• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What makes someone a slut ?

A slut almost always directed at women. Men are man whores and there are a lot of them. A slut to me is third base and all the way repeat offenders that don't do it for love but for pleasure. that is a slut.
 
Mixed View said:
A slut almost always directed at women. Men are man whores and there are a lot of them. A slut to me is third base and all the way repeat offenders that don't do it for love but for pleasure. that is a slut.

Third base huh? So "second base" is okay? And what, exactly, is wrong with doing it for pleasure?
 
Kelzie said:
Third base huh? So "second base" is okay? And what, exactly, is wrong with doing it for pleasure?

I'm so glad you asked this Kelzie. What exactly is wrong with doing it for pleasure?

How did I miss this thread for so long?
 
Kelzie said:
And what, exactly, is wrong with doing it for pleasure?

You'll go blind with hairy palms......
 
Stace said:
Not to mention the fact that so many women are financially independent enough to raise a child on their own, should their birth control fail. Single parenting and having a child out of wedlock are not the social stigmas they once were. And there's always adoption or....*gasp*....abortion.

Yes exactly....that's why studies consistently show that children from broken homes being raised by a single parent perform best in school and have less emotional problems.......

.....ooops wait that's not right. Ooooh wait children of divorce and single parents have more money and are financially more secure! Wait that's not right either! Teachers love single family parents and children from broken homes are the easiest to teach and their parents are the ones who are most involved in school. Oh wait wrong again. Most of the children in gifted classes are the ones who are raised by single parents....oops that's completely wrong too.

No social stigma related to divorce or single parenting.....Now that is true. People no longer put children first and we live in a me first me first selfish society. Now that I can completely agree with. And what better way to reinforce these ideals then by socially accepting the idea that killing your child is a way to solve the problem of unwanted parenthood.
 
talloulou said:
Yes exactly....that's why studies consistently show that children from broken homes being raised by a single parent perform best in school and have less emotional problems.......

.....ooops wait that's not right. Ooooh wait children of divorce and single parents have more money and are financially more secure! Wait that's not right either! Teachers love single family parents and children from broken homes are the easiest to teach and their parents are the ones who are most involved in school. Oh wait wrong again. Most of the children in gifted classes are the ones who are raised by single parents....oops that's completely wrong too.

No social stigma related to divorce or single parenting.....Now that is true. People no longer put children first and we live in a me first me first selfish society. Now that I can completely agree with!:rofl

Alright, you've convinced me. Guess the only option is to abort them all. ;)
 
Kelzie said:
Alright, you've convinced me. Guess the only option is to abort them all. ;)

Frippery one expects from the wayward modern day feminist. :coffeepap
 
Captain America said:
You'll go blind with hairy palms......



we live in an age of advanced technology.............there are a wide variety of products on the market to deal with this eventuality :)
 
talloulou said:
Frippery one expects from the wayward modern day feminist. :coffeepap

Aw, I'm just messin with you tallou. No need to get huffy.:2wave: Although "frippery" is a great word.
 
Kelzie said:
Aw, I'm just messin with you tallou. No need to get huffy.:2wave: Although "frippery" is a great word.


Aaaah I'm not huffy. I just would like to see more balanced discussions about sexual freedom. Birth control has given women way more freedom. But sadly that freedom seems to have brought about the rampant abandonment of "family first" values that's paramount for children and their well being. Responsibility and accountability seems to have gone out the window and I just abhor the idea that men are unnecessary since women can now go it alone. Fathers are essential. The problem is that so many people of child bearing age today grew up without an intact family and they no longer see the value of family structure and kids across the country are paying severely.
 
talloulou said:
Aaaah I'm not huffy. I just would like to see more balanced discussions about sexual freedom. Birth control has given women way more freedom. But sadly that freedom seems to have brought about the rampant abandonment of "family first" values that's paramount for children and their well being. Responsibility and accountability seems to have gone out the window and I just abhor the idea that men are unnecessary since women can now go it alone. Fathers are essential. The problem is that so many people of child bearing age today grew up without an intact family and they no longer see the value of family structure and kids across the country are paying severely.

I don't appreciate your frippery. :mrgreen:

Seriously, I can see what you are talking about. My mom did a fantastic job raising my sister and I (at least in my opinion) and it certainly...influenced my beliefs that one dedicated woman can do a kick *** job raising her children.
 
talloulou said:
Aaaah I'm not huffy. I just would like to see more balanced discussions about sexual freedom. Birth control has given women way more freedom. But sadly that freedom seems to have brought about the rampant abandonment of "family first" values that's paramount for children and their well being. Responsibility and accountability seems to have gone out the window and I just abhor the idea that men are unnecessary since women can now go it alone. Fathers are essential. The problem is that so many people of child bearing age today grew up without an intact family and they no longer see the value of family structure and kids across the country are paying severely.

