"Hi, Slut! How's it Going?"

Today The New York Times reports that "hi, slut!" is the new greeting for young women.

Is this a welcome change, a "reclaiming" of the slur?

Or does it signal that you have to be publicly sexual in order to be socially acceptable?

I bet you already know what I think. 

What do you think?

And here's another one, just to keep you up at night: which do you think is more oppressive, the expectation that a young woman be a "slut," or the expectation that she be "good"?

Comments

[verbify]

"[W]hich do you think is more oppressive, the expectation that a young woman be a 'slut,' or the expectation that she be 'good'?"

I don't think they're in binary opposition. I think most women experience both expectations simultaneously. Making it that much harder to be a teenaged girl (or young woman, for that matter).

[Patrick]

I don't know how common such a phrase is, but I don't hang out with uneducated, self-destructive women.

It makes sense that women feel pressure to be publicly sexual. Why? I'm no expert, but I venture to say that porn has a lot to do with it.

Increasingly, women are exposed to men who have "pornographic expectations." Thus, if women want to be pursued, they have to compete with porn for a man's attention.

[Mary O'Hayes]

Not getting any easier for kids today, is it? They're competing to see who can look the skankiest. Sigh. Very sad!

I found it odd that the author of a book about the growing popularity and acceptance of the term said: “Girls wouldn’t feel the need to do this if we had one sexual standard,” she said. “It’s because we have the double standard that this phenomenon occurs.” Yes we do, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, because it's based on different biologies of men (with their gazillion sperm cells) and women (with their precious few eggs), and a different set of consequences for being promiscuous. Why is that so hard to see? Why do otherwise intelligent women still think that women should ape sleazy guys and sleep around a lot?

As for this double standard, I think that guys that sleep around are cads and creeps. By whose standards are they considered studs? Not mine!

I agree whole-heartedly with the Seventeen magazine editor who points out the our popular culture is sending mixed messages (she called them "complicated") we're sending to our teens, dress like a hotty but be a virgin.

[wendy]

I'm for a single high standard; some people seem to be for a single low one.

[Jen]

I have begun to notice over the past few years that girls unfortunately do seem to have to be publicly sexual to some extent to be acceptable, and I tend to agree that porn has something to do with this-and not just the traditional forms of porn, but the kind we see everyday on magazine stands, billboards, and t.v commercials. Although I'm not really sure to what extent it influences society, and to what extent society influences it...I suppose it's both, and so the emphasis on increased sexual freedom for women by some contemporary feminists probably has something to do with it as well.

As for which expectation is more oppressive, I think that the expectations we have of people carry an implicit message. When we expect little of people, the message is that we do not believe they are capable of many things, and when we expect much of people, the message is that we believe they are capable of anything they set their mind to. I think the low expecations and standards that are set for women-and men too-today are telling them implicitly that they are not worth the time, commitment, and intimacy needed for a serious relationship and aren't capable of self-control, and I think that can be very damaging and limiting. And I have noticed too that girls are given mixed expectations and thus mixed messages, which I can imagine is very difficult and confusing.

As far as the double standard goes, I agree, I'm for a single high standard rather than the single low one that seems to be the norm now. And that double standard never existed in my mind either. Guys who sleep around always seemed callous and insensitive to me-I know that if I were on the receiving end of such treatment, I would be very deeply hurt.

[verbify]

I must admit I'm pretty baffled as to why we think we need *any* standard by which to make judgments about other people's sexual activities. Seems pretty squarely in the "none of my business" category.

[Lucie]

"Hi, slut!" may not really mean much of anything, but be a passing fad or a joke. I'm not sure we should be too worried about it yet. However, I guess we could also say it's just another sign of a coarsening society.

