The Good Slut and The Bad Slut

So a man is walking down the street, and he thinks to himself, “ I’m so hungry I could eat a live hippo smothered in horseradish and Worcestershire sauce. He decides to walk on down the street and see if he can find a nice place to ear or a passing marinated hippo. First he sees a Chinese place and in the window a sign reads, “Two for one on lo mien.” The man decides he doesn’t want Chinese and walks on. Next, he sees an Italian place and sees a sign that says, “Special on lasagna.” The man decides not to go in, since he doesn’t have any beano handy, and moves on. Next the man sees a bakery where a sign reads “Half off on day old sluts.” The man walks in.

I bet your wondering what sluts are doing in a bakery. No, this isn’t a joke about illegitimate “buns in the oven,” and there is not a waitress that the man makes an offer to that turns out to be the hippo in disguise. Believe it or not at one time, slut or slut’s pennies meant the hard pieces in a loaf due to imperfect kneading of the dough. (OED) The word slut has been used for several items found unwanted by our society. Now, however, the term is being used by our culture as positive reinforcement for promiscuous nature and general lack of self-control. In this paper I will discuss the post uses of slut and will describes the newest usage of the word as well as its reflection on our culture.

The earliest know written appearance of slut was in 1402 in Letter of Cupid, “The foulest slutte of al a tovne.” This refers to a woman who is dirty, or untidy habits or appearance; a foul slattern. The next usage was found in 1450 meaning a kitchen maid or durge. About this time the common definition of a woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade, came into being, and in 1664 a playful use without any serious imputation of bad qualities. An example provided by OED gives some amusing examples of this playfulness. “Our little girl Susan is a most admirable slut, and pleases us mightily.” Nanny, thou art a sweet slut.” The meaning of slut has mostly used for promiscuous women ever since and , with only some random references to unwanted items including: a female dog (slut pup), a piece of rag dipped in lard or fat and used as a light, and the guttering of a candle. (OED)

The current transformation of slut has become a dark reflection on our culture’s morals. Slut’s meaning has remained synonymous with a woman of a promiscuous sexual nature but with a connotation that encourages such behavior instead of opposing it. This is the subject of “The Taming of the Slur” by Stephanie Rosenbloom. In the article Rosenbloom describes the cavalier use of the word in media and everyday conversation. “Novelty shops and web sites sell slut lip balm, bubble bath, soap, and lotion.” “In his duet with the rapper Eminen, Nate Dogg describes his hunt for “a big old slut” in the single “shake that.”

Rosenbloom also brings up the proclaiming of Paris Hilton as an “American cultural icon” on Sephora.com where she sells her $49 perfume. We respect women who seek to sell the life style of being sexually promiscuous because we believe they have power over men. But, how can manipulating yourself to fit a cultural ideal make you more powerful. Our culture presents the idea that sex, and as a consequence money and publicity, creates different from being addicted to drugs. You have no power because you gain money and publicity by destroying every shred of human decency you possess. In her paper, “Four-Letter Words Can Hurt You,” Barbara Lawrence discuses the ability of slang words to turn women into objects.
(How arrogantly self-involved the tabooed words seem in comparison to either of the other terms, and how contemptuous of the female partner. Understandably so, of course, if she is only a “skirt,” a “broad,” a “chick,” a “pussycat,” or a “piece.” If she is, in other words, no more than her skirt, or what her skirt conceals; no more than a breeder, or the broadest part of her; no more than a piece of a human being or a “piece of tail.")

So far I have used the term slut to refer only to women, but what about its use when referring to promiscuous males. When a man makes every effort to “bang” every willing female of any age, he is not called a slut. He is not considered unclean or immoral, he is considered a “true man” for being able to manipulate and hold power over women. But, when this is all a “man?” can identify himself by, he is just as broken and powerless as any “slut.” It’s always the woman who is supposed to be the one who says no, but if a man exhibits any resistance to sexual offers from women his masculinity and sometimes his sexual preference are brought into question. Mostly by those who require a dose of self control, and penicillin.

This male defining of, a man who is promiscuous being a true man, is clearly seen in our culture, but even more disturbing are the abusive slang terms they use to describe their “sexual prowls.”
"The brutality of this word [fuck] , then, and its equivalents (“screws,” “bang,” etc.), is not an illusion of the middle class or a crochet of Women’s Liberation. In their origins and imagery these words carry undeniably painful, if not sadistic, implications… (Lawrence)"

There are certain views that believe this acceptance in our culture of slut and the lifestyle that comes with it, as a feminist movement towards freedom from the sexual enslavement of the male dominated world places on women. This is especially true since the male promiscuity has far less dire consequences than female in our culture. However, how can assuming the evil of an oppressor make you anything but more equal to that oppressor? When is it that equality becomes detrimental to the pride of being a woman?

Another supporting idea of the sexual freedom theory of identifying your self proudly as a slut, is that slut is being used to turn the negative views of an inevitable characteristic into a “badge of honor,” not unlike gay or nigger. I, however, do not believe this is true. Where as being gay or black are uncontrollable factors, being a slut, whether male or female, is a decision of the importance and significance of sex in one’s life. If a person decides to be a sexual promiscuous person then they are simply succumbing to the urges we all feel. The only difference is they have decided to act on those urges. The frivolous usage of slut will only result in the increase of such decisions because the negative results of such a lifestyle are overshadowed by the positive connotation.

Sex is a responsibility that reflects an individual’s decision to or not to engage in such action. Today, the word slut has become an infection in our culture. An infection resulting in men and women succumbing to their primal urges and also resulting in the original idea of unclean people. The only difference is that its not dirt you have to worry about.

References
Lawrence, Barbara. “Four-Letter Words Can Hurt You.” About Language. The New York Times Co. 1973. Rpt. in About Language 5th ed. By William H. Roberts and Gregory Turgeon. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1998. 110-113.
“The Taming of the Slur.” The New York Times 13 July 2006. 28 Feb. 2008 “Slut.” Def. Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2nd ed. 1989

What are the derogatory terms our culture has for the select group of the male sex that our promiscuous? I can only gather a limited list, this includes: pig, gigolo, and macho. There appears to be a relationship between these words that becomes apparent. Excluding pig, which has probably formed from the relatively recent feminist movement and is used for a wealth of male negative qualities, gigolo and macho are from cultures separate from our own. Gigolo coming from Italy and macho from Latin America. This is interesting when you consider our vocabulary for promiscuous women is far more extensive; bitch, slut, whore, skunk, jezebel, madam, mistress, lady of the night, street walker, hussy, ho, and sperm dumpster. Each one of these can be traced back to English language. Why do we find it ok to associate our own culture with promiscuous women but find it absolutely unthinkable to directly relate promiscuous men?

Player and stud are terms that our society has constructed for men who hold power over women and can make them forsake their morals for lust, but these terms are used to reflect a positive connotation for the ability to hold such power (and to wield it so indiscriminately). So, is it our view that the promiscuous actions of men in our culture are alright if not an obligation of being a man. It is then that the hypocrisy of our culture takes its form by expecting men to be wise and strong in their moral fiber and to still maintain their primal maleness with promiscuous actions. The hypocrisy continuous by demanding the impossible from women as well only their side of the deal is far less accommodating to their lusts. Women are expected to be sexy and to give in to men only to be called a slut for lacking the power to say no to men. Then on the reverse women who strive to hold to their moral strength are prudes for holding too much power. Damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. It's almost as if men can do no wrong in our culture and every aspect of maleness is there for a positive, and every aspect of women in our culture must be analyzed to the point nothing they do is right.

Macho is a term that was once used by our culture to enforce positive promiscuity, just like player and stud is today. Examples of this can be found in movies and television shows from the seventies, such as Saturday Night Fever. Our culture more than likely changed the connotation of the word because of the negative views we have of Latin American immigrants. However, the question still remains of why we find it necessary to use other cultures to distance male evils from our culture and still find it just to relate our culture directly with the female evils.