Why would you think that someone who grew up without an intact family doesn't see the value of family structure? Unless perhaps that "unintact" family was actually very productive and healthy?
 
talloulou said:
Yes exactly....that's why studies consistently show that children from broken homes being raised by a single parent perform best in school and have less emotional problems.......

My parents divorced when I was five and the only attention I really ever got from my stepfather was when he was in the mood to beat me or my brother. And yet, I excelled in school and haven't had any emotional problems outside of what would be considered normal for the average person.

.....ooops wait that's not right. Ooooh wait children of divorce and single parents have more money and are financially more secure!


Uh....my parents' income has nothing to do with what I earn. But yes, there are PLENTY of single parents out there that have financial security. If my mom would've divorced my stepdad sooner, she would well have been able to provide for me, my brother, and herself.

Wait that's not right either! Teachers love single family parents and children from broken homes are the easiest to teach and their parents are the ones who are most involved in school. Oh wait wrong again. Most of the children in gifted classes are the ones who are raised by single parents....oops that's completely wrong too.

Completely wrong? Hardly. My brother and I certainly didn't have unusual disciplinary problems in school, in fact, most of my report cards stated over and over that I was a "joy to teach". Mom was as involved in our schoolwork as she could possibly be. Both my brother and I were in accelerated classes (i.e. I was taking 10th grade level courses when I was in 7th grade), and twice they wanted to skip me a grade. I was also in gifted programs from fifth grade on.

No social stigma related to divorce or single parenting.....Now that is true. People no longer put children first and we live in a me first me first selfish society.

That has nothing to do with social stigmas. Single/divorced parents can and do put their children first. Would you suggest that my mom stay with my father so that I could be around druggies all of the time? Do you applaud the fact that she kept our abusive stepfather around just so we could pretend we had a father? My mom busted her *** to make sure my brother and I had as decent of a life as she could provide, and STILL made time for us. In fact, she STILL drops everything to be there for us when we need her.

Now that I can completely agree with. And what better way to reinforce these ideals then by socially accepting the idea that killing your child is a way to solve the problem of unwanted parenthood.

I"m not even going to get into an abortion debate here. There's a time and a place for that, and this fits neither.
 
Stace said:
My parents divorced when I was five and the only attention I really ever got from my stepfather was when he was in the mood to beat me or my brother. And yet, I excelled in school and haven't had any emotional problems outside of what would be considered normal for the average person.




Uh....my parents' income has nothing to do with what I earn. But yes, there are PLENTY of single parents out there that have financial security. If my mom would've divorced my stepdad sooner, she would well have been able to provide for me, my brother, and herself.



Completely wrong? Hardly. My brother and I certainly didn't have unusual disciplinary problems in school, in fact, most of my report cards stated over and over that I was a "joy to teach". Mom was as involved in our schoolwork as she could possibly be. Both my brother and I were in accelerated classes (i.e. I was taking 10th grade level courses when I was in 7th grade), and twice they wanted to skip me a grade. I was also in gifted programs from fifth grade on.



That has nothing to do with social stigmas. Single/divorced parents can and do put their children first. Would you suggest that my mom stay with my father so that I could be around druggies all of the time? Do you applaud the fact that she kept our abusive stepfather around just so we could pretend we had a father? My mom busted her *** to make sure my brother and I had as decent of a life as she could provide, and STILL made time for us. In fact, she STILL drops everything to be there for us when we need her.



I"m not even going to get into an abortion debate here. There's a time and a place for that, and this fits neither.

I'm not saying single parents can't be good parents. What I am saying is that statistics show time and again the children who come from intact homes do best! If you were an exception to that...great. But statistically speaking kids have a better shot if they do not come from a broken home. Furthermore most of the volunteers at school are stay at home moms and statistically speaking kids whose parents are involved in school do best. Also, statistically speaking, the majority of kids labeled gifted or participating in gifted classes in elementary school are from intact homes. And finally statistics show that intact families are generally more financially secure than single family homes.

Now clearly you can find incidences, perhaps even many, where the above aren't true. But that doesn't change the statistical findings. In my opinion promotion of the idea that fathers are not necessary is misguided at best.

