Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At this point the feminist movement isn't bound to any one gender or sexual orientation. Its a complicated stance at the forefront of modern social equality. Now, extremists aside, the general point of it is to level the playing field and make sure everyone is treated fairly...this means tearing down stereotypes, double-standards, and social or moral standards that had been concreted by a preceding generation that generally accepted the way things were, whether they were fair to women or not.

And then there's slut-shaming. Its a liberating freedom that a person can have sex with whomever they choose, that if they can get it, thats great...its one of the many double-standards that are socially impressed upon us when we're really young; that a guy is some sort of a rock star when he's getting laid by a different girl every weekend, but when that same situation is gender swapped, there is some sort of a negative stigma that shrouds the girl. She's now a slut. A whore. A tramp. Not withstanding the specifics of the slur, depending if she did it for money or not, its a means to bash and berate the woman for something that happens all the time.

I think I've set this up enough to get to the main question. Are men, who support gender equality to the point of ridding the social stigma of slut shaming, FAIR and GOOD PEOPLE, or is there an underlying desperateness about the man, with a tongue in their choke, hoping to tear down slut-shaming in the hopes that this would mean more sex for them?

Is male feminism a self-less act, supporting social justice, or are male feminists wolves and sheep's clothing hoping to have a bone thrown their way for their participation?

Sex is a wonderful incentive, and men are prone to lie, cheat, beg, do all kinds of shit for the power of pussy. Is this no exception, even for the ones that genuinely believe that they're doing it with no intimate agenda of their own...but deep underneath, they're an advanced wingman for the squadron of all who would want them?

Sluts spread STD's, I think it's perfectly fine to "shame" them.

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote: Sluts spread STD's, I think it's perfectly fine to "shame" them.

The same can be applied to men. And if they're practicing safe sex, then whats the problem?

At 7/11/14 02:05 PM, Phobotech wrote:

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote:

Men can be sluts too.

At 7/11/14 02:08 PM, Amaranthus wrote:

At 7/11/14 02:05 PM, Phobotech wrote:

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote:

Men can be sluts too.

I didn't know that men can be sluts.

well you can logically surmise that more sex gives you a greater chance of getting laid

i think it's more about detesting the sentiments of traditional conservative men

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote: Sluts spread STD's, I think it's perfectly fine to "shame" them.

Most people catch them accidentally, what's the use on shaming someone for something they didn't do on purpose?

At 7/11/14 02:08 PM, Amaranthus wrote:
Men can be sluts too.

And so what if they are? It makes sense why "slut-shaming" anyone in the past was as ingrained into culture as it was...sexual transmitted disease have always been around. But we know more about them now. We understand why they spread, and as long as the people involved are being safe about it, does that same stigma apply?

Why berate someone for getting frisky often? If you're so concerned about diseases, are you afraid that you're going to be next in line and you'll catch something? If she or he isn't of any sexual interest of yours, then why should you care?

At 7/11/14 02:12 PM, Phobotech wrote:

At 7/11/14 02:08 PM, Amaranthus wrote:

What is this? Tumblr?

At 7/11/14 02:12 PM, Radaketor wrote:

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote: Sluts spread STD's, I think it's perfectly fine to "shame" them.

Most people catch them accidentally, what's the use on shaming someone for something they didn't do on purpose?

The social justice is strong in this one.

At 7/11/14 02:13 PM, Amaranthus wrote:
What is this? Tumblr?

At 7/11/14 02:14 PM, Amaranthus wrote:
The social justice is strong in this one.

Guess you hit a brick wall for things to say, eh?

Relax, Amaranthus. This isn't a debate competition.

At 7/11/14 02:14 PM, Amaranthus wrote: The social justice is strong in this one.

Should i tip my fedora now?

At 7/11/14 02:14 PM, Amaranthus wrote: The social justice is strong in this one.

The fear of gawd is strong in this one.

I always thought you're only a slut if you cheat on your significant other.

Amaranthus and I had reached our "Four Posts in Thirty Minutes" cap and we continued the conversation via PM.

The point he was really driving home is that its pretty difficult to argue against the fact that people who have sex often don't get checked up.

