We live in strange times. Recently several religious conservative bloggers have suggested that the word “slut” is a slur against all women, and that it is a type of profanity. My best guess is they feel that sluts know that what they are doing is wrong, so even using the word in general is cruel to their already convicted hearts.

Yet at the same time we have sluts literally marching down the street in major cities worldwide. The sluts have responded to the hesitancy of traditional conservatives to use a word they feel is cruel as an invitation to normalize sluthood.

Following the line of thought that the concept of slut involves a deeply unfair double standard, others have tried to make the term gender neutral. Susan Walsh offered a gender neutral definition of the term in her post What a Slut Is (see link for her full definition):

a. A slut is a person of either sex who regards sex strictly as a physically pleasurable activity. Sex in and of itself does not include an emotional, spiritual or practical component. Love, emotional intimacy and reproduction are sometimes associated with sex, but are in no way necessary or even desirable as a precondition for sexual activity.

As I mentioned in my post Defining sluthood I’m sympathetic to why Susan wants to do this, but I think it misses the very essence of the concept. Slut is sex specific. Calling promiscuous men sluts just doesn’t carry the same punch. Similarly, when Susan uses the term manwhore in her post Manwhores: For Casual Sex Only, she is trying in vain in my opinion to recast the concept of whore.

As others have pointed out, the reality is that there isn’t a double standard; there are simply different standards applied to men and women. If this makes you so angry you want to braid your leg hair and go on a slutwalk, I’m afraid I can’t help you. However, I can at least offer an explanation for why this is the case.

While there is no perfect opposite concept of slut for men, perhaps the closest is the concept of coward. In both cases the terms denote a loss of honor and a lack of trustworthiness. In addition, both are directly related to one’s fitness for marriage. No woman wants to be married to a coward, and no man wants to be married to a slut. Both words pack a similarly damning punch; yet for some reason there is no hue and cry that the word coward be erased from the English language.

Consider the case of the Titanic. Molly Brown entered a lifeboat and once underway suggested that they return to try to rescue additional survivors. While her compassion for others and her desire to rescue them was undoubtedly noble, no one questions why she was willing to accept the offer of the lifeboat seat in the first place. She was given preference while over a thousand men and no small number of children were one way or another denied a seat. Unlike the men on board, she knew no one would even for a second consider her a coward for accepting a seat on a lifeboat.

This brings us to the other great objection to the word slut; the definition of the term tends to be somewhat malleable. Those who object to the word demand that an immutable standard be offered, otherwise the term must have no meaning. Exactly what percentage of the varsity basketball team can a girl blow before she is considered a slut? What if she loves them all? How many hot dogs in the baby-maker is too many? They often choose cases in the gray area and demand either blanket acceptance of female promiscuity or condemnation of a woman who isn’t perfect. If you won’t condemn the woman who lost her virginity to her College Boyfriend and then went on to marry (and remain married) after perhaps a few slow motion steps on the path of serial monogamy, you can’t think of any woman as a slut. Pretty soon, this demand to not recognize the concept of slut morphs into a moral imperative; man up and marry those sluts! Any man who fears marrying a slut is deemed a coward.

While sluts are busy marching down the street demanding approval for actions many Trad Cons are unwilling to even label, feminists and many Trad Cons are busy calling men cowards for failing to offer their lives for women (including sluts) they don’t have any obligation to in a shipwreck where over 99% of the souls survived. Never mind the fact that at least two men on board Costa Concordia gave their lives to save others, and never mind the fact that many of the men chose to protect their own families instead of offering the romantic gesture so many feminists and Trad Cons crave. They wanted the Full Titanic Experience, and those cowards deprived them of it!

As I’ve pointed out before, the expectation that lifeboat seats were off limits to men isn’t universal. It isn’t generally recognized outside of the Anglosphere, and even there it is a relatively recent concept which has already been obsoleted by feminism. Similarly, the Spartans had a code of honor which by today’s standards is quite striking. Consider the well known (if historically questionable) admonition of Spartan mothers to their sons:

“With it or on it.” We’ve all heard that Spartan mothers said it while giving their sons shields before their first battle. With it = victorious hero; on it = fallen hero; without it = coward.

There is also the famous tale of the Spartan boy who concealed a wolf cub under his cloak to avoid being caught stealing. He is said to have maintained a steady expression while the wolf cub gnawed on him, and his crime was only discovered when he finally fell down dead from his wounds.

No mother today would tell her son it is better to be killed in battle than to return without victory, and likewise we don’t hold up the Spartan youth in the story as an example of virtuous manhood to be emulated. Still, we do have a basic expectation of men when it comes to courage. The concept of coward isn’t made meaningless by the fact that the boundaries can change over time. The fundamental concept endures because there is a real reason for it. Men who won’t defend what is important aren’t a good fit for marriage or fatherhood. Likewise, while the concept of slut may be somewhat malleable, the fact remains that promiscuous women aren’t a good fit for marriage.

One could also point out that to some degree we do judge both men and women based on both concepts. For example, at some point a man with a history of promiscuity is undoubtedly not a good fit for marriage. Ironically most men would probably be more strict in where they draw the line here than most women (by their actions) do. Likewise while no man would consider a woman unfit for marriage because she failed to give her life for strangers, it is possible for a woman to display so little ability for self sacrifice that she isn’t fit for marriage. But none of this changes the underlying fact. Men and women are judged by different standards, and these standards are grounded in the reality of what marriage is about. A husband who won’t defend his family when the need arises is as unfit for marriage as a wife who won’t protect her own chastity when tempted.

There is another side to this, and this is the cruelty to young women resulting from pretending the concept of slut either doesn’t exist (by refusing to use the term) or is somehow unfair to women. Young women are being lead astray by those who deny or minimize the concept and making decisions which will very often harm them and their families later. There is nothing cruel about being honest about the reality of the term and the importance of her own chastity. The cruelty in fact comes from those who would aid the seducer by providing false comfort that she won’t be judged by her actions. In this case the very malleability of the term increases the cruelty. If we want to be kind to young women we should make it clear that men and women still will judge them based on their chastity, and that what feels like the wild west morally could very well change in short order. We have pushed the boundaries of excusing female promiscuity past all practical reason, and this makes a rebound of the pendulum all the more likely. Speaking the truth now will protect women who might otherwise be caught spending their youth expecting one standard and being judged when they decide to marry by a very different standard.

See also: Lay down your arms.