I like "sluts" but can't stay with them...

[Wakeup]

Whatever. I would rather be described as "sexually liberated" than "slutty",

But you were trying to change the word "promiscuous" That was the word I used instead of "slutty" and when you said you didn't like that word either and preferred "liberated."

"Slutty" wasn't used either. It was "sluts" that was used by the opening poster.
He did call their behaviour as being "slutty" though. Even though going by his own definition, he would be acting just as "slutty" if he was boinking away with "liberation."

and I have never been one for political correctness, but feel free to describe your girls as sluts.

No one said they described "their girls" as "sluts"... except the OP.

In my opinion, the use of that word says more about YOU than her, anyway.

Ahhh... finally we have gone full circle right back to my post that points out the Op's hypocrisy. He's no better or nor worse then the "sexually liberated" that he can't stay with.

[smarta$$]

LOL

I am beginning to think some people are taking this topic WAY more seriously than I am. How about this? You guys call it what you like, and I will do the same.

In the end, that is exactly what will happen, anyway.

[Wakeup]

I'm not taking it "seriously" at all. In fact, I'm having a lot of fun with it actually.

[solarion]

For myself, I take a firm stance against what I perceive to be political correctness because I believe that damaging the language harms us all in a subtle yet fundamental way. Language is how we communicate complex ideas efficiently, and when it is watered down it does damage to our ability to relate to one another. I see this process as far more damaging than someone potentially getting their feathers ruffled over how a word is perceived...particularly when that word is being perceived precisely as its author intended.

It's nothing personal.

[basilandthyme]

For myself, I take a firm stance against what I perceive to be political correctness because I believe that damaging the language harms us all in a subtle yet fundamental way. Language is how we communicate complex ideas efficiently, and when it is watered down it does damage to our ability to relate to one another. I see this process as far more damaging than someone potentially getting their feathers ruffled over how a word is perceived...particularly when that word is being perceived precisely as its author intended.

It's nothing personal.

I have a son who has special needs. Political correctness says that it's not ok to call him a spaz, a retard, a mong, a cretin, a freak etc etc. I fail to see how using these politically incorrect words lets people communicate their ideas about him more efficiently. Does your firm stance against political correctness also include the use of words like these? Surely saying that "he's autistic" or "has autism" is both more accurate and more respectful.

What about "nigger?" Do you think this is a more accurate word than the PC African American?

What about "loony" "schitzo" "insane" "loony bin". So frequently they get used to loosely describe someone who has mental health issues. Are they better than using politically correct language. And how does their use increase understanding and respect for those who have issues with their mental health?

I'm also noticing the increasing use of "bi polar" to describe someone who changes their mind a lot. It's not only politically incorrect - but is inaccurate and damaging for those who live with bi polar.

As for the word "slut" which the author first used. I still contend that if he took a more positive word, he may not have the issues with the very type of woman he seeks. "A woman who enjoys sex" is both a positive description and more fun to date.

[Wakeup]

The word that started all this debate was "promiscuous" which is a correct term that is in direct regards to the opening post and the term he used to describe the women that he cannot stay with but enjoys being with for a term.

No disrespect intended but to explain further: No one has said that the terms you have provided should be used, Basil. Just as we don't think "liberated" should be used instead of "promiscuous," we do not think "Nigger" (as an e.g.) should be used instead of "African American."

Adding:

"A woman who enjoys sex" is both a positive description and more fun to date.

I'm thinking the Op feels the same way. They're fun *to date* but that's as far as he would ever take it.
BTW: "Slut" does not imply a woman that "enjoys sex" but rather it is a term for a woman that has no discernment in regards to who she is enjoying sex with.

[basilandthyme]

That's Ok. I just wanted to question Solarian's opinion about how he rejects political correctness. While some PC does seem to have gone a bit crazy, I just want to point out that our PC society has also done a great deal to encourage equality, compassion and understanding in our world.

Solarian sees negative outcomes coming from being PC, but I see far more good than harm.

