor 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be protected

I like the article, but the chronic vandalism and now some dummy posted a picture of someone with a speech bubble.Mrdthree 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about edit protection, but it's very frustrating to see that the vandalism is ongoing, and casual visitors are prevented from undoing it. Thatsjustnotcricket (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to List of female porn stars

Putting this in the links section seems a tad judgmental, does it not? I removed it. 74.128.159.12 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, porn stars have reclaimed the word stop being judgmental.Mrdthree 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break... You may like porn stars, and you may consider some of them to be sluts. Some of them may portray sluts in some form or another. But, they are doing what they do to make money, not to make a statement about their sexual freedom. Putting a link to porn stars doesn't seem to me to enhance the value of the article, or give anyone a better idea of what the various definitions mean. Atom 00:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting a link to porn stars on this article would mean Wiki is taking a POV stance, which can not be done. However, a slut is a girl who has lots of sex, usually with many partners, which is what porn stars do, nor are they considered socially acceptable. Malamockq 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be female to be a slut. Also, having many partners really isn't a criteria. I would not support this article being a link repository for porn stars. I'm sure that most porn starts are not sluts, they are paid actresses. Likely there are some porn stars that are sluts. Butm being a slut is an annoucnement of your sexual freedom; That society and religion don't have the right to tell you who you may be intimate with. Atom 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As with many things of this nature, the definition of "slut" is what the person who uses it intends it to be. There is no strict definition. A girl could have sex only once, or do as little as wear a short dress, but be a slut in someone's eyes. Malamockq 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All this controversy over a group of sluts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.208.164 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Atom here, slut is a social phenomenon, even an ideology, not an occupation. If you happen to have "a list of sluts" though that might be very handy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Malamockq, this is not a place for subjectivity. This is an encyclopedia. Opinion is entirely irrelevant here. Rationality states that if a girl doesn't sleep around, she is not a slut, never mind who's "eyes she's in". Jesus. I'm sorry, but there are enough problems in the world already. Keep It Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, and Malamockq is right. There is no definition of "slut". A slut is anyone that anyone deems to be one. Malamockq wasn't stating his opinion, he was stating that the word slut is subjected to opinion, which is correct. So if someone deems a pornstar to be a slut, then they are a slut in their eyes. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

different view of slut definition by an editor

user:Citizen Premier has twice removed a key part of the definition because he doesn't agree.

"A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been taken back to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one's personal liberties, and the right to control one's own sexuality."

The purpose of the statement, and the perspective cited from "the ethical slut", is indeed, that some people have a different view of the definition. It is, as the article explains, a term that has been "taken back". Like "queer". There are a number of people (I happen to be one of them, and I know a multitude of people) who would call themselves a "slut". You may feel that it is POV, but the way that an article is NPOV is that it expresses alternate views. This is one alternate view, and IMO an accurate description of the attitude of the people who have taken back the term, and adopt it. I apologize if this seems radical to you, or too much in your face, but it is a reality of life. That is sort of the purpose of taking back a term.

So, other than your view that in your world it is viewed as a negative term (as described in the article "Slut is a pejorative term for a person (usually female) who is more sexually promiscuous than is deemed socially acceptable. The term has traditionally been applied to women and is generally used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement.") What problem do you have with expressing all alternatives, rather than your preferred one?

Please refer to WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, WP:DR and WP:CON Atom 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit hasty to say that the word "slut" has been "taken back." I get what you're saying - there are women (and men) who call themselves sluts, they don't mind or even celebrate the stigma that comes along with it. Well and good. But there are (I am almost certain) many more women who would be highly offended at being called a slut. You may *want* to take the term back, but you can't just declare it "taken" and have that dream come true. Slut is still a highly pejorative word to mainstream culture. People still use it to inflict pain and humiliation, and it still does inflict those things on many people. It's like saying the word "nigger" isn't pejorative because some black people have embraced the word and are trying to reclaim it. Applejuicefool 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fact it has been taken back, and is used as a source of pride, indicates but one perspective, not the definitive one. Just as "queer" has been taken back, and is used by some homosexuals proudly does not suggest that all people feel that way. The other perspective, that some consider it pejorative is still listed here. The key to keeping an article NPOV is to express all POV's, not to try and limit the article to the predominate POV, or to make all words expressed "neutral". You are certainly right that some people would still be offended at being called a "slut". I don;t thin anyone has suggested otherwise. Atom 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it virtually impossible to include all the possible points of view? I mean, everyone reacts to a word or concept differently. Everyone brings a different background to a word. So at what point to you "cut off" including variant reactions? Applejuicefool 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that saying it is often used against gays and bisexuals unmeritedly is appropriate. I don't think this word is used against that entire community as a general slur. Rather it is used against individuals who may merit the slur or not depending on your POV.Stewarpm 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) IAGREE WITH ATOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.180.176 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong word

