With Love And Squalor
Right. First, I am sorry for my lack of posting, as the Army has been working me senseless. Also, per yesterday's post, I hope none of you become code breakers.Dear Yossarian,
My question is twofold. Primarily, I am curious as to what constitutes a slut. Is there a magic number (or range) of sexual partners that men judge women by? Or is it more circumstantial? I figured that since you had done it to many women that you would be an expert on sluts. Times have changed, and you're obviously a man of the times. Secondly, if a girl really likes a guy, should she be completely honest about her sexual history? Like, I knew this girl in college who told me she had slept with 5 guys, at least that's what she said she tells everyone. (I think she had slept with like 5 guys that week, actually.) But she never told her true number (to anyone) because she did not want to be judged by it. And you've seen Chasing Amy and how that ended up. Do you think in a situation like this ignorance is bliss? Should a gal pick a number and stick with it? Or is honesty really the best policy when your heart is on the line?
Sincerely,
Slutty from Ohio
Jesus H. Christ. I'd like to start by thanking you for acknowledging that I have done it to a lot of ladies. From the lowliest bus station skank, to the most sophisticated, debutant, high-class...bus station skank. Now for my answer, which is invariably wrong.
Well, from a male point of view, a slut is a woman who sleeps with everyone; a bitch is someone who sleeps with everyone but you.
I'm not big on honesty in this realm of blither, because it doesn't matter. No matter the number it is 100% too many. See, every man you see throughout the day is trying to fuck you, or has secret wishes of fucking you. No woman walks by your average man and wants to fuck. It's hard for us to find women wanting to randomly hit skins in the bathroom of a Chuck E. Cheese. It wouldn't be all that hard for a woman to get randomly get fucked in one. So really, it's a security or a self-confidence issue.
If the man is anything like me, he won't ask because he doesn't want to know. If he does ask he probably needs assurance that he is satisfying you. So how to get around this, since most every girl I know has pulled the flying turkey while at a party in New Hampshire? Change the subject. If he asks how many guys you've slept with, start talking about hockey. That would take my mind off the subject and make me think I'm with a really cool girl because she likes hockey. Your man isn't into hockey? Well whatever he is in to, start talking about that.
I wouldn't suggest you lie, so don't just pick a number and stick with it. Just, never answer. Because as we all have seen 99% of women are sluts, it's just a matter of perception. Churchill said, "Now that we've established what you are, all that's left is to determine the price." Think about it like that.
But the real number of what makes one a slut is the age of the person minus the number of people slept with, times pi, divided by the square root of the number of holes filled at one time plus ten. If that number is greater than zero then you are a slut.
posted by Yossarian at 11:41 AM
15 Comments:
I would reject a girl for having slept with too few guys before I rejected one for sleeping with too many.
So keep on fuckin', girls.
along those lines K...what if she slept with too few, but fucked them each a lot in many different ways trying many different things bordering on the freaky? Would she still be rejectable if that were the case?
that is the circumstantial part
Circumstantial..? Is that really the word you meant to use?
Anyway, xTx, that's fine too. I wouldn't necessarily reject a girl just for the few-ness, but I would reject a girl for that before too many. I want a girl who knows her way around the business end of a dick.
But, of course, horniness is another axis on the "would I bone you on the long term" graph, and is the true issue. I would much rather have a horrendously horny girl who was in single digits, than a frigid girl who fucked an army. Although I'm not sure how that latter case would be possible...
So that offended people's sensibilities? I would think my not judging a girl for her numbers would make me a hero of whores everywhere...
Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong...but close.
k...stop acting like you know the right words when you make sentences such as you do.
A man who has honor and self-respect would choose a girl with the same qualities.
A man who is desperate chooses a girl who is the same.
-meredith-
Care to be more specific? You itching to lose another argument, Virgin Merrie?
From what I recall, no men choose you, so I fail to see what insights you might have in this matter.
you choose the whore K because that's the only ones who would choose you
No wonder he left. I imagine you must be loads of fun in the bedroom. You know, what with your 18th-century views on sexuality, as they manage to reveal themselves between sermons.
