Condoms, Women, and Sexuality: A Civil Issue?
65
The edited version of Carrying Condoms: Smart or Slutty?
People like to get down and dirty, whether it is with a boyfriend/girlfriend, a buddy, a random person, or a spouse. Judging from our population of 6-7 billion people and the existence of a physical sensation known as “orgasm”, it is a pleasurable activity. When people can’t have sex, they often masturbate, judging from the large pornographic film industry and Pure Romance’s top-of-the-line sex toys. At some point between now and the time humans came to be on this planet, a certain major religion came along to offer explanations for the questions science couldn’t answer. At some point, somebody decided that having sex is bad, especially before marriage, and that the best thing someone can do is become a nun and devote their lives to the existence of a “God” that may or may not exist. Whether you like it or not, there is no more evidence for the existence of “God” than against it.
Am I insulting the religion followed by the majority of people in American culture? Not at all. Sex is a personal choice, and that’s why I would prefer it if this country’s moral backings would stay out of people’s business. I can have sex when I want, with whoever consents to “do it” with me. It’s the land of the free, the home of the brave, but if you don’t make certain moral “cuts”, freedom isn’t free. There’s the purity cut, the ethnicity cut, the religious cut, the sexuality cut, the intelligence cut, and the wealth cut. If someone doesn’t make a cut, they are susceptible to discrimination (which can often manifest in death). Why don’t we stop attaching values to human beings like they are objects?
I would like to focus on the term “slut” and its adjective counterpart “slutty”. For future refernce, I would like remind people that “slut” is a derogatory term, meaning it is used to lessen the merit or value of a human being (discrimination). The word is destructive in nature, not uplifting. That’s why people generally call their significant others “honey” and “sweet pea” instead of “slut” or “dumb whorer”. The meanings of words change over time, but “slut” is predominantly used to degrade a woman.
Promiscuity is harmless by definition. It’s only problematic because it lacks concordance with the major moral backings of society. By labeling a woman a slut, you are insulting her simply because she is taking advantage of two of her constitutional rights: liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The term should not be used at all because it is hurtful, but the world wouldn’t be as controversial and interesting without freedom of speech. That being said, let’s pretend that the word is not inherently offensive. I’d like to whip out the definition of “slut” from my massive Oxford English Dictionary. This is what it says:
Slut /slut/ n.derog. a slovenly woman .
Just in case you don’t know what slovenly means, here you go:
Slovenly /slúvenlee/ adj. & adv. *adj. careless and untidy; unmethodical
According to the definition, the term “slut” cannot be accurately applied to women who carry condoms, unless you think abortions and/or unplanned pregnancies are a more careful and methodical choice. I don’t have to post a poll to know that most people prefer condoms to killing fetuses and unwanted baby booms. Fun fact: the first condom company introduced their sexual device with the slogan “Now women can have sex without getting pregnant, which is what men have been doing for years!” Even if that fun fact was a product of my imagination, something that is done as a precaution or preventative measure (wearing condoms) is inherently intelligent. What is the smart thing to do when you ride a bike? Wear a helmet. What is the smart thing to do when you have sex? Use protection.
I’m a little bit confused about why a woman would be called a slut for carrying condoms, but men would not (double standard?). “Slut” specifically refers to females, granted, but “man-slut” isn’t in the dictionary and therefore there is no equivalent term provided for men. Also, man-slut isn’t typically used to describe condom-carrying men. In fact, the title of “man-slut” generally has to be earned by a certain number of notches on the good ol’ belt. I’m a little disappointed that women aren’t held to the same standards as men when it comes to sluthood. We don’t usually have to work as hard.
What is the correlation between condom carriers and number of sexual partners? Hard to prove, but I do know that virgins can (and do) carry condoms, making the label “slut” even more inaccurate. My defense thus far has worked with my dictionary definition, but what about a more common “street” definition? “Slut” can often mean sexually promiscuous. HUGE NEWS: carrying condoms has absolutely no correlation with the number of people someone “gets sexy” with. I know a virgin who always carries a condom, actually. She’s waiting for her night of passion with Ryan Getzlaf of the Anaheim Ducks.
Condom-carrying cannot prove that someone is a “slut” by either definition, but even if it could, the word is discriminatory. If we are going to criticize people for having (or wanting to have) sex, we might as well criticize lions, bears, birds, bees, dogs, monkeys, and every other sexual creature on the planet. Sex is personal. Sex is natural. It can be harmful under conditions such as:
1) Rape
2) Irresponsible practices (ex: spreading an STD, which is prevented by condoms and honesty)
3) Infidelity (If we are questioning our country’s morality here, let’s look at www.ashleymadison.com, a popular website that condones cheating with the slogan “Life’s short, have an affair” which I would like to contradict with “Life’s short, you don’t have to get married”)
If a girl wants to carry condoms, good for her. If she likes sex just as much as you do, good for her (you’ll have more in common that way). When women buy condoms, it takes some of the burden off men—saves them a trip and/or some cash. Whether the condom is for a booty call, a boyfriend, future prince charming, or Ryan Getzlaf is none of my business. My business is that ya’ll keep it safe, baby boys and girls. Life as a mistake baby isn’t pretty…I would know. Our fathers keep telling us “I should have worn a condom, but your mother was such a slut that she didn’t have one” and then we end up writing articles like these.
I rest my case.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Promiscuity is harmless? Tell that to the tens of millions who have contracted Sexually Transmitted Diseases in America. Especially those women who are dying now in their 40s and 50s from cervical cancer linked directly to promiscuity via HPV. There is such a virtue known as propriety. We are not meat. We are not mere animals. We are human beings. It does not hurt to have some dignity.