The redirect at the top that reads:

""For the streetcar formally known as South Lake Union Trolley ""

Should read:

""For the streetcar formerly known as South Lake Union Trolley ""

203.211.99.80 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Bendono 10:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hussy

I disagree with the redirection of 'hussy' to 'slut'. These are not synonyms. 24.210.123.100 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This says that they are synonmys:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hussy

JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

how about this for a definition of Slut?

a girl who gives her body to (almost?) any man, but her heart to no man? Spoilermdc (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So sad but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.219.92 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

Integrating information of "Slut" into the Article Prostitution

After reading both articles, it might be better to integrate relevant information from "Slut" into the category "Prostitution". JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is a bad idea unless the information remains in both articles

As the title suggests. People who look up slut expect to find information about "sluts" on that page. They do not know to check another. Just checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Swedish "slut"

Is it really relevant with an etymology of the unrelated Swedish word "slut"? Seems like that's something that belongs in wiktionary, not wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.208.211 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing that paragraph. Al-gabr (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Could a picture further enhance this article

What would it look like, how would it contribute to this article or is the article good enough proof of what the word really means? This entry is in need of images :) JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While the IP's edit that got reverted as vandalism today was a horribly vulgar personal attack against JasonHockeyGuy, which I deplore, the underlying point of the edit seemed to be that any image accompanying this article would be problematic in the extreme. And I agree with that. Darkspots (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We sluts look just like everyone else -- so I am not sure how a photo would add to the article. Atom (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Let's add File:Standard Wikipedia Editor to the infobox. Darkspots (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I had no clue someone laid out a personal attack against me. I totally ignored that. I can always check the edit logs to see what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If an editor wanted to add a picture of themselves to the article, I see no problem with it, indeed I would support it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A very related external link suggestion

The article is called "why Gisela dosent want to be known as a slut" and I think it should be added to the external links section because frankly, I think that the Wiki slut page looks more like a dictionary and it doesn't explain what makes girls behave like sluts and why they don’t want to be perceived as sluts. The Wiki page also does not provide explanation about the psychology behind the whole thing. This article gives answers to all of these questions. Here’s the address: http://www.attraction-college.com/why-women-dont-want-to-be-perceived-as-sluts.html Do you guys think it’s relevant to the page? If you do, can someone with the ability to add this article to the external links section add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenn1975 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage clean-up

I know that Wikipedia is not censored but it appears some vandals have come to this page to explicitly add a person's name or two or just stir up the pot. Editors need to remember that a talkpage is used to improve the article as per the talkpage talkheader. Extraneous comments should not be allowed.--Morenooso (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure that Bridget Jones's usage is solecism or idiolect

Using "slut" to indicate "slovenly or dirty habits" is not peculiar to Helen Fielding. This is just anecdotal, but 40 years ago my wife's college room mate, who grew up in Maine, USA, called dust balls under the bed "slut's wool". This is hardly surprising, given that the ME meaning had to do with lack physical cleanliness, which was extended later to include lack of sexual purity.

I suggest that the reference to Bridget Jones be removed, or at least rewritten to remove the assertion that Fielding's usage is idiosyncratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logomachon (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to suggest idiolect - remember that the English use colloquial English language differently from Americans. neither Helen Fielding the writer nor Bridget Jones the character is American, only the film actress. In England the connotations of the adjective seem exactly appropriate, without any necessary reference to Chaucer! I have deleted the contrary uncited personal opinion. Jezza (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Slut

Some of this material is vandalised too often. Perhaps more monitoring would help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.55.38 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Meaning

Aside from it means now, "slut" was a nother less "respectuful" term for prostitute not simply "loose" as is implied int he article.(Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

Reduce POV

Under "Alternate usages", the following text appears in the context of describing the term as applied by "The Ethical Slut":

"A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been "taken back" to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one's personal liberties, and the right to control one's own sexuality."

The prolonged length of the description drifts away from simply describing the viewpoint espoused in the book, and is simply stating some author's POV. Especially everything from "The term has been 'taken back'..." onward, which simply reads like a pamphlet. I would recommend editing it down a little and making it clear it's the book that holds that view, like:

"Within this context a slut is someone who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious, social, or traditional societal pressures." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.136.159 (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)