It's like all the studies that show the many reasons breastfeeding is best. I can look at those studies and say who gives a **** I was formula fed and look how great I turned out. But instead I took the studies and the science to heart and breastfed each of mine for a year.
 
talloulou said:
I'm not saying single parents can't be good parents. What I am saying is that statistics show time and again the children who come from intact homes do best! If you were an exception to that...great. But statistically speaking kids have a better shot if they do not come from a broken home. Furthermore most of the volunteers at school are stay at home moms and statistically speaking kids whose parents are involved in school do best. Also, statistically speaking, the majority of kids labeled gifted or participating in gifted classes in elementary school are from intact homes. And finally statistics show that intact families are generally more financially secure than single family homes.

Now clearly you can find incidences, perhaps even many, where the above aren't true. But that doesn't change the statistical findings. In my opinion promotion of the idea that fathers are not necessary is misguided at best.

Oh trust me, I'm not saying at all that fathers aren't necessary.....but it CAN be done without them. It's certainly not ideal, but unfortunately, we can't always have the ideal....If for some reason my husband and I just couldn't hack it together anymore, I certainly wouldn't stay with him just so our son could have his father around all of the time (but I also wouldn't deny my husband from seeing him, either)....I've been there, done that, and it's not just about being selfish, it's the fact that being in an environment like that is NOT healthy for children, and certainly doesn't teach them what a family SHOULD be.
 
Stace said:
Oh trust me, I'm not saying at all that fathers aren't necessary.....but it CAN be done without them. It's certainly not ideal, but unfortunately, we can't always have the ideal....If for some reason my husband and I just couldn't hack it together anymore, I certainly wouldn't stay with him just so our son could have his father around all of the time (but I also wouldn't deny my husband from seeing him, either)....I've been there, done that, and it's not just about being selfish, it's the fact that being in an environment like that is NOT healthy for children, and certainly doesn't teach them what a family SHOULD be.

I agree in part. I think many couples break up for reasons that are shallow and with a little maturity and effort on the part of both spouses the home could have remained intact. Generally the people involved go on to second marriages where they figure out....hey my problems followed me so I guess I better just work through this crap.

Now some do marry people who are completely ridiculous and the environment is way too hostile to raise children in. But I have to wonder if all of our sexual freedom has helped set up situations where we make bad choices when it comes to picking partners.
 
my mother single handedly raised three kids for the first 15 years of my life (my dad was a POW and I met him for the first time at age 15) and we never did drugs, went to top American universities and graduate schools and we are all still on our first marriage and have never been divorced.(My twin, 37 yr old younger brother and myself). My African American nurse single handedly raise four girls , two graduated salutorian, one is in medical school, another getting her electrical engineering degree at Georgia Tech, and the younger two are still in college.(Father was a victim of homocide)

With that said, I believe a father is especially important for a young woman's self esteem and it is ideal if both can be around . However, because I am financially independant I would not put up with crap from my husband and feel comfortable knowing I can take care of myself and daughter if he were to become abusive, do drugs etc. (We have a great relationship after nine years of marriage so I doubt it).


I do agree with Talloulou that couples break up too easily. I favor divorce though when the husband or wife is physically and emotionally abusive to the spouse as well as the children or does drugs on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
mixedmedia said:
Why would you think that someone who grew up without an intact family doesn't see the value of family structure? Unless perhaps that "unintact" family was actually very productive and healthy?

Hmmm everyone is so defensive no wonder statistics showing the importance of marriage and intact families aren't discussed often.

What I took issue with was this:

Stace said:
Originally Posted by Stace
Not to mention the fact that so many women are financially independent enough to raise a child on their own, should their birth control fail. Single parenting and having a child out of wedlock are not the social stigmas they once were. And there's always adoption or....*gasp*....abortion.

There are many women who believe that fathers aren't essential. Our society supports that belief. To me Stace's comment equated fatherhood with a wallet. I interpreted her comment as a suggestion that single parenthood is an option now because women can "afford" to raise children without men. I was merely pointing out that fathers are more than a wallet and in fact intact homes are generally more financially secure. Now why is everyone so defensive? Seems like people want to offer proof that their single mom raised them well. That's great and I'm happy for them but that doesn't change the fact that statistics show children who reside with both parents perform best in school.

Furthermore there is no way to say how someone raised in a single parent home would have changed if they were raised in a loving healthy two parent home. So what we are left with are statistics and studies that show how important and key fathers and mothers both are in a child's life.