Did you read my article? Because if you did, you would see that I wrote:
"Sex is natural. It can be harmful under conditions such as:
1) Rape
2) Irresponsible practices (ex: spreading an STD, which is prevented by condoms and honesty)"
If you are going to criticize me, you might want to finish reading my article. Otherwise, it just makes you look uneducated. Also, I never said humans were "meat". See the following quote:
"Why don't we stop attaching values to human beings like they are objects?"
When you read past the title, then I will take you seriously.
Randy Behavior: Thanks for the love girl :)
I read every word you said the first time. Condoms are a band aid for a much deeper problem: viewing ourselves as cheap to be given away to any takers. I am not criticizing you. I am criticizing what your words. The latter I am compelled to do; the former would be impolite.
Cheap? I certainly don't view myself as cheap, and I don't call it "giving myself away" because I'm not lured into anything against my will. I respect that you value "saving it", but I value experience. Neither is inherently superior. Tell me, how do other people's safe sexual practices hurt you? What do you find "cheap" about sex? It seems like what bothers you is the lack of concordance between our beliefs. I do not have a problem with your sexual practices, so why do you have a problem with mine?
If I felt, or if anyone else feels that they are "cheap" or "giving themselves away", then I would recommend that they seriously reconsider the choices they make.
Sexual experience is something to be valued if it is done responsibly. If I choose to be in a relationship with someone, I must be emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and sexually compatible with them. It adds another level to the connection that some people (who view sex in a "negative" rather than "normal" light) are never able to attain. For that I am very, very sorry.
Humans are not superior to all other living creatures. Each living creature on this earth is different, but no one is superior. We may be able to do things that other animals can't do, but that does not make us better. All life should be valued.
Sex is no more sacred for us than it is for any other creature. Animals are selective in their own way. Humans are selective in their own way. In addition, we have certain pleasure zones that are there for our benefit. Do you think those were put there just so we could pro-create?
Also, you mentioned dignity. Why do you associate self-respect with having consensual safe sex? I have a lot of self-respect, which is why I will not settle for someone who is unable to fulfill all of my needs: emotional, mental, spiritual and sexual.
My comment was in reference to this statement by you
"Promiscuity is harmless"
That is simply not true. Promiscuity has harmed billions of people. I have no problem with your sexual practices; I have no idea what they are. But a society with rampant promiscuity will be a society with terrible morals and physical disease. That is the way it is. As far as saying human beings are not superior to animals well . . . that's crazy! What on earth are you talking about? Have you never seen the Space Shuttle, the Empire State Building, modern medicine, the Mona Lisa, heard Mozart, read Shakespeare, or our Declaration of Independence, or been on the internet?
Sex is sacred to birds and bees? Nonsense. Sex should be sacred to human beings. Human beings are spiritual beings.
Sex is natural? You are right. It is natural and what is the natural result of sex? babies! Surely you can see that. Those organs are for reproduction.
You say neither being promiscuous nor being non-promiscuous is superior? Think again. Try this mental experiment. If the only sex among humans was inside of marriage, what would the world be like? Boring? Is sex the only exciting thing in this wonderful world? I'll tell you what it would be like: there would be ZERO STDs for a start. Who would give it to whom? STDs would disappear. Considering that these diseases strike a billion people each year, and cause death and misery, I would say that would be a pretty good thing. Even if we did have to restrain ourselves against our baser, sordid impulses.
There would be no killing of the unborn, no unwanted children, no illegitimate children doomed to a failed life, no adultery, no unfaithfulness. This is not a better aim for humanity than just to act like rabbits? Goodness gracious! What is this world coming to.
I am not talking about what YOU do. I am addressing your philosophy. You do whatever you want. But your words
"Promiscuity is harmless". That has to rebutted by any thinking person who cares about the human race. That is not healthy.
I said "promiscuity is harmless by definition". BY DEFINITION. And I went on to elaborate and explain the conditions under which it IS harmful. It is not fair for you to pick out a section of what I said and twist it into something I didn't say. My entire argument is advocating safe sex practices, because even if you want everyone to "save it", that will never happen. I am not arguing for promiscuity or abstinence, but for respect and safe sex. You say you read my article, but you pick out a tiny piece of one sentence that does not have anything to do with my overarching argument.
You said a portion of my statement "has to be rebutted by any thinking person who cares about the human race"
I am a thinking person. I care about the human race. Just because we are more intelligent than animals in certain ways does not mean we are superior. We can't breathe underwater, does that make fish better than us? No. But each living species offers something different to the world. Not all humans are spiritual. Speak for yourself, but that is not true of everyone.
Technology has prevented a lot of "natural" things from happening in addition to reproduction. Let's talk about polio, smallpox. Let's talk about all the diseases that kill people, all the medical technology that saves lives. That's not natural. Do you disagree with that?
Sex technology aka protection prevents unwanted children and STDs. If we didn't have protection, what do you think the world would be like? If we didn't have medicine, what do you think the world would be like?
OK. I know the article is about "protection." But if I wrote a 1000 page article about gardening and right in the middle suddenly said "euthanizing people is a great idea" and you wrote to me about that one phrase (thinking it must be a misprint), you are right—you would be pulling it out of context, because it is outrageous. But that's OK. I did not mean to offend you. I actually thought you would want to correct that phrase, not defend it to the death. But, I was wrong. I stand corrected. You are a lovely looking young woman. You are valuable; you are precious. That's all I'm going to say about that. ciao












Randy Behavior says:
5 months ago
Great hub Colorsuz! I think I started reading your original, but don't know it I ever made to the end. The true definition of slut is a crack up. Thumbs up.