Talk:Slut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bitch - Slut - common link[edit]

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.

Slut bunnies[edit]

The source for slut bunnies talks about it being anecdotal. Doesn't feel like it belongs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnermt6 (talkcontribs) 16:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

'Article' is a pile of shit , a classic dicdef and it needs to be redirected to slut-shaming[edit]

Consensus against merging. SSTflyer 10:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The only significant use of the term "slut" is in slut shaming, and that's why this pile of crap is still start class after 15 years, it isn't even an article.

The scope of the slut-shaming article covers everything encyclopedic that this article is about, and that's why this must redirect to there; it is completely incorrect to have an article on a term when there's already a full article on the underlying topic like this.GliderMaven (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, at least six hundred years of English language disagree with that first statement. Slut shaming is a happening thing, that's a fact, but there's more to "slut" than just that. DICDEF is a very valuable guideline, but much of it depends on which dictionary you use. The OED has a number of fairly interesting angles (including for "sluttish" and "slutty"). Its etymology is, apparently, somewhat in question, which is interesting in its own right, but maybe not here. Anyway, it's worth noting that the article doesn't even cite the main entry in the OED, nor does it cite Leora Tanenbaum's seminal Slut!--which itself can be the link to slut shaming. Slut feminism isn't brought into the matter. Hmm--and [ http://www.jstor.org/stable/450575 Johnson brought it into the dictionary on the authority of Shakespeare]? Anyway, the article isn't very good, but I think that it has some viability. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You have a point about the history of the term, but it's not relevant to the question in hand. Dicdef is a policy not a guideline; you're supposed to nearly always follow it, this article doesn't. If it was some amazing article, you might have a point, but actually it's a pile of crap.
In this article, if it's not only about slut-shaming, then it's on multiple meanings, in which case you need to split those meanings off into different articles. In an encyclopedia you're only allowed here to keep stuff together in one article if it's basically the same, and here it's not.
You can't have an article on the term 'slut', only one meaning of that. But the primary meaning is calling someone a slut, so really it's about slut-shaming, and then it's a content dupe of slut-shaming and the articles need to be merged.
It's dead jim. The article is toast. This article wouldn't zoom if you pumped a million volts through it. You're trying to nail it to its perch and it's not going to work.
It's not about the words, it's about the thing. The thing here is slut shaming. Content dupe.GliderMaven (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a straightforward case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Slut-shaming is a different topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, if that's correct application of that policy, and all the other policies, then why is this article such a steaming pile of shit, and why does it have 100% overlap with a much better referenced article?GliderMaven (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm waiting for an answer, why is this article a duplicate of slut-shaming?GliderMaven (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about the word slut. It's a different subject entirely. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Drmies and Sammy1339 have it right. This is a WP:Notable topic about the word slut. "Slut" is not the same thing as "slut-shaming". And merging the two is such a blatantly political, WP:Activism move. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. And I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "pile of shit". Drmies (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No. The slut-shaming article is not simply on the use of the word 'slut', it's about identifying people as having loose sexual morality. And it's not an activism article, it just documents it.
And should the material here really go into slut-shaming or into slut, or both, or neither? You can argue it different ways, but the point is that this article is completely unnecessary, since slut-shaming can take this whole article- and it doesn't look like 'slut' is going to amount to much. Slut shaming seems to be fairly solid C-class, and could well go FA in the end, there's going to be enough feminist, academic and religious sources to balance it all out. Whereas WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles virtually never do that, they mostly just seem to hit a wall with a bunch of dictionary references, because academic work on single words is extremely thin on the ground.
So it doesn't seem that 'slut' should be maintained as its own article, that seems to be non strategic, simply a waste of editorial effort.GliderMaven (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Who said that the Slut-shaming article is simply about the word slut? Who said that it's an activism article? I said that the Slut article is about the word slut. I said that you merging the Slut and Slut-shaming articles was a blatantly political, WP:Activism move. There is plenty of content about the topic of "slut", and a lot of sources do not identify that content as slut-shaming. That content can go in this article. If any of it gets added to the Slut-shaming article, it is likely only because editors have personally identified the material as slut-shaming, which is likely to be a WP:Synthesis violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin/actual definition[edit]

A mans sex drive. The term slut is commonly known to be put on women. Which is morally wrong and incorrect. It has been feminized. The origin of the term slut is a man's sex drive. FilippinaGerman (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Slut can also be used for men[edit]

Not taking that into account shows how sexist this society is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.164.150 (talkcontribs)

And how does the article not take that into account when it clearly mentions this? Yes, per WP:Due weight, the lead sentence focuses on women. Yes, the article focuses on women. That is because the literature on the topic overwhelmingly does. Slut rarely refers to men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)