On the Word "Slut" and "Sexually Liberated" Third-Wave Feminism

A student at my university solicited the opinions of the general academic public in a study she was doing for a class paper. I was more than happy to oblige.

Q: "Why are women called 'sluts' for having multiple sexual partners but it seems men are respected for the same?"

Because of the sexist double standard perpetuated by third wave "feminism."

Personally, I don't respect promiscuous men, either, and even have less respect for them, because they're more apt to display an ignorant self-congratulatory attitude whereas most women I've interacted with seem to regret their past activities--whether they are presently sexually restrained or not--and are less likely to boast in the same way.

So if I don't respect males who are sexually immoral any more than females, why does it seem that most of society behaves in a different manner? I've wondered about this.

I sincerely believe it's because I reject the nonsense agenda of third wave feminism and most other people are influenced to think a certain way because of it, either consciously or unawares. Contrary to the claims of 3WF, it does not elevate women nor achieve any forward-steps of equality. It dehumanizes both men and women and that's why you see double standards remaining and perpetuated.

Why?

Simple. It doesn't matter what you say, if your actions demonstrate otherwise. The average woman would say she wants to be respected by men. But 3WF advocates for women to lay aside "antiquated" notions of sexual restraint and modesty, e.g. that it's acceptable to have multiple sexual partners, dress revealingly for explicitly sensual reasons, to engage in or view pornography, and to upend "traditional" roles--that she should pay for dates, that she should drive most of the time, that she should take the initiative in pursuing males in romantic endeavors, etc. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with paying, driving, or showing interest. What I'm saying is that when you shift what is normative by actively striving to do the contrary to what is "antiquated/traditional" or as it is commonly called by 3WFs, "patriarchal," then you are bound to produce an effect.

And what is the effect?

If you show guys that they don't have to put in any effort into relationships, what do you teach them? They don't have to try. They become lazy. The result is women who are frustrated with boys who put little or nothing into the relationship. The women end up feeling used.

Further, combine the first part I mentioned: the loosening of sexual restraint. So now you've taught guys that they don't have to take any initiative in starting relationships, and you've taught women that they don't have to withhold (or even that there is no good reason to refrain from) sexual activity in a casual relationship. And so you have girls giving time, money, affection and their bodies to boys who won't --and have no incentive to-- exercise patience, thrift, respect etc. And the result is that the women are used, sexually, and they end up feeling upset and taking one or other course of action. They generally hate and blame themselves or they hate and blame men. They either refuse to believe that they could be happy in a submissive relationship with a man (and therefore now become domineering and emotionally unreasonable) or they desperately try to create what they wanted to have with that first failure, and go from bad relationship to bad relationship until they get jaded or worse.

Meanwhile, guys learn that there's no need to treat women as human beings, since by doing nothing they'll throw themselves at you and give you their bodies for your pleasure. These guys learn from their interactions with women that women may be people in theory, but functionally, in practice, they are not, and may as well be treated as objects, because that's all that the women treat themselves as, and that's what they're clearly tolerant of males treating them as.

So the notion that women are treated as objects isn't foreign to me. I think it's wrong, yes, but I can also see why with a level of clarity that the average male cannot, for the simple reason that the average male desires instant gratification of sexual desire, and I have decided to put off such gratification until I have found and created the commitment I desire, wherein which sexual activity can have the potential to be fully satisfying, in a way in which it cannot in casual, temporary relationships.

I don't think men are respected for having many sexual partners. Perhaps among some in society, but I doubt this is true among the "movers and shakers." Rather, in that class, I predict that the reason for any distinction is a judgment on the relative stupidity and naivety of the female who throws themselves desperately into hopelessly unfulfilling relationships versus the relative intelligence and scrupulousness of the male who utilizes such easy access to physical pleasure but never entertains in his mind the idea that it was anything more. I think that's where you may find the stratification; when your reasoning allows the judgment that women are stupid sexually, and men are not, then you can see respect for the male and disrespect of the female in the way we currently observe in society.

It's tragic. But that which explains the onesidedness of the observation is the fact that there is nothing like third wave feminism for men. There is nothing that promotes an act-first, think-later approach to sexual intercourse for men. There is for women. And the results are that the women that buy into it end up looking very stupid and very sexually promiscuous, whereas the males who take advantage of it look smart and oddly not as sexually driven. I think the illusion is because what really drives most women is not sexual desire but a stronger desire for emotional intimacy than most men have. But the women think that sexual intimacy with a man will achieve that emotional intimacy--blame third wave feminism's philosophy of sex. Consequently, when these women throw themselves at men in sexual pursuit, they appear to be the more sex-driven when that is not the actual case. It is the men who take advantage of these women who are the more sexually fixated, since they fail to in any way treat women as something more than objects of physical pleasure. But the person who takes advantage is in a position of control whereas the person who is taken advantage of is in a position of weakness. And control denotes strength and intelligence, whereas weakness ... denotes weakness. Of an intellectual and sexual-restraint sort. I think this explains why society at large has more respect for promiscuous men than women. Promiscuous men are seen as in-control and intelligent, whereas promiscuous women are seen as out-of-control and stupid.

