The Instigator
irish44
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Women who sleep around are 'sluts'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,677 times Debate No: 60250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (5)

 

irish44

Pro

ATTENTION: Do bear with me as this is my first debate on the website.

I will start in round 2. This is an acceptance round.

Premise; Women who sleep around are 'sluts'.

I wait to be challenged.

Note: Definition of slut: "an immoral woman", in the context of this debate I mean sexually immoral.
thett3

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
irish44

Pro

First, sleeping around is so easy for women. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. For women to rack up a lot of partners, however, it pretty much only requires a vagina and a pulse. So a woman whoring it up is bad(slutty) because for a woman to get a lot of partners is absolutely no challenge, hence no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline when women indulge in lots of sex partners because they can get new ones whenever they want. When men get lots of sex partners, it’s respected more because getting lots of sex partners, for men, is a challenge. This is just human nature: people gain respect for those who accomplish challenging feats while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained vices as weak or flawed

Second, women have no evolutionary need to be sleeping around. This means that women who sleep around are doing it for their own selfish overindulgance.

Not to say that men don't sleep around for their own selfish reasons, but for men it is a challenge that requires a lot of skill, therefore they are respected.
thett3

Con

=Framework=

I can negate the resolution in any way--rather than having to provide any consistent advocacy, negative is free to prove the resolution wrong in any way possible.

=Case=

I. Sleeping around is locational

Pro did not offer a definition of sleeping around and since the next round is his last, he cannot. This means that the judge is absolutely bound to accept my definition as there is no competing advocacy against it. I define sleeping around as a locational movement of sleeping position--thus a woman who commonly sleeps in different locations like a businesswoman or a traveling missionary sleeps around. Pro gives no reason to assume these are immoral women just because they lead busy lives and cannot always sleep in the same place.

Remember, as the judge you are *bound* to accept my definition because Pro did not offer one and it would be unfair to let Pro define sleeping around in his last round as this could allow him to construct an entirely new advocacy for me to have to attack. At this point you can stop reading and vote Con because there is no arguable worldview where sleeping in different locations is immoral.

If you don't buy that and instead choose to go off Pro's implied definition, you still negate based on all of the kritiks I'm about to make.

II. Argumentation ethics

The terminology of the resolution is inherently aggressive and should be rejected due to discourse ethics. Basically, by using aggressive terms like slut, the resolution is implicitly devaluing anything a woman who "sleeps around" has to say which causes us to shut out potentially valid worldviews. The judge should automatically vote negative on any resolution which violates the core priniciples of discourse by implicitly violating the nonaggression principle. Voting aff is the equivalent of voting aff on an affirmative action debate that uses racial slurs in the resolution. As a voter, we have autonomy to make moral decisions and voting on a resolution that is inherently offensive and which devalues discourse we undermine the principles upon which reasonable discussion lays.

III. Linguistics

We should reject a resolution that uses the word "slut" because usage of these slurs in doscourse acknowledges on some level their validity and helps move along the patriarchal nature of the English language. A study of the English language found over ten times the number of slurs against promiscuous women compared to those for men[1] and those against men were much less potent. As the Encyclopedia Brittanica explains: "...ladies’ man, lady-killer, gigolo, stud, and sugar daddy obviously do not have the same condemnatory overtones as most of the female terms. They embody machismo notions of power and conquest." The sexual double standard is so culturally ingrained that it's seeped into our very language, in order to break free of the system of oppression we need to reject it in all it's forms and that includes refraining from the usage of these slurs which necessitates negating.

IV. Slut shaming

Pro is engaging in slut-shaming. Slut shaming is when someone “publicly or privately [insults] a woman because she expressed her sexuality in a way that does not conform with patriarchal expectations for women”[1]. This serves to keep women from advancement in society by establishing the legitimacy of a double standard as well as perpetuating the rape culture. Tanenbaum explains the mental impact of being slut shamed:

"A reputation acquired in adolescence can damage a young woman’s self-perception for years. She may become a target for other forms of harassment and even rape, since her peers see her as “easy” and therefore not entitled to say “no”. She may become sexually active with a large number of partners (even if she had not been sexually active before her reputation). Or she may shut down her sexual side completely, wearing baggy clothes and being unable to allow a boyfriend to even kiss her."

By labeling women as "sluts", we are damaging their self perception as well as reducing her ability in the eyes of others to resist unwanted sexual contact. We should reject a resolution who's terminology leads to such horrible consequences.

V. Pro is keeping down the lower class

Pro's engagement of slut shaming is handing the privileged to uphold their status at the expense of everyone else. A study at the Universities of Michigan and California at Merced surveyed students sexual attitudes[2] and determined that:

"...the act of slut-shaming was largely determined along class lines rather than based on actual sexual behavior. What's more... more affluent women were able to engage in more sexual experimentation without being slut-shamed, while the less-affluent women were ridiculed as sluts for being “trashy” or “not classy,” even though they engaged in less sexual behavior."

Thus by voting Pro you are affirming the value of a system which maginalizes the lower class. Slut shaming is used as a form of social signalling to oppress those of a different socioeconomic background.

VI. Gender is not binary

A "woman" can only be a meaningful word when we have something to compare it with, ie a "man". Pro is forcing people into roles and is arbirtarily assigning moral value based on a social construct that doesn't actually exist. Whatever objective morality does exist has to make distinctions based off of reality instead of something made up--limiting certain people's autonomy because of their gender would be the same as limiting someones autonomy because of their hair color. Just as hair color is not a binary but rather a spectrum based upon societal convention and perception where we've arbitrarily decided to call something "blonde" or whatever color, so too is gender. Genderspectrum explains the difference between sex and gender[3]:

"Gender on the other hand is far more complicated. Along with one’s physical traits, it is the complex interrelationship between those traits and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception."

You can't assign moral value based on arbitrary factors. Unless and until Pro proves that gender is binary and not fluid, we can't make autonomic decisions based on who Pro decides is a woman.

VII. Queer theory

By making a resolution that presumes a gender binary, Pro is enforcing heteronormality and keeping down LGBTQ populations by exclusion. Yep, Lovaas, and Elia in 2003[4] explain how heteronormality harms LBGTQ communities:

"Perhaps one of the most powerful forms of normalization in Western social systems is heteronormativity. Through heteronormative discourses, abject and abominable bodies, souls, persons, and life forms are created, examined, and disciplined through current regimes of knowledge and power (Foucault, 1978/1990). Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others."

Gomez '05[5] explains how exclusion almost always materializes into violence in order to maintain heterosexual supremacy:

"In a compulsory heterosexual system of domination, non-heterosexual practices and identifications are a threat to the system. Keeping them as inferior is...instrumental to heterosexual supremacy."

Thus by affirming the resolution Pro and any voter who votes Pro is perpetuating a system in which oppresses and marginalizes those who don't fit into the gender binary and, by extention, the entire LGBTQ community.

Sources:

1. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com...
2. http://america.aljazeera.com...
3. https://www.genderspectrum.org...
4. Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45
5. http://la-buena-vida.info...

Debate Round No. 2
irish44

Pro

irish44 forfeited this round.
thett3

Con

Extend all arguments, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Gi 2 years ago
Gi
How it worked since the beginning of mankind:

A man can physically father 365 babies per year- if he can get that many women to have sex with him, he can get it up once per day to do so, and all the women are ovulating when he mates with them. It's a challenge, so others will cheer him on. He goes for quantity over quality. His offspring will do better if he invests in them himself, but he only has the time and resources to invest in a few, and he wants to spread his seed as much as he can, as that's how he was made. Therefore, he mates with many women while only settling down with one woman that he deems worthy to invest his love, time, and resources into. He wants someone with good genes, no prior children, (so her time isn't shared with offspring of hers that aren't his,) and who is faithful to him, (ensuring the offspring are indeed his).

A female can only have 1 child in a year, therefore valuing quality over quantity. She must be choosy. She needs a man with good genes and a man who will provide and protect, (not necessarily the same man!). She doesn't want to waste her years on offspring from unworthy men. She wants a mate of equal or better quality all to herself, preferably an alpha.

If she opens her legs to all the men, it proves she's on the bottom of the scale, because it says that any man's child would be a step up for her offspring, making her undesirable, possibly shamed or even shunned from the group. The alpha female wants an alpha male because his genes are best for survival, and her standards are higher being an alpha herself. She won't open her legs for any less. This makes her more desirable and respected.

The double standard began long ago and still rings true today. No amount of feminist activism will change the fact that men and women have different reproductive systems that work in such drastically different ways. It's survival and reproductive instincts hardwired into our brains.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
Sure, I'm a little annoyed. If you would've said that you didn't read comments in the first place, then I don't blame you, that's okay.

"You're welcome" sounded a bit rude, though.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
thett plays the class/gender/queer theory card. I likes.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Vexorator, I don't think you really get debate. If Pro failed to offer a definition, you have to go with mine. Doing otherwise would constitute judge intervention.

I get that you're really annoyed that I took this debate, but I honestly just didn't read the comments and it was so easy to kritik I couldn't resist. Stupid resolutions deserve kritiks.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
According to thett3's definition of 'sleeping around,' is that grammatically correct? I'm just asking. A quick search on google and it is defined as casual sex relations. http://lmgtfy.com...
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Resolved: On balance, I want to lose this debate more.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Let's do it! 69th debate, lol.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
It would be interesting to see a debate where they both argued that they wanted to lose more though, lol
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
But since it's R3 you can't make that response :P
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Dude that wouldn't work because I'd just say that I WANT to lose the debate -- and would suffer if I won.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
irish44thett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
irish44thett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Sources because CON's were better, in that he had them.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
irish44thett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
irish44thett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
irish44thett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round. Cons definition must be accepted, so arguments to con.