C'mon, there, Bible beater! If you recall, Jesus chose to associate with whores, too. But I guess such irony would probably be lost on somebody of your intellectual...gifts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
you dumb-ass. I mentioned that in my second sermon...or was it my third. About Jesus and the whore.
Ahhh. Bible beater. How unique. such an angry little man you are.
You think that I would jump to call people sluts and whores. But if you look at my comment, you will see that I really said nothing more than people who have no self respect don't care if they find it in others. that's the short of it anyway.
I am not offended when you mention "18th century" views. Clearly, though you tout your profession as "law", you seem so uneducated. Yes, you use big words but your mind is painfully narrow.
I dare say I am even more forward thinking than you.
So go find your woman who "knows her way around the business end of a dick." If that's what a 21st century man wants...
Did that one take you a couple of tries?
OK, genius. Let me see if I can spell this out for you.
The topic at hand was the number of partners. You tied that to self-respect, and nobody else made that particular connection. Which means that you must believe that the number of partners is somehow necessarily tied to someone's self-respect. If it is not the case that you believe there to be such a connection, your comments regarding self-respect were simply irrelevant. Not that I would put that past you.
Yes, that's me -- uneducated and backward. I guarantee that's what most people would say about me. However, I'm not the one making morlistic pronouncements about other people's decisions based on antiquated notions of propriety.
Sorry, was that too much for you?
Someone of my limited education has trouble conversing at the empyrean heights of a person so clearly my intellectual superior. I do try to keep up, though.
I'm off to find a lady of loose morals, if luck be with me. I call that "Friday". Maybe you can cruise ChristChat tonight for an "honorable" guy, i.e. one who won't leave you when he decides he wants a girl who doesn't beat herself with a cat-o-nine-tails every time she engages, albeit reluctantly, in the sex act.
I was relating the word slut to "self-respect". No-where was I relating number of partners to slut. You did that.
You cast aspersions.
I like how you attack my faith (which you seem to feel is at the "Bible beater" stage) when you were the first one to bring it up here, for this issue.
I am simply a non-practicing Catholic. I am not ashamed.
I find overtly religious people to be bitter. Like yourself. To call someone a Bible beater simply for expressing their faith is quite hateful. Like being racist. But I'm sure someone as morally advanced as yourself would never be racist.
Isn't that interesting? You are so much like a fervent Bible beater in your "my way is the right way" attitude.
Stop with the big words already. We all know now that you have "empyrean heights" of intelligence so can you stop talking about it now?
*sigh*
The more you try to dodge this issue, the less sense you make. So anyone with no self-respect is a slut? Even if they don't sleep around? Huh?
I'm not attacking Christianity, I'm attacking you. I can be for faith when it doesn't make someone an idiot. Some of my close friends are people of deep faith. Fine with me. I don't share it, but whatever. I called you a Bible beater for what I perceived to be your delightful mix of Christianity and moral rigidity, not simply for your faith. If I was wrong about your level of devotion, my bad. But you still seem rigid.
The point that you're missing, to keep on topic:
Slut, used as a method of enforcing sexual norms, is a really reprehensible way of referring to a girl. I try to respect sexual autonomy and its expression, no matter how many partners that might entail, unless it has an ill effect on the person, on someone else, or is an expression of an ill mental state.
In short, there can be girls who have slept with all creation, yet still have honor and self-respect.
Now go away and let the rest of us try to have a good time with this topic, as we were doing.
I think everyone here is missing the real important issue of the post.
Everyone knows he doesn't get laid
cocaine is back. less powdery white.
i think people should avoid telling the number as a point of emphasis. if it comes in passing, that is fine. although there may be a correlation with various infectious states, this represents a population analysis, not individual cases. not to mention, it is still possible for people that have slept around to still screw like a dinner napkin. unkind notes that this is more likely with those with little to no sexual experience.
an impassionate lover is worse than the sum of a lemon for a car, oral hemorrhoids, and week old oyster on the half shell appetizer.
wow, unkind that argument was a close one. she almost got you there with her unique brand of making assertions then not backing them up and falling back on "you dumbass" as the ace in the hole.
Post a Comment
<< Home