My counter-point was that you can't paint everyone with a broad brush...there are probably some people who never get themselves checked, and they're idiots sure, but that doesn't reflect upon the many people that are responsible. It brings me to a predicament that happens a lot in college towns. For example, Lubbock, TX...its home to Texas Tech, and its out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere...there's not a whole lot to do there except getting drunk, so there's lots of fucking.

This campus is home to the Texas Raiders...which is why the spread of an easily preventable and treatable STD earned the name "Raider Rash." This place is also in the bible belt, so that negative stigma against having a lot of sex is ingrained early...but people are going to do it anyway. In fact, because of the notoriety of Raider Rash, people do what they can to be better prepared; people ADAPT. They LEARN. People DO check themselves regularly, especially if they're going to be very casual about their sex.

I think thats smart. You learn by doing...and of course, not all STD's are easily treatable or even curable, but thats why there needs to be an emphasis on education on the matter. Don't slut-shame the individual, but make them aware of the risks...its THEIR body, ultimately its THEIR responsibility and their decision. In other words, butt-out of other people's lives...different strokes for different folks.

People are going to have sex regularly whether it's socially acceptable or not. If the stigma fell, it would open the door to EDUCATION about the risks, instead of nebulously trying to scare people out of it who are going to do it anyway.

At 7/11/14 02:22 PM, Jeff-Teh-Great wrote: I always thought you're only a slut if you cheat on your significant other.

That's a misnomer. Infidelity isn't the same as promiscuity, but they can go hand in hand.

I think infidelity is absolutely worth the shaming, because that's morally unsound. That would be deception and an infringement of someone's trust, if the relationship had agreed to monogamy.

I assume that by the time I complete this post, the retarded key/lock analogy will have been posted. Anyways, it's your decision to have sex with who or how many times you want (as long as it's consentual). However, some people get mad that it is also a person's choice not to date a person who makes such decisions. Which is silly. Not that I'm either of these hypothetical people, but still...

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote: Sluts spread STD's, I think it's perfectly fine to "shame" them.

What a wonderful way to start of this discussion. It has nothing to do with the question at hand and is down right offensive. Either this was written due to ignorance or due to the fact that you wanted to come as edgy and funny. Splendid work.

Any way, thinking that male feminist is only in it for the pussy gets the movement nowhere. It invoke paranoia and distrust. Something none of us want right?

Of course I don't deny their might be some guys that are pseudo feminist for the reason you suggested. But thinking that they all are like that is absurd and will only in return serve to make women, hell everyone think men a nothing but pigs that will do anything for sex.

inb4 but they are lol

At 7/11/14 07:08 PM, Lorkas wrote: I assume that by the time I complete this post, the retarded key/lock analogy will have been posted.

If a key can open many locks, you have the disadvantage of needing both a doctor and a locksmith for your fucked up, key-shaped penis.

At 7/11/14 07:08 PM, Lorkas wrote: I assume that by the time I complete this post, the retarded key/lock analogy will have been posted.

I'm not familiar with the analogy, but if its dumb, then I guess its omittable.

Anyways, it's your decision to have sex with who or how many times you want (as long as it's consentual). However, some people get mad that it is also a person's choice not to date a person who makes such decisions.

Right. There are a lot of hard-grained moral standards that are built upon archaic principles. Maybe slut-shaming is one of them, where its fitting less and less with a modern, progressive society that calls for sweeping human equality.

At 7/11/14 07:16 PM, KGN wrote:
(Amaranthus' STD post) has nothing to do with the question at hand and is down right offensive. Either this was written due to ignorance or due to the fact that you wanted to come as edgy and funny. Splendid work.

Thanks, it kinda makes me realize I got involved with the derailment. In hindsight, it has nothing to do with the original post. Maybe he connected the dots as to WHY there was slut-shaming in the first place, which makes sense in the context of a past that built fears upon the void of medical knowledge...those fears turned into a prejudice against people that had sex a lot, because they connected the dots to horrible crotch-rot with lots and lots of sex. Today, we have condoms and clinics.