Though I still see 'slut' as a term of judgement. I cannot separate it from the affirmative male studs and negative female sluts. I think it's a long way off (if ever) before the word 'slut' is free from judgement. Oh, and we're also fun to marry

[Wakeup]

Yes... women that enjoy sex are fun to marry but women who enjoy sex are not termed "sluts" because they enjoy sex. Hell there are "sluts" that don't enjoy sex all that much, hate men and just use their vags to take a guy down.

Sluts can come in both sexes.

.. I can't speak for Solarian but I didn't get the impression that he was against "political correctness" in general but just against it when changing the actual term for something into something else. Like changing "promiscuous" (it is what it is) to "liberated."

Shrugs* If nothing else, I think the Troll accomplished the debate he knew his opening post would likely stir.

[solarion]

I have a son who has special needs. Political correctness says that it's not ok to call him a spaz, a retard, a mong, a cretin, a freak etc etc.

This is a strawman argument. It is not Political Correctness(cultural Marxism) that prevents people from calling your child hurtful or emotionally abusive names. It is simple human decency. Words, even hurtful words lack meaning in the absence of intent.

I fail to see how using these politically incorrect words lets people communicate their ideas about him more efficiently. Does your firm stance against political correctness also include the use of words like these? Surely saying that "he's autistic" or "has autism" is both more accurate and more respectful.

Agreed, but then I know the difference between these terms and would simply choose the correct one.

What about "nigger?" Do you think this is a more accurate word than the PC African American?

Quite frankly, yes. Given that the word "nigger" descends directly from the Latin word "niger", which literally means "black". It was first turned into "negro", and then warped into "nigger" and now is being warped into "niggah". Referring to Americans with black skin as African American is not only inaccurate if they didn't come from Africa, but its use is intended to be divisive and remind all of a heritage that was never experienced. I am an American with white skin, but whites in America are not encouraged to hyphenate their origins. Whites are not encouraged to refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxon Americans for instance. There's a reason for this.

What about "loony" "schitzo" "insane" "loony bin". So frequently they get used to loosely describe someone who has mental health issues. Are they better than using politically correct language. And how does their use increase understanding and respect for those who have issues with their mental health?

Loony is a warped version of the formerly clinical word "lunatic". Schitzo is a shortened version of the word "schizophrenia". Insane is to this day a clinical term.

I'm also noticing the increasing use of "bi polar" to describe someone who changes their mind a lot. It's not only politically incorrect - but is inaccurate and damaging for those who live with bi polar.

Bipolar Disorder doesn't exist. It's just another warped expression to describe the clinical condition "Manic Depression".

As for the word "slut" which the author first used. I still contend that if he took a more positive word, he may not have the issues with the very type of woman he seeks. "A woman who enjoys sex" is both a positive description and more fun to date.

As was explained quite eloquently by Wakeup. His issues aren't with the women he's bedding, or the words he's choosing to describe them...his issues are with himself.

You cannot change human nature by shaming others into modifying their verbiage. Those that choose to verbally abuse another will use whatever words are available at the time to enable said abuse. All these word transformations do is cause confusion and misunderstandings...they do not alter intent.

- - - Updated - - -

I just want to point out that our PC society has also done a great deal to encourage equality, compassion and understanding in our world.

I couldn't disagree more strenuously. Equality, compassion, and understanding do not come from language modifications.

Solarian sees negative outcomes coming from being PC, but I see far more good than harm.

For example?

[basilandthyme]

Given that the word "nigger" descends directly from the Latin word "niger", which literally means "black". It was first turned into "negro", and then warped into "nigger" and now is being warped into "niggah". Referring to Americans with black skin as African American is not only inaccurate if they didn't come from Africa, but its use is intended to be divisive and remind all of a heritage that was never experienced. I am an American with white skin, but whites in America are not encouraged to hyphenate their origins. Whites are not encouraged to refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxon Americans for instance. There's a reason for this.