[wendy]

Hi everyone, interesting comments. I am on a tight deadline so I don't have time to respond to everything properly, but Verbify, good question as always. Re: why make judgments at all about people's sexual activities, I have just two words for you:

Tucker Max.

http://www.tuckermax.com/

Important note: if you are one of the gentle 13 or 14-year-old girls who reads this website, please take my word and do not look at this site. I promise that you will regret it. In fact, if you're at all a sensitive person and want to keep that sensitivity, even if you're over 18 I would not recommend you look at that site.

However, it does illustrate pretty well, I think, the consequences of having no standard when it comes to sexual activity.

This man prints the real names of women he's bedded--one of them is actually suing him--talks about their "flaws" in detail, pressures his "girlfiends" to submit to sex acts they are not comfortable with, and in one case, actually asks his friend to film himself with the woman, without that woman's consent.

Welcome to the world of "no judgment about other people's sexual activities," and I fear it is not a pretty one.

[spudmomof6]

Part of the problem can be traced to a lack of responsible fathers in the home. It is "daddy" who is a little girl's first love, the one who tells her how special she is and how no boy will ever be good enough for her. How few young women these days ever got that message of their own self-worth drilled into them before they heard the "if you love me, you would..." message of their boyfriends. If you tell someone a lie long enough, they will begin to believe it. Too many women end up settling for paste instead of pearls, hoping they won't notice the difference, because the society tells them there's something wrong with them if they have nothing.

[Sandy]

Doesn't this have the same shades of (il)logic that some in the african-american community use when uttering the 'N-word' to themselves?

I can just see it now, women calling each other 'slut' but a man joining in on the 'fun' gets sued for sexual harassment.

Just the pitfalls of living to a single low standard I guess...

I see nothing empowering about it. Yet, I can see where he sexually active confident single woman would enjoy it. There's always a little truth in humor.

[Jeannine]

It is an odd trend -- not sure how that is positive...it is more revealing than anything.

Also, I find it interesting that verbify thinks no one anywhere should have any standard by which to judge anyone. However, she judges ModestyZone rather directly on her own website. I would put the trackback here to show you, but she finds our website apparently so awful that she doesn't want to offer her readers a trackback. As she writes, "I have, of late, been causing some trouble over on the Modestly Yours blog (no, I'm not giving them the trackback),..."

That sounds a bit like judgment, and I assume verbify is applying some sort of standard by which to exclude or include trackbacks to sites on her website - which interestingly is titled "signifying nothing". Maybe because she makes no judgments so she intends to signify nothing? I don't think so, because verbify writes detailed commentaries on her site - which give the impression she is interested in influencing people's judgments about society. It is interesting irony.

I just simply don't have time to be "causing trouble" on other people's websites. I prefer to use my extremely limited time for strengthening those for whom I care deeply than be out causing trouble. But to each his/her own. We also welcome contrary opinions -- so even though we may not be welcomed on other sites, we welcome those who desire communication with us.

As I wrote on my World Cup post, we all must be willing to be on the playing field.

[liz neville]

I am baffled by Verbify's response. We are not talking about personal interest in other people's personal sexual standards-- i.e. gossip. We are talking in general about a very crucial aspect of humanity and its effect on our society-- a topic that is VERY much of interest to anyone who is not stranded on a desert island but is forced every day to participate in the results of that behaviour on a general level. And I'm not even talking about the personal humiliations and mess that Wendy describes on the TuckerMax website. I'm talking about a very visual and powerful message that assaults you at the movies, at the supermarket checkout, on TV, in books, in ads-- everywhere. As for the oft-heard reply, "if you don't like it just turn the channel," I'll add that it's my community pool and I will absolutely have a say about what pollution goes into it.

[Ken]

"if you don't like it just turn the channel,"

What if it's the same on EVERY channel?
Drop out and go Amish?

[Ellen]

Amen to your comments, Liz!

[Anonymous Girl]

My girl friend and I used to do that...I don't know if she still does it..but yes, we did call each other offensive names...I don't do that anymore..I became a Christian and I guess she found me boring, so she found new party friends.