Talk:Slut/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Condensed and overhauled article

I took the liberty of condensing several redundant passages, and reordering the article into three sections -- Overview, Etymology, and Alternate Usages. The article still needs work (some of my edits are still cludgy), but I think it's in better shape for editing now. I also put one citation in for the etymology section. StrangeAttractor 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong word

The redirect at the top that reads:

""For the streetcar formally known as South Lake Union Trolley ""

Should read:

""For the streetcar formerly known as South Lake Union Trolley ""

203.211.99.80 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Bendono 10:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kettles

Although it is now rarely used with this meaning, the word slut at one time referred to a kettle in Newfoundland. The Dictionary of Newfoundland English, 2nd Edition, Eds. G.M. Story, W.J. Kirwin, and J.D.A. Widdowson, University of Toronto Press (1999) defines it as follows:

slut n

1 A tin kettle, often one with a large flat bottom and tapering to the top, used to boil water on an open fire; cp PlPER, SMUT.

1924 ENGLAND 11 Some were drawing water at an icicled faucet near the cropping shed, bringing 'sluts' (kettles) aboard, and brewing tea. 1937 DEVINE 46 ~ A large tin teakettle. P 102-60 Everybody would line up 3 times a day for salt meat, potatoes and figgy duff or saltfish and brewis and a slut full of boiled tea, no milk but good old Barbados molasses, no sugar. P 54-67 A hotwater kettle, of the familiar type locally made by tinsmiths and much used on outdoor picnics, hunting trips etc, is called a slut—especially the very large sort, holding about 4 gallons and made of sheet copper, used on board the old sealing steamers, being always kept full of boiling water on the galley stove, whence sealers would take small kettlesful to take to their bunks and brew tea with. 1973 MOWAT 69 Twice a week ... we got duff, made out of condemned flour put into bags and boiled in a slut—a big kettle—with a bit of salt pork.

2 Attrib slut kettle: see sense 1 above.

T 181-65 An 'we had a large kettle [that was shaped] up like that. They used to call 'em the slut kettle.

slut tea: strong tea brewed in the kettle in which the water is boiled.

P 145-74 There was nothing on the table but bread, molasses and slut tea.

MJMK (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, can someone removes the pic ? Because someone's complaining http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/18/t900437-desperately-need-someone-with-wikipedia-account/

Lazzara 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) before anyone freaks out about the gay reference, i'm gay, and i hear it all the time... --JonMoore 10:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re possible move to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Slut (which already exists, btw) whilst such a move makes sense for pages which have no content above a basic DicDef, the current page certainly does - indeed it has multiple usages and many cross-links. I'm removing the flag and will do some re-write also. --Vamp:Willow 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The anon IP which keeps adding a line about a word that supposedly also means slut, the word is actually a person's name (quite easy to prove). As they are rotating through different IPs though they can't easily be blocked. They are getting annoying though! -Vamp:Willow 22:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted this once. Hopefully they will give up.---[jon] 23:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Had to revert from vandalism again. Wish the kiddies would find something else to do -- can't you go steal hubcaps or rob old ladies, like normal kids?StrangeAttractor 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Integrating information of "Slut" into the Article Prostitution

After reading both articles, it might be better to integrate relevant information from "Slut" into the category "Prostitution". JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Slut is a pejorative term, prostitution is a profession. They are not the same thing, and should not be merged.

Hussy

I disagree with the redirection of 'hussy' to 'slut'. These are not synonyms. 24.210.123.100 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This says that they are synonmys:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hussy

JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is a bad idea unless the information remains in both articles

As the title suggests. People who look up slut expect to find information about "sluts" on that page. They do not know to check another. Just checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Swedish "slut"

Is it really relevant with an etymology of the unrelated Swedish word "slut"? Seems like that's something that belongs in wiktionary, not wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.208.211 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing that paragraph. Al-gabr (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

different view of slut definition by an editor

user:Citizen Premier has twice removed a key part of the definition because he doesn't agree.

"A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been taken back to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one's personal liberties, and the right to control one's own sexuality."

The purpose of the statement, and the perspective cited from "the ethical slut", is indeed, that some people have a different view of the definition. It is, as the article explains, a term that has been "taken back". Like "queer". There are a number of people (I happen to be one of them, and I know a multitude of people) who would call themselves a "slut". You may feel that it is POV, but the way that an article is NPOV is that it expresses alternate views. This is one alternate view, and IMO an accurate description of the attitude of the people who have taken back the term, and adopt it. I apologize if this seems radical to you, or too much in your face, but it is a reality of life. That is sort of the purpose of taking back a term.

So, other than your view that in your world it is viewed as a negative term (as described in the article "Slut is a pejorative term for a person (usually female) who is more sexually promiscuous than is deemed socially acceptable. The term has traditionally been applied to women and is generally used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement.") What problem do you have with expressing all alternatives, rather than your preferred one?