These are not the private opinions I have. I know it goes much deeper than this. As I've indicated, I think the driving force is a mixture of deep-seated emotional yearning in women, harnessed by the tragically anti-productive social philosophy of third-wave feminism. All I've done is to the best of my ability explain how I think the thought process of the individual may play out and produce the disparate social stratification we see on a macro scale. And I think I've done so quite well.

Addendum: My response to the "Further thoughts?" question.

Or, How to Solve the Problem of the Sexual Double Standard

What makes me different?

Why am I not affected by 3WF in the way that I describe the 'average male?'

It's simple. The world is ruled by ideas. And if you don't subscribe to one worldview then you will subscribe to another. Instead of 3WF, I have a different philosophy that shapes my approach to love and sex.

But it's more than a philosophy. There is a level of thought involved in it but it's more than just an idea for approaching the world. It's unique in that it first changes how I see myself. The outward results in my thinking are the product of an internal revolution.

I'll be very straightforward. I don't think you can really solve the issue of social ills that operate in the realms of the hearts and minds of individual people without changing their hearts and minds. Money won't do it. Propaganda won't do it. Social programs won't do it, and teaching other people how to interact with them won't do it. 

The only thing that can actually change a person from an objectifying, misogynistic, sexually-unrestrained arrogant person into a person who respects men and women is the Gospel. I am well aware that you likely don't want to hear "religion is the answer." Well, religion isn't the answer. Religion is a set of rules that you tell people to follow, and then when they succeed, they become self-absorbed and prideful, which is bad, and when they fail, they become depressed and despair, which is also bad. Christianity has rules, but the success someone has with following the rules is not what determines if that person is a Christian.

Christianity is unique in that it isn't something that men do for God, it's something that God does in men. The individual's responsibility concerns solely how they respond to God's initiating action to save them.

Please detour to get a helpful, less-than-a-minute-in-length, explanation of what the Gospel is, here: http://singlechristian1.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-gospel-in-60-seconds.html .

To be saved, all a person needs to do is to acknowledge their sinfulness and ask God to take the punishment they deserve on their behalf. That way, the Crucifixion's effect gets 'credited to your account,' and your sin is legally dealt with, from God's perspective. You don't become sinless at that moment. But you become guiltless. And from that point, God's treatment of you begins to affect your treatment of others.

I now understand what love is. Contemporary wisdom says that "if it makes you happy, do it." That love is a feeling of happiness toward someone. But when that feeling subsides, people think "I don't love them anymore," and relationships are destroyed.

True love is not an emotion but an intent: to do that which is in the best interest of another person, and sacrifice (put aside, as a lower priority) your own self-directed desires in order to accomplish their best interest.

With an understanding of love like that, I could never take advantage of a young woman's desire toward me, no matter how much of a gentleman I would be to her. I know that the act of sex produces an emotional bond, one that in its intended context produces satisfaction in a committed relationship that draws you closer and keeps you inseparable. But if you were never going to commit, when you separate that relationship, all that bonding, when it tears, wreaks emotional and spiritual havoc on the people involved. Damage like that to another person is not loving. Love is not something you can have for someone for a little while and then not any more. That isn't sincere love. It's a farce. An act. And this misunderstanding is at the root of so much pain in our society today.

I see sex as an important part of a committed relationship. But the only truly committed relationship is the one that doesn't have the entertained possibility of it ever ending. That's marriage! So a direct conclusion of simply knowing what love is is that I would never want to have sex with someone before marriage, no matter how good it might feel, temporarily.

I've been living this changed life for a few years now and don't mistake me as thinking more highly of myself than others. I am not more special, but with what I have been given, what I have been blessed with in being saved and having my life transformed day by day by the Gospel, I am specially privileged. And I can see now, after having observed many examples far and wide, that you can't change the culture by trying to change people's minds, first. You have to change their hearts. Therefore,

I would be doing a disservice if I didn't tell you that I think any and all approaches to a problem like the way this society views sex would be ultimately unsatisfactory and ineffective if it does not include the Gospel. It is only God's power to save and transform that can change a person's eternal destiny and current state of being, from a wretched self-interested person to a person who is fully satisfied in God, and who desires to help other people to live a good life now, but more importantly to attain eternal life to come.

Sure, go ahead and think of me as a raving religious lunatic. But I couldn't be content with myself if I didn't take the chance to try to tell you the truth. What you do with it is your business. I only hope that God will open your mind to receive what it is I've had to say here, insofar as I am speaking what He would want me to say.

Thanks for reading.

~ Rak Chazak