I was commenting on a flippant remark that sounded, to me, like a suggestion that women are sexually freer because they can financially raise a child on their own. The idea that a man is a wallet and if you have money your kid has no need of a father is absurd and one of the biggest downfalls of the feminist movement.
 
Stace said:
That has nothing to do with social stigmas. Single/divorced parents can and do put their children first. Would you suggest that my mom stay with my father so that I could be around druggies all of the time? Do you applaud the fact that she kept our abusive stepfather around just so we could pretend we had a father? My mom busted her *** to make sure my brother and I had as decent of a life as she could provide, and STILL made time for us. In fact, she STILL drops everything to be there for us when we need her.

To me it sounds like your childhood could have been better. I understand that you turned out great but it sounds, to me, like you endured childhood hardships. It's like you are fighting my point and proving my point all at the same time.

Sexual freedom shouldn't mean that we sleep with crap men and chose the fathers of our children unwisely. Nor should it mean that since we can now "afford" to raise kids alone we should.
 
talloulou said:
Hmmm everyone is so defensive no wonder statistics showing the importance of marriage and intact families aren't discussed often.

What I took issue with was this:



There are many women who believe that fathers aren't essential. Our society supports that belief. To me Stace's comment equated fatherhood with a wallet. I interpreted her comment as a suggestion that single parenthood is an option now because women can "afford" to raise children without men. I was merely pointing out that fathers are more than a wallet and in fact intact homes are generally more financially secure. Now why is everyone so defensive? Seems like people want to offer proof that their single mom raised them well. That's great and I'm happy for them but that doesn't change the fact that statistics show children who reside with both parents perform best in school.

Furthermore there is no way to say how someone raised in a single parent home would have changed if they were raised in a loving healthy two parent home. So what we are left with are statistics and studies that show how important and key fathers and mothers both are in a child's life.

I was commenting on a flippant remark that sounded, to me, like a suggestion that women are sexually freer because they can financially raise a child on their own. The idea that a man is a wallet and if you have money your kid has no need of a father is absurd and one of the biggest downfalls of the feminist movement.

I agree that having both are essential. I consider myself a feminist who believes both , father and mother,are essential and important. As a feminist, what we believe in is a society that allows a women to not be trapped in a marriage that is unhealthy for the woman and child.(father abusing spouse and child). We also believe that we have the financiall freedom to raise a child and not resort to abortion if the father should abandon the family or refuse to participate in the child's care. (In my mother's case it was unwilling abandonment by incarceration in Vietnam). Luckily my mother had a skill (interpretor) that allowed her the financial and social freedom to remain a single mom for as long as she did. We feminists do not negate the importance of a father's influence on a child. We just don't want to be depedant should the environment become hostile or financially futile.
 
talloulou said:
Hmmm everyone is so defensive no wonder statistics showing the importance of marriage and intact families aren't discussed often.

What I took issue with was this:



There are many women who believe that fathers aren't essential. Our society supports that belief. To me Stace's comment equated fatherhood with a wallet. I interpreted her comment as a suggestion that single parenthood is an option now because women can "afford" to raise children without men. I was merely pointing out that fathers are more than a wallet and in fact intact homes are generally more financially secure. Now why is everyone so defensive? Seems like people want to offer proof that their single mom raised them well. That's great and I'm happy for them but that doesn't change the fact that statistics show children who reside with both parents perform best in school.

Furthermore there is no way to say how someone raised in a single parent home would have changed if they were raised in a loving healthy two parent home. So what we are left with are statistics and studies that show how important and key fathers and mothers both are in a child's life.

I was commenting on a flippant remark that sounded, to me, like a suggestion that women are sexually freer because they can financially raise a child on their own. The idea that a man is a wallet and if you have money your kid has no need of a father is absurd and one of the biggest downfalls of the feminist movement.

Well, to be fair to Stace she was not saying that men are just a wallet. She was commenting on someone else's comment that suggested that women are less sexually promiscuous because they cannot not afford to have a child without a man. I thought she was commenting on reality, not endorsing it. Nor do I think it was flippant. Why are you so defensive at the very mention of a woman being able to raise a child on her own? Hmmmm, talloulou. ;)

And with as many single parent homes as we have now in this country, with such a wide variety of incomes, lifestyles and other variables, I don't think "general" statements are very descriptive or reliable.
 
Over a span of twenty six years of child raising, I was a single parent for 15 of those years. (Thank heavens for step-mom!)