Please refer to WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, WP:DR and WP:CON Atom 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit hasty to say that the word "slut" has been "taken back." I get what you're saying - there are women (and men) who call themselves sluts, they don't mind or even celebrate the stigma that comes along with it. Well and good. But there are (I am almost certain) many more women who would be highly offended at being called a slut. You may *want* to take the term back, but you can't just declare it "taken" and have that dream come true. Slut is still a highly pejorative word to mainstream culture. People still use it to inflict pain and humiliation, and it still does inflict those things on many people. It's like saying the word "nigger" isn't pejorative because some black people have embraced the word and are trying to reclaim it. Applejuicefool 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fact it has been taken back, and is used as a source of pride, indicates but one perspective, not the definitive one. Just as "queer" has been taken back, and is used by some homosexuals proudly does not suggest that all people feel that way. The other perspective, that some consider it pejorative is still listed here. The key to keeping an article NPOV is to express all POV's, not to try and limit the article to the predominate POV, or to make all words expressed "neutral". You are certainly right that some people would still be offended at being called a "slut". I don;t thin anyone has suggested otherwise. Atom 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it virtually impossible to include all the possible points of view? I mean, everyone reacts to a word or concept differently. Everyone brings a different background to a word. So at what point to you "cut off" including variant reactions? Applejuicefool 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that saying it is often used against gays and bisexuals unmeritedly is appropriate. I don't think this word is used against that entire community as a general slur. Rather it is used against individuals who may merit the slur or not depending on your POV.Stewarpm 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) IAGREE WITH ATOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.180.176 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

'Principally By Women'? Bullshit.

I request that the bit in brackets that says slut is used "principally by women" be deleted. It seems a little biased; the person who added that part has obviously never been to a high school, a pub, or even listened to groups of men in conversation. Men and boys frequently call women "sluts"; both sexes do. It is not "principally women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.229.150 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a couple of sentences that were made by what looks like a vandal.

Is the last part about "Gangsta Rap" and "Internet Porn" circles really necessary?

I read it, and it seems to really deride the credibility of article overall. Perhaps you could do without it, but I'm not gonna edit it until I get an OK from some other users.

Slut isn't a slang term, so someone sould remove that pharse and simply say "is a term used to refer to a person with multiple parterns." I know because I checked all four dictionaries I have and none list it as slang.--HistoricalPisces 18:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- "slut" is not slang. It is a slur, but it is still standard English. I removed the link to slang. StrangeAttractor 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?--HistoricalPisces 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I also wonder if we should cite some tangible examples of individuals who embody the personification of the word? I nominate one " Matthew Burke" as a paramount figure in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.245.16 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC) most chicks got a price and so are in my eyes" sluts" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.150.119 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to List of female porn stars

Putting this in the links section seems a tad judgmental, does it not? I removed it. 74.128.159.12 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, porn stars have reclaimed the word stop being judgmental.Mrdthree 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break... You may like porn stars, and you may consider some of them to be sluts. Some of them may portray sluts in some form or another. But, they are doing what they do to make money, not to make a statement about their sexual freedom. Putting a link to porn stars doesn't seem to me to enhance the value of the article, or give anyone a better idea of what the various definitions mean. Atom 00:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting a link to porn stars on this article would mean Wiki is taking a POV stance, which can not be done. However, a slut is a girl who has lots of sex, usually with many partners, which is what porn stars do, nor are they considered socially acceptable. Malamockq 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be female to be a slut. Also, having many partners really isn't a criteria. I would not support this article being a link repository for porn stars. I'm sure that most porn starts are not sluts, they are paid actresses. Likely there are some porn stars that are sluts. Butm being a slut is an annoucnement of your sexual freedom; That society and religion don't have the right to tell you who you may be intimate with. Atom 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As with many things of this nature, the definition of "slut" is what the person who uses it intends it to be. There is no strict definition. A girl could have sex only once, or do as little as wear a short dress, but be a slut in someone's eyes. Malamockq 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All this controversy over a group of sluts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.208.164 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Atom here, slut is a social phenomenon, even an ideology, not an occupation. If you happen to have "a list of sluts" though that might be very handy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Malamockq, this is not a place for subjectivity. This is an encyclopedia. Opinion is entirely irrelevant here. Rationality states that if a girl doesn't sleep around, she is not a slut, never mind who's "eyes she's in". Jesus. I'm sorry, but there are enough problems in the world already. Keep It Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, and Malamockq is right. There is no definition of "slut". A slut is anyone that anyone deems to be one. Malamockq wasn't stating his opinion, he was stating that the word slut is subjected to opinion, which is correct. So if someone deems a pornstar to be a slut, then they are a slut in their eyes. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage clean-up

I know that Wikipedia is not censored but it appears some vandals have come to this page to explicitly add a person's name or two or just stir up the pot. Editors need to remember that a talkpage is used to improve the article as per the talkpage talkheader. Extraneous comments should not be allowed.--Morenooso (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Slut

Some of this material is vandalised too often. Perhaps more monitoring would help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.55.38 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure that Bridget Jones's usage is solecism or idiolect

Using "slut" to indicate "slovenly or dirty habits" is not peculiar to Helen Fielding. This is just anecdotal, but 40 years ago my wife's college room mate, who grew up in Maine, USA, called dust balls under the bed "slut's wool". This is hardly surprising, given that the ME meaning had to do with lack physical cleanliness, which was extended later to include lack of sexual purity.