I'm not American, so I will have to defer to black Americans on this. What do black Americans generally wish to be called? It's also my understanding that Nigger (or it's derivatives) is offensive when used to describe a black American. Is this true? And if so, why would one persist in using a word which, while it may have latin roots, is also bound with history of human rights abuse

GivenLoony is a warped version of the formerly clinical word "lunatic". Schitzo is a shortened version of the word "schizophrenia". Insane is to this day a clinical term.

Yes the words have roots of words which were once used. But if they are no longer in the DSM, why do we persist in their bastardised use and especially aimed at people who's condition isn't what the word formerly implied? How does this word usage make communication more clear?

Bipolar Disorder doesn't exist. It's just another warped expression to describe the clinical condition "Manic Depression".

Regarding the change from Manic Depression to Bipolar Disorder. Manic Depression was a bit of a catch all diagnosis and Bipolar actually provides more clarity in diagnosis. [url=http://bipolar.about.com/od/definingbipolardisorder/a/manic_depression_changes_names.htm]

[solarion]

I'm not American, so I will have to defer to black Americans on this. What do black Americans generally wish to be called?

Some prefer to be called "African-American", some prefer to be called simply "American", still others prefer to be called "niggah". The word "negro", which is now considered derogatory was the accepted way in which blacks were addressed in America as recently as the mid 70's(see UNCF or United Negro College Fund - founded 1944). It is a well established Anthropological fact that the entirety of humanity shares common ancestry. IOW we are all part "African" and as a result, one must question the necessity of referring to an American with dark skin as "African-American" when the individual in question has never been to Africa. To say nothing of the fact that white skinned people also reside on the continent of Africa.

It's also my understanding that Nigger (or it's derivatives) is offensive when used to describe a black American. Is this true? And if so, why would one persist in using a word which, while it may have latin roots, is also bound with history of human rights abuse

It's only offensive if one chooses to be offended. Words are links to the past. Tossing them out in an effort to forget the past is the first step to forgetting what transpired...and therefore repeating it. Political Correctness/Cultural Marxists are currently attacking famous American Literature and attempting to re-write them to be more "sensitive". This is equivalent to the infamous Nazi book burning campaigns of the early 1930s. By the way the equivalent derogatory term for whites in America is "Cracker" which is a reference to a specific type of whip with buckskin at its tip.

Yes the words have roots of words which were once used. But if they are no longer in the DSM, why do we persist in their bastardised use and especially aimed at people who's condition isn't what the word formerly implied? How does this word usage make communication more clear?

Who's we in this context? I suspect the vast majority of people haven't a clue what they're saying and just want to deride another. Using incorrect verbiage does not make communication more clear...it makes it less so...this is precisely why I'd like for Political Correctness advocates to stop changing the meanings of words. It doesn't change intent...it merely increases confusion.

Regarding the change from Manic Depression to Bipolar Disorder. Manic Depression was a bit of a catch all diagnosis and Bipolar actually provides more clarity in diagnosis.

It gave big pharma more conditions to treat. Bi = ambiguous word meaning twice each or every two + Polar = relating to the North or South pole. Manic-Depression is characterized by alternating conditions of mania and depression. It is clearly the appropriate term for a real condition.

[basilandthyme]

Clearly neither of us is about to alter our opposing views. So I will bow out of this discussion

[dickriculous]

OP's problem is that he's carrying baggage from having his heart broken in the past and sociocultural conditioning (and perhaps anecdotal evidence) has him worried that committing to a promiscuous woman will cause the past to repeat itself. His choice of semantics has nothing to do with this, people that use FAR more aggressive language have gotten by just fine since the dawn of verbalization. I agree that people misuse the word "slut" to the extreme where it seems most people don't actually know what it means (in modern society people think it's a catch-all term used to describe any woman who's sexuality isn't crammed into a bubble created by popular opinion) but if anyone actually read anything in OP's post other than the word "slut" it should be quite obvious that his phrasing is irrelevant here, personal agendas aside.