Any way, thinking that male feminist is only in it for the pussy gets the movement nowhere. It invoke paranoia and distrust. Something none of us want right?

Right!

Of course I don't deny their might be some guys that are pseudo feminist for the reason you suggested. But thinking that they all are like that is absurd and will only in return serve to make women, hell everyone think men a nothing but pigs that will do anything for sex.

That brings up an interesting point as to why there are legitimate male feminists. The men that see these broad generalizations that people perceive men to be uncontrollable sex-driven neanderthals. Like any stereotype, its harmful to everyone that could fit the bill, because people are different...and the negative examples among us seem to rule the generalizations.

inb4 but they are lol

Interestingly enough, this thread came about from a conversation about feminism with a bunch of guy friends of mine. We've yet to see this hypothetical "Feminism Wolf", but we generally agreed that its pretty possible. There's some despicable people out there in real life... but it challenged our perspectives, because what if it was an underlying psychological motivator that we can't escape? That can't be helped? Are we defined by that yearning, that need to mate, that it infiltrates most of our motivations.

I can't say it does for me, but what if I'm in denial...its a deep, lurking motivator that I'm not acknowledging? But thats probably paranoia. You're right in that we all want to be trusted. We all want to be taken seriously at some point. We all want to be wanted or needed.

I almost want to beat the shit out of guys who will sit around bragging about how many girls he's fucked, then immediately after calls a girl a "dirty slut" for having sex with 3 guys over the course of a month.

And that's a very common guy. I personally know a few. They're enragingly dumb.

At 7/11/14 02:03 PM, Amaranthus wrote: Sluts spread STD's, I think it's perfectly fine to "shame" them.

Sluts are bad for society. They spread disease and hate. They should be shamed to protect others. Men and women sluts both should be shamed. I see both, I don't see only women getting it or anything.

At 7/11/14 07:46 PM, Sensationalism wrote:
Sluts are bad for society. They spread disease and hate.

Are sluts the hateful or the hated?

At 7/11/14 07:58 PM, Phobotech wrote:

At 7/11/14 07:46 PM, Sensationalism wrote:
Sluts are bad for society. They spread disease and hate.

Are sluts the hateful or the hated?

How bout you fuck all the nasty sluts you want and enjoy your STDs, hoebag. I'll stick to avoiding them or turning them down.

At 7/11/14 08:04 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 7/11/14 07:58 PM, Phobotech wrote:
Are sluts the hateful or the hated?

How bout you fuck all the nasty sluts you want and enjoy your STDs, hoebag. I'll stick to avoiding them or turning them down.

How about you answer the question instead of getting needlessly defensive and contribute to the discussion.

At 7/11/14 08:06 PM, MrPercie wrote: I mean, its not as if I don't agree with them, but the fact they thing everything must happen NOW with not time for change overtime I feel is unnecessary, maybe it is necessary, but I find it might be detrimental to their cause. It might have been necessary to bomb the prime minister if it got your cause heard back in 1900, but now we don't need such tactics if we need our views to be heard when pretty much everyone can voice what they believe and denying people to voice their views is scrutinized.

What the actual fuck. Your problem with feminists is that they don't want to wait another 100 years for equality? This is easily the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. If you are so gung-ho about equality, why does it have to wait? Holy shit, I can't even wrap my mind around this logic one bit. At least be true to yourself and admit you are a woman hater.

At 7/11/14 08:07 PM, Phobotech wrote: How about you answer the question instead of getting needlessly defensive and contribute to the discussion.

Because the only control you have over this thread is starting it and requesting a lock. Other than that, people can and will answer and say whatever they want. If you don't like my contribution then don't respond to it.

defensive? I give no fucks, you silly sausage.

At 7/11/14 08:18 PM, Sensationalism wrote:
Because the only control you have over this thread is starting it and requesting a lock. Other than that, people can and will answer and say whatever they want. If you don't like my contribution then don't respond to it.

defensive? I give no fucks, you silly sausage.

I'm not a sausage. It just hurts my feelings that you won't clarify why you think the way you think. Maybe I could learn something, but no...you won't even let me do that. You're just being a meanie for the sake of being a meanie.