I suggest that the reference to Bridget Jones be removed, or at least rewritten to remove the assertion that Fielding's usage is idiosyncratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logomachon (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to suggest idiolect - remember that the English use colloquial English language differently from Americans. neither Helen Fielding the writer nor Bridget Jones the character is American, only the film actress. In England the connotations of the adjective seem exactly appropriate, without any necessary reference to Chaucer! I have deleted the contrary uncited personal opinion. Jezza (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning

Aside from it means now, "slut" was a nother less "respectuful" term for prostitute not simply "loose" as is implied int he article.(Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

This article needs to be protected

I like the article, but the chronic vandalism and now some dummy posted a picture of someone with a speech bubble.Mrdthree 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about edit protection, but it's very frustrating to see that the vandalism is ongoing, and casual visitors are prevented from undoing it. Thatsjustnotcricket (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is basically just a definition of the term "slut", and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary). This article should be deleted. (FDA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.68.180 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Usage

"It is often used describing some gay males and bisexuals, comparing them as people who are promiscuous in that they have, or are reputed to have, many sexual partners, or whose sexuality is voracious or indiscriminate."

I don't think it's often enough to warrant being mentioned here. The 'in that they have, or are reputed to have' section is shady at best. I propose someone cite mention of significant usage of the word in this tone or delete this sentence entirely. --Kooperfan (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

AHDWTF

The etymology section says that slut comes from the word "slutte (AHD)". Americans with Hearing Disabilities?

Asides from being incorrect formatting by most empirical or scholarly articles to introduce acronyms without defining them, it seems more importantly bound to confuse some large percent of readers I expect. Am I wrong? 184.95.45.176 (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012

In urdu language, the word for slut is nosheen. 110.36.91.74 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. excuse me, where exactly does it need to be added? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More bad grammar!

Read the first sentence of etymology and your grade school teachers were legitimate then you should see what I mean. "Although the ultimate origin of slut is unknown. It first appeared in Middle English in..."

Better would be ""Although the ultimate origin of slut is unknown it first appeared in Middle English in..." "

184.95.45.176 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. You forgot the comma, though. EIN (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

To act as a drudge. Also, to behave like shari. e.g.Nor was she a Woman of any Beauty, but was a nasty Slut. a1763 SHENSTONE Odes Wks. (1765) 190 She's ugly, she's old,..And a slut, and a scold. a. A woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade. the cad, rake :: gentlemen and slut::lady is my identification Mrdthree 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one gives a s*** about your fascism or misguided opinion here. This page is to debate factual accuracy, not to boast that you grew up in the bible belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to male synonyms, slut bears similarity to the male pejoratives, 'cad' and 'womanizer' rather than ' stud'. Hence in analogic terms, slut is to lady as a cad is to gentleman. 'Slut', like 'cad' and 'womanizer' is a pejorative term and identifies a person who lacks, either by willfull disregard or constitution and circumstance, a certain degree of discermnent in their actions and relations. In contrast, the word stud is not offensive, carries connotations of merit, and usually denotes the ability, in terms of virility and masculinity, to gain (or keep) the most desirable women. It definitely does not imply a lack of discernment and has a usage and derivation not related to promiscuity.Mrdthree 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added to the alternative definitions. We all have to remember that the word had valid past historical usage, which is largely referenced in the http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Slut entry, but is a word that is currently undergoing change. The common usage in American society (don't know about other places) is one of someone taking pride in their sexual freedom, rather than as a slur. It is also, therefore a word, not slang, as there is no other word for that. --Atom 13:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not complicate things. I see people do this all the time. It's just not necessary. This is an encyclopedia, so the priority is it's definition, not its connotations, which can be left to the end. Slut means a sexually promiscuous woman. End of story. It is being chronically misused, yes, but that doesn't change its meaning. Slut is not an insult, even if it is being used as such. Compare to "Bastard", which is not an insult either, but a genuine phenomenon, the word for which has been misused by the masses to be insulting. None the less, in the definition of Bastard, one would want to read what it actually means, not what it connotes, which can be discerned easily.

I agree with the above poster. The definition of slut is all that is necessary, not how people use it. It means someone who is sexually promiscuous. Whether that is a good or bad thing isn't for Wikipedia to decide. So, I suggest that the word "pejorative" be removed from the definition and also that the sentence "it may also be used as an expression of pride in one's status, or to express envy at the sexual successes of others" is removed. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to speculate on why people use the terms they do. Shinigami27 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above posters have said over the past 5 years.. why lock this article if no one ever maintains it and monitors this board? Slut-like behavior (just kidding)!

184.95.45.176 (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So. I originally went to this page to request that this article be added to. A sexually promiscuous woman is, I'm sure I do not need to say, an extremely valuable person in today's sexually oppressive society. Therefor, how to spot one, examples, psychological factors/motivations that make someone a slut, commonalities, typical behavior, links to slut communities, and so on, would be good to cover given that this is an encyclopedia definition of the word "slut". It's good that there is an article on it, now lets cover the subject. 87.254.81.209 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Smart idea. [[1]]. But craigslist isnt something you can cite.Mrdthree (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good idea indeed. However, I'm afraid this is not the best article for it. The promiscuity article seems a more proper choice. I have a few studies I could cite, but I won't take this task on any earlier than after my exams on Thursday. Now that I mentioned it, Promiscuity#Female promiscuity should at least be included in the “See also” list. EIN (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Moar Rule 34's remark is unremarkably glib but his/her puerile comment shouldn't distract readers from the fact that language is not static. Indisputable evidence that the word slut has evolved, in a particular place with homogeneous Anglo-Irish linguistic traditions, to mean something that is entirely consistent with Elizabethan era (or earlier) usage should trigger critical inquiry into the etymology of the term.

The fact that Wikipedia has blocked public opportunity for further contribution to this topic (and presumably other topics) suggests that the Wiki concept, in the hands of current Wikipedia managers, lacks intellectual integrity and honesty. Further to that, it could also suggest that (without a democratic (Wiki) constitution) communist ideology is the lowest common denominator.

I encourage Wikipedia Inc. not to block empirical evidence of historical or contemporary knowledge. Remember that in the mid 196os Mao Tse Tung, China's "Great Helmsman" closed colleges and universities to control public opinion and social/historcial understanding.

Wikipedia now equals Mao Tse Tung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.156.178 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

a strip of cloth or rag, from Roman times. See slut lamp in this page http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/firefromsteel/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.11.208 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, chill. This article, as many others, has been semi-protected because—guess why. The word “slut” pulls vandals to it like a magnet. The two comments above mine were written more than a year ago, so I'm not addressing to their authors now, but hey, if any of you people want see changes of any sort made to the article, please be specific about what it exactly is that you want changed, and I'll see what I can do for you. EIN (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Could a picture further enhance this article

What would it look like, how would it contribute to this article or is the article good enough proof of what the word really means? This entry is in need of images :) JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While the IP's edit that got reverted as vandalism today was a horribly vulgar personal attack against JasonHockeyGuy, which I deplore, the underlying point of the edit seemed to be that any image accompanying this article would be problematic in the extreme. And I agree with that. Darkspots (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We sluts look just like everyone else -- so I am not sure how a photo would add to the article. Atom (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Let's add File:Standard Wikipedia Editor to the infobox. Darkspots (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I had no clue someone laid out a personal attack against me. I totally ignored that. I can always check the edit logs to see what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If an editor wanted to add a picture of themselves to the article, I see no problem with it, indeed I would support it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Before the SlutWalk movement, the best an editor of the article could have hoped for in this matter was to post a picture of somebody wearing suggestive clothing in public. This fault has been corrected most wholesomely, and the only purpose of my comment here is to advise against using an image of any other class, seeing as no other alternative is competent to convey the concept in a fashion any more sophisticated: notably, and without parallel, it elevates the issue to a political level. EIN (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A very related external link suggestion

The article is called "why Gisela dosent want to be known as a slut" and I think it should be added to the external links section because frankly, I think that the Wiki slut page looks more like a dictionary and it doesn't explain what makes girls behave like sluts and why they don’t want to be perceived as sluts. The Wiki page also does not provide explanation about the psychology behind the whole thing. This article gives answers to all of these questions. Here’s the address: http://www.attraction-college.com/why-women-dont-want-to-be-perceived-as-sluts.html Do you guys think it’s relevant to the page? If you do, can someone with the ability to add this article to the external links section add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenn1975 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not relevant, because the real issue is not "what makes girls behave like sluts" and more "why society deems certain forms of female (and not male) sexuality to be a negative thing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.253.104 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, the biological lies at the base of the cultural. Nonetheless, this specific article discusses a concept cultural rather than biological. The OP may instead like to turn one's attention to one or more of the following Wiki articles: Promiscuity, Non-monogamy, Hormones and sexual motivation, Libido#Endogenous substances involved in sex drive.

I was unable to access the external article you proposed. EIN (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare's use of word Slut

In Shakespeare's Comedy 'As You Like It' (1600) Touchstone seduces Audrey in a very unconventional way, with the following dialogue;

Audrey: well, I am not fair, and therefore I pray the Gods make me honest
Touchstone: truly, and to cast away honesty upon a foul slut were to put good meat into an unclean dish
Audrey: I am not a slut, though I thank the Gods I am foul
Touchstone: well, praised be the Gods for thy foulness: slutishness may come hereafter.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhebert1959 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

YGood catch. Have thrown it to the etymology section. EIN (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why was?

Isn't the term slut still an insult? I'm referring to the first or second line of the article.--82.113.99.180 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The article indicates that it is often used in a pejorative fashion. It also indicates that the term has ben "taken back" by some communities, and is used as a source of identity and pride. In the same way that many gays and lsebians proudly identify as "queer" or "fag" even those terms have historically been used as a pejorative. Atom (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A slut is a person, not a perjorative term. The word "slut" is a perjorative term, but a slut isn't. Please can a registered user change this, because it is a glaring flaw in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordinvader (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's marked in bold, complying to Wikipedia guidelines. In this instance, it may function both as slut and as “slut,” complying with accepted practice on Wikipedia. EIN (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Slut-shaming

Might be good to add a section on slut-shaming, which seems to be a popular topic right now. Kaldari (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've taken care of introducing the section into the article. Mind you, slut shaming has already gotten an article of its own on Wikipedia. EIN (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

"However some women have demonstrated saying they're proud of being "sluts", and have given it a positive connotation." The "demonstrated saying" bit is silly. Just write "said". Also, "they're" is too informal for the tone of an encyclopaedia: use "they are". 86.135.115.218 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the crowd advocating reclamation of the word isn't gender-specific; i.e., it's not just women. I'll probably rephrase it in a day or a few if nobody will have showed up with objections by that time. EIN (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. EIN (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2012

Taking Back Sundays, Adam Lazzara used "You slut me into this decision" in Semi-Automatic. As if to say you've forced me into this decision. Yesyes03 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. TBrandley 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley, the OP meant an alternative usage. I'll add it to the section and let other editors decide whether it should remain there. EIN (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad Etymology

The paragraph says:

Although the ultimate origin of the word "slut" is unknown, it first appeared in Middle English in 1402 as slutte (AHD), with the meaning "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly woman".[5] Even earlier, Geoffrey Chaucer used the word sluttish (c. 1386) to describe a slovenly man; however, later uses appear almost exclusively associated with women.[5] The modern sense of "a sexually promiscuous woman" commonly know slut names could be Caitlin, Kim, Kelsie, Jessica, Kourtney and Erin! Names shown from test taken world wide! Heres the top 6 with Chelsea being a close 7th!

Now the first sentence says it FIRST appeared in 1402 but the second says EVEN EARLIER Chaucer used the word in 1386. Well then the FIRST use would have to be at least 1386 not the other way around. You idiots at Wikipedia leave stupid nonsense like this standing because you are a bunch of sluts who spend your time wanking instead of fixing your historical errors. And you eat crumpets. You are probably all English. Irish people wouldn't do this shyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.108.85 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It says Chaucer used the word "sluttish" earlier. Different but related word, hence including it in the etymology. —me_and 15:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is s*** on wikipedia?

I dont get why s*** is on wikipedia. Our children dont need to see that it is okay to say that because it is on a website like wikipedia. it is like we want the younger generation to say such horrible things to females. i certainly dont want my children to say such a horrible word. teens might think it is funny word but its not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.81.5 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and includes articles on potentially offensive subjects like this one. Please note that this article explains the use and history of the word from an encyclopaedic point of view rather than encouraging its use. However, if you don't want your children to know about such things, you should prevent them from accessing Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedia that would need to be blocked, but pretty much the internet in general. Might want to keep the Holy Bible out of their hands too because words very similar to this one are used in it. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The word isn't limited to its pejorative meaning, you do know, aye? Some people fall into holes they themselves dug. To them I will only say, “Don't spit in the wind.” EIN (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are all racist bigoted cis SCUM and I hope that you are sent to HELL for ur actions!!!!!!111!!!1!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.144.37 (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Reduce POV

Under "Alternate usages", the following text appears in the context of describing the term as applied by "The Ethical Slut":

"A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been "taken back" to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one's personal liberties, and the right to control one's own sexuality."

The prolonged length of the description drifts away from simply describing the viewpoint espoused in the book, and is simply stating some author's POV. Especially everything from "The term has been 'taken back'..." onward, which simply reads like a pamphlet. I would recommend editing it down a little and making it clear it's the book that holds that view, like:

"Within this context a slut is someone who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious, social, or traditional societal pressures." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.136.159 (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.53.248 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

“Slutyj” in Ukrainian

The etymology section states, “It exists in Ukrainian too as slutyj as a loan word from Yiddish or via the mediaeval Scandinavian Varangian colonists in Kievan Rus'.”

As a native Ukrainian speaker, I testify that «слутий» is not in circulation, save for its rare usage as a surname. EIN (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But something close - шлюха (shlyukha) - is in circulation in Russian. I heard a Russian use it in Moscow last week, meaning "slut", to describe a "pussy riot" girl. cwmacdougall 13:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

straight-laced

Spelling: "straight-laced monogamous lifestyle" should be "strait-laced monogamous lifestyle". IP edits blocked, noting here. 202.81.249.206 (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Both spelling variants are acceptable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reclaimed words

Please add Category:Reclaimed words as some women are actively subverting the word by being proud of calling themselves sluts. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Alternative title policy

Bhny, what you stated here is not the point. WP:Alternative title is a policy, not simply a guideline and certainly not an essay, and it should be followed. The article being about the word does not mean that the WP:Alternative title policy does not apply. If it did, the WP:Alternative title policy would mention it. And, like the WP:Alternative title policy is clear about, the word does not need to be mentioned lower in the article to be noted in the lead; it is clear about when to note the word lower in the article, stating, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section)." Right now, you have made it so that when some readers type in or click on the word slattern, they have no idea why they are redirected to the Slut article. The word slattern being noted/bolded in the lead, or mentioned lower in the article, lets readers know that they are at the correct article. The word slattern is not in as widespread use as the word slut is these days, but its declining usage is exactly why we should be clear with readers on this matter (that they are at the correct article). Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So gay should have alternative titles as well? Bhny (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The WP:Alternative title policy is for significant alternative titles. In the case of the Gay article, alternative titles are already noted in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Out of those alternative titles, only one is significant enough to consider as a WP:Alternative title for noting and bolding in the lead right beside the term gay. That is the word homosexual. But, for a number of reasons, it does not fit the WP:Alternative title policy with regard to noting and bolding it right beside the term gay, or bolding it in the lead at all: The word homosexual does not redirect to the Gay article; this is because it has its own Wikipedia article -- the Homosexuality article -- and the terms are covering distinct matters. The Gay article begins by stating: "Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual." It is about the word gay, while the Homosexuality article is about the same-sex sexual orientation, any same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction/sexual activity, and the overall history of homosexuality. Furthermore, gay does not only refer to a homosexual person. It also refers to any same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction/sexual activity, the LGBT community (often called the gay community), an insult (as in "That's so gay."), and outdated terminology. Neither article needs, or should have, both terms mentioned side by side (as has been noted at those talk pages before). And since the term gay rarely means what it originally meant, and what it originally meant is already noted in the lead and lower in that article, any term that means what it originally meant should not be bolded in the lead right beside it. Unlike, the Slut article and the term slattern, there is no word that should be mentioned and bolded right beside the term gay in the Gay article.

Solving this case is simple: Either restore the term slattern to the Slut article in the way that it was before, mention it somewhere else in the lead (preferably the first paragraph) without bolding it, or mention it lower in the article...in the Etymology section. If none of those options are explored, then I will query editors at the WP:Alternative title policy talk page (Wikipedia talk:Article titles) to weigh in on this matter, or I will explore some other WP:Dispute resolution process. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

how about this for a definition of Slut?

a girl who gives her body to (almost?) any man, but her heart to no man? Spoilermdc (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So sad but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.219.92 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

not true. A slut is NOT a girl who has sex with lots of men; a slut is a girl who has sex without securing a man's COMMITMENT in return. Women decide which men will be allowed to have sex with herself; but the man controls which woman gets his COMMITMENT. This is why the ACTUAL "slut shaming" statement is: "No rings for sluts". Which is why women feel compelled to lie about their Number. The male equivalent of a slut is NOT a guy who has had many sexual partners; it is a man who gives away commitment without getting any sex in return. IE: "friendzoned". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.194 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Slut/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The phrase "The modern sense of "a sexually promiscuous woman" dates to at least 1450." is confusing because when discussing history, the modifier "at least" is ambiguous. Are we to understand that the sense dates to before 1450 or after 1450?

Last edited at 02:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 15:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment

As seen here, here, here and here, there is currently poor editing by Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/OSU Newark/Gender, Sex and power (Fall 2015) going at this article; the poor editing thus far has been a result of edits by Czagore.4 and Nicolekappeler. As seen, there has been no attempt by them to engage the more experienced Wikipedia editors here at this talk page about improving the article and what the problems with their edits are. Nicolekappeler has also taken to WP:Edit warring, with no WP:Edit summary justifying the reverts. This class does not appear to have had the appropriate training to edit Wikipedia. I will go ahead and alert the WP:Education noticeboard to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Nicolekappeler has addressed me on my talk page about this. Thank you, Nicolekappeler. My problems with your class's edits thus far are the following: The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to summarize the article, namely its most important points. The Slut article is relatively small; so it doesn't need this material. At the time that material was added, there also wasn't a Movements section in the article, which meant that you were adding content to the lead that wasn't yet covered lower in the article. In other words, expand the lower article first, then have the lead summarize the lower article. Now that there is a Movements section in the article, I still wouldn't state that the movements material you added to the lead should be in the lead; this is because the Movements section is very small. As noted, I've also had a problem with the sourcing you used. Take this material, for example; why should allwomenstalk.com material be added? And if it's really notable, there should be WP:Secondary sources covering that topic. If so, you should use those sources for the allwomenstalk.com material, not the allwomenstalk.com source, which is a WP:Primary source. Same goes for the Movements section, which is currently sourced to slutwalkdc.com. You and your class should be using scholarly sources, like I used for this and this edit. There are plenty of such sources on this topic at Google Books. You can also use WP:Reliable media sources. Also take note that some of the movement aspect is covered at the Slut-shaming article, and we shouldn't make this article too much like that one. This article is more so about the word. The Slut-shaming article is more so about the movements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Since the class is coming out of one of the campuses of Ohio State University, instead of using google books, they should really use their own library and the access to e-resources they have that most non-students don't, instead of being flaky and citing google books :) I actually make this a base requirement in classes I am involved with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Feedback for WGSST 1110

I think this article does a good job of explaining the origin of the word and how it was first used. It also demonstrates how it is used today and the various places the word is commonly used. One thing I would like to see more of in this article is how it grew into what it means today. When exactly did it become popular as a slur and globally where is it used? Also, possibly the connotations related to this word and how they affect women and feminism overall? Blairebeavers25 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Blairebeavers25: What does "WGSST 1110" mean in this context? —me_and 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

HIV not being fatal for rich people and the advent of penicillin allowed the definition of slut to loosen and wither before anybody ever challenged it. The so called anti-slut shaming movement rose on the back of science that allows people to have risk free sex. In my view this has nothing to do with moral superiority of this generation or evolution of thinking. Before 1940 you could die and go slowly insane from STIs. Before 1992 people were dying in the streets of AIDS. It was extraordinary. These people's eyes would go red and goey and like melt out of their faces on 9th Avenue. You people have no idea... of course sexual promiscuity is going to be seen in a different light. And by the way, this generation that's supposedly against slut shaming has less sex than the generation before it that didn't get offended by that word, so I don't know how anybody is arguing that the word effectively enforced sexual barriers that have been eliminated by it's going slightly more out of style today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.167.73 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No equivalent word to slut for men

Claim that there are no english words equivalent to slut that describe men is uncited (WP:OR). Plenty exist e.g.: wiktionary: rake/rakehell- A man habituated to immoral conduct; to lead a dissolute, debauched life. (wfr#-- too many homographs) wiktionary: womanizer- A habitual/serial seducer of women. (wfr#26016) wiktionary: cad-(vulgar seducer): villain, womanizer, dog (wfr#15280) wikitionary: dog- (derogatory) Someone who is morally reprehensible. (wfr#?-- too many homographs). As for words for experienced woman with less negative connotation: seductress (wfr#41515), femme fatale (~wfr#31790) and slang terms sex kitten, sex machine, hottie.

Mrdthree (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

None of those holds the same societal weight as slut. I don't know if you're playing devils advocate but these terms aren't used nearly in the same way or frequency. Then again, articles like this do focus on sexism in society --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a source, a textbook containing studies on violence against girls and women worldwide that specifically mentions this disparity. Also added the word popular because male equivalent words do technically exist, we just don't live in a culture that gives this idea weight --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not devils advocate, its pointing out that the terms exist and are and have been powerful shamers; its just that they arent used as much so with that part I agree. Mrdthree (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that female sexual shaming terms are used far more often than are male sexual shaming terms (I think thats what the textbook says http://www.amazon.com/Violence-against-Girls-Women-volumes/dp/1440803358). And that is an interesting topic but the idea that male sexual shaming terms dont exist is just false. I think slut has a word frequency of (wfr#5000) so its pretty high, I think stud is lower (wfr#8000) but male sexual shaming terms as above, lower still and mildly positive/neutral sexual terms for women lower yet. Mrdthree (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. The male sexual shaming terms do definitely exist, it's just that a society that uses them in a similar frequency to female sexual shaming terms does not. It would be inaccurate to say that they don't exist at all, but to say that men face them as often as women would also be wrong. I appreciate the last edit you made, "comparably popular" reads much better than "comparable popular". Good collaborative work anyway, especially as I think it's possible we hold different viewpoints on this particular topic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but slut is definitely a word that I, as a male, use for other males. 80.108.16.194 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In my friend group the term is not, and never was gendered. Though I have heard man-slut, I believe that "slut" first recorded English use was to refer to a man in Chaucer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.167.73 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A typical imbalance, with many aspects, like phenomenon that men spend incomparably more money for women making love with them, than reversely. Most of the "patriarchal" aggression comes from the frustration experiencing everywhere the most obvious, direct, supreme power of women's physicality, sexuality, erogeneity over men's. So in this very important area / inbalance it is not "patriarchy" but rather gynocracy that seems to be the proper term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istenaldja (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Slut bunnies

The source for slut bunnies talks about it being anecdotal. Doesn't feel like it belongs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnermt6 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin/actual definition

A mans sex drive. The term slut is commonly known to be put on women. Which is morally wrong and incorrect. It has been feminized. The origin of the term slut is a man's sex drive. FilippinaGerman (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

'Article' is a pile of shit , a classic dicdef and it needs to be redirected to slut-shaming

Consensus against merging. SSTflyer 10:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The only significant use of the term "slut" is in slut shaming, and that's why this pile of crap is still start class after 15 years, it isn't even an article.

The scope of the slut-shaming article covers everything encyclopedic that this article is about, and that's why this must redirect to there; it is completely incorrect to have an article on a term when there's already a full article on the underlying topic like this.GliderMaven (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, at least six hundred years of English language disagree with that first statement. Slut shaming is a happening thing, that's a fact, but there's more to "slut" than just that. DICDEF is a very valuable guideline, but much of it depends on which dictionary you use. The OED has a number of fairly interesting angles (including for "sluttish" and "slutty"). Its etymology is, apparently, somewhat in question, which is interesting in its own right, but maybe not here. Anyway, it's worth noting that the article doesn't even cite the main entry in the OED, nor does it cite Leora Tanenbaum's seminal Slut!--which itself can be the link to slut shaming. Slut feminism isn't brought into the matter. Hmm--and [ http://www.jstor.org/stable/450575 Johnson brought it into the dictionary on the authority of Shakespeare]? Anyway, the article isn't very good, but I think that it has some viability. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You have a point about the history of the term, but it's not relevant to the question in hand. Dicdef is a policy not a guideline; you're supposed to nearly always follow it, this article doesn't. If it was some amazing article, you might have a point, but actually it's a pile of crap.

In this article, if it's not only about slut-shaming, then it's on multiple meanings, in which case you need to split those meanings off into different articles. In an encyclopedia you're only allowed here to keep stuff together in one article if it's basically the same, and here it's not.

You can't have an article on the term 'slut', only one meaning of that. But the primary meaning is calling someone a slut, so really it's about slut-shaming, and then it's a content dupe of slut-shaming and the articles need to be merged.

It's dead jim. The article is toast. This article wouldn't zoom if you pumped a million volts through it. You're trying to nail it to its perch and it's not going to work.

It's not about the words, it's about the thing. The thing here is slut shaming. Content dupe.GliderMaven (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a straightforward case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Slut-shaming is a different topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if that's correct application of that policy, and all the other policies, then why is this article such a steaming pile of shit, and why does it have 100% overlap with a much better referenced article?GliderMaven (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an answer, why is this article a duplicate of slut-shaming?GliderMaven (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about the word slut. It's a different subject entirely. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Drmies and Sammy1339 have it right. This is a WP:Notable topic about the word slut. "Slut" is not the same thing as "slut-shaming". And merging the two is such a blatantly political, WP:Activism move. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. And I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "pile of shit". Drmies (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The slut-shaming article is not simply on the use of the word 'slut', it's about identifying people as having loose sexual morality. And it's not an activism article, it just documents it.

And should the material here really go into slut-shaming or into slut, or both, or neither? You can argue it different ways, but the point is that this article is completely unnecessary, since slut-shaming can take this whole article- and it doesn't look like 'slut' is going to amount to much. Slut shaming seems to be fairly solid C-class, and could well go FA in the end, there's going to be enough feminist, academic and religious sources to balance it all out. Whereas WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles virtually never do that, they mostly just seem to hit a wall with a bunch of dictionary references, because academic work on single words is extremely thin on the ground.

So it doesn't seem that 'slut' should be maintained as its own article, that seems to be non strategic, simply a waste of editorial effort.GliderMaven (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Who said that the Slut-shaming article is simply about the word slut? Who said that it's an activism article? I said that the Slut article is about the word slut. I said that you merging the Slut and Slut-shaming articles was a blatantly political, WP:Activism move. There is plenty of content about the topic of "slut", and a lot of sources do not identify that content as slut-shaming. That content can go in this article. If any of it gets added to the Slut-shaming article, it is likely only because editors have personally identified the material as slut-shaming, which is likely to be a WP:Synthesis violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slut can also be used for men

Not taking that into account shows how sexist this society is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.164.150 (talk • contribs)

And how does the article not take that into account when it clearly mentions this? Yes, per WP:Due weight, the lead sentence focuses on women. Yes, the article focuses on women. That is because the literature on the topic overwhelmingly does. Slut rarely refers to men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• I Am A.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

I am a student and I wanted to add more information about how the word/label slut has changed over time. The modern society meaning of Slut has evolved drastically due to activism of SlutWalk's and beating oppression of gender and race. I want to either add into these sub-sections of Etymology, common usages and synonyms or Alternate usages and culture using the phrase "The term Slut has evolved over time. Feminists and the new generation has changed the meaning into something positive. The slut is mostly used by straight males, and feminist, either male or female, decided that the term slut is just a degraded word, which we could change into our own meaning and own our own sexuality and end rape culture or perspectives of how society wants us to behave. Hcoliver (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The text is also missing encyclopedic tone. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

This article is missing one more category, that it needs to be in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboyisawesome (talk • contribs)

Editor added this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Recently blocked as a sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)