Not the optimum situation I agree. But my boys have turned out wonderfully just the same.
 
mixedmedia said:
Well, to be fair to Stace she was not saying that men are just a wallet. She was commenting on someone else's comment that suggested that women are less sexually promiscuous because they cannot not afford to have a child without a man. I thought she was commenting on reality, not endorsing it. Nor do I think it was flippant. Why are you so defensive at the very mention of a woman being able to raise a child on her own? Hmmmm, talloulou. ;)

And with as many single parent homes as we have now in this country, with such a wide variety of incomes, lifestyles and other variables, I don't think "general" statements are very descriptive or reliable.

Hole in one, mixey.

talloulou said:
To me it sounds like your childhood could have been better. I understand that you turned out great but it sounds, to me, like you endured childhood hardships. It's like you are fighting my point and proving my point all at the same time.

Certainly my childhood could have been better....it's not exactly a picnic being beat by your stepfather nearly every day, having your teachers contact DSS because of the fist sized bruises on your arms, and then having DSS do nothing because your stepfather was a smooth talker. However, I don't harbor any bitterness or pent up anger. "That which does not kill me only makes me stronger".....story of my life. I'm a better person for the things I went through....even if all of my experiences growing up weren't pleasant, they made me who I am, and I am better able to identify with so many people because of going through what I have.

The point remains that while having a GOOD father around is ideal, women should NOT stay with crappy men just so the kids can have an "intact" home. This isn't the Leave It To Beaver era anymore....women are not expected to merely stay home and take care of the house and kids, and while many women are still choosing to do so, they also have the skills and means necessary to provide for themselves and their children if it means a happier, healthier environment for all concerned.

Sexual freedom shouldn't mean that we sleep with crap men and chose the fathers of our children unwisely. Nor should it mean that since we can now "afford" to raise kids alone we should.

Never said that.
 
mixedmedia said:
Why are you so defensive at the very mention of a woman being able to raise a child on her own? Hmmmm, talloulou. ;)
I think it's cause I work with many kids from broken homes and I witness their struggles in comparison with kids who have intact families. Furthermore I have never stated a women couldn't raise kids on her own....but I do believe it's not ideal.

In my mind ideal would be appreciating the sexual freedom women now have but also not allowing it to make our society reckless when it comes to parenting.

For example I appreciate birth control and am very happy to not have a litter of children. :rofl But on the flipside I think the elaborate courtship men and women sort of went through decades ago leading up to marriage enforced the significance of "family life" and parenting responsibility.

I think perhaps currently the birth control, abortion, and the social acceptance of divorce have lead us somewhat astray.

While I think the general acceptance of abortion is bad for society I would never want to see women "stuck" in bad marriages or forced to have litters of kids. But I can't help but wonder if the sexual freedom has gone too far. I don't think sex should be reserved for the purpose of creating children but that sometimes happens despite precautions. Therefore I think women still need to choose their sexual partners with care. I think in that area women have become very lax. Meanwhile men faced with independent, financially secure women, abortion, ect are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to their role as a father. When a couple divorces it appears to be very easy for women with custody to push fathers out of their childrens life. When a couple has never been married men must fight even harder to remain substantial in their childrens life.

I have read many studies that suggest that girls who grow up without a loving father are more likely to pick crap men as sexual partners and they are more likely to use sex in a search for the male appreciation and love they lacked from the absence of a father. And for boys the absence of a father is equally devastating.


And with as many single parent homes as we have now in this country, with such a wide variety of incomes, lifestyles and other variables, I don't think "general" statements are very descriptive or reliable.

I don't think my statements were general. Do you have any statistics that show children raised in "broken homes" with one parent vs two do better? Have you ever seen a study that suggested divorce in general is good for children? How about studies that show children do best when they are raised by the mother and never even knew their father?

Clearly some relationships are so bad that the children are better off once the couple parts ways but again that is why I think more value needs to be placed on picking your men wisely. I honestly believe all the sexual freedom has led us to a place where men are no longer scrutinized and screened as they would have been decades ago before a woman had sex with them.
 
Last edited:
The point remains that while having a GOOD father around is ideal, women should NOT stay with crappy men just so the kids can have an "intact" home.

No truer words were ever spoken.

In fact, I stayed married to my ex-:censored for fear of losing my children. I was miserable. The family had become disfunctional.

I got to thinking. I have never done anything to deserve this. Why should we all suffer? Then I talked to my lawyer and he told me that getting divorced these days doesn't automatically assume the woman gets the kids like it used to.

He was right. In fact, I expect to see my ex-:censored today when she drops off her monthly child support check. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom