RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Of Sluts and Punishments

Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on October 17, 2007 - 8:07am
Amanda Marcotte's picture

If there's any one dictum that makes up the backbone of the anti-choice movement, it might be phrased as, "There are sluts in the world and they get what's coming to them." As Meghan O'Rourke recently chronicled in Slate, the entire controversy over the HPV vaccine was over "promiscuity" and whether or not death from cervical cancer was an appropriate way to prevent women from being sluts. While some of us balk at the idea of the widespread death penalty for this ill-defined "promiscuity," opponents of the vaccine had no doubt in their mind that sluttiness and punishment go together like tea and sugar -- and breaking the two apart violates some cosmic principle.

The recent lawsuit over a city health clinic that gave a 16-year-old emergency contraception showed the punish-the-sluts logic out in full force. A girl who has sex should be punished with pregnancy or by getting screamed at by her parents, possibly both but certainly one of the two should happen, went the logic. The idea that there's some kind of cosmic justice for sluttitude permeates right wing thinking. Despite the fact that claims that abortion causes breast cancer have been debunked, anti-choicers continue to claim that the only way to avoid cancer is strenuously to avoid the stench of sluttiness. Anti-choicer Karen Malec has started an organization dedicated to telling women that they can avoid breast cancer by marrying and having babies as young as they can. Even though experts have thoroughly debunked the idea that there's such thing as "post-abortion syndrome", i.e. the idea that abortion itself is the cause of depression, anti-choicers continue to insist that it's real, because to them it has to be real. Having an abortion means you're probably a slut, and sluts get punished. Thus depression or breast cancer are punishments for having an abortion, or even just for electing to go to college and have some premarital sex instead of hunkering down into marriage and babies at 18.

With all this interest in sluts and the punishing of them, definitional issues are bound to arise. What exactly is a "slut?" What is "promiscuity?" Karen Malec might define a slut as someone who gets married after the end of her adolescence, but most people would have a more lenient definition of that. Is every woman who has an abortion a slut? What if she's married and has three kids already? Are you a slut if you have premarital sex at all, or just with a certain number of guys? These are not idle questions--if one is advocating the idea that sluts get punished by law, custom, or cosmic justice, it's important to know what a "slut" even is. Only some breast cancer and depression can be traced to prior sluttiness, after all. You have to have a measuring stick to determine who deserved to die of cervical cancer and whose case of HPV was just a case of bad luck.

Because of this need to define who sluts are before they are punished, a great deal of energy is expended by our society in figuring out exactly when a normal woman drifts into slut territory. Even liberal-minded, pro-choice women will often live in fear of being labeled a slut. I cannot tell you how many women I've known who've gone through periods of anxiety that they might be reaching that magical, but always elusive, number of sex partners before they officially become sluts. But somehow, the slut is always someone else, and the number of sex partners that makes a slut is always two more than you have had.

Low-level slut anxiety kicks into high gear when it comes to the anti-choice right. Many anti-choicers exhaust endless hours cataloging what does or does not qualify a woman for sluthood. Typical of the genre is the "Modesty Survey" conducted by the right wing Christian website Rebelution, where male members of the website answered an exhaustive list of hundreds of questions to determine the slut factor of various women's (always referred to as "girls" on the site) clothing choices. After reading hundreds of comments and votes analyzing the slut factor of everything from blue jeans to ankle-length skirts, the slut-skittish woman might feel that there's nothing she can wear at all, an apparel choice that in itself might be considered slut-worthy.

Or consider this fascinating blog entry from Debbie Schussel, where she declares lower back tattoos on women to be "tramp stamps", writing, "But, as I've written, a woman who doesn't take long to agree to repeatedly put a needle in her body, generally doesn't take long before she acquiesces to putting other things into her body." I think she's referring to the P-E-N-I-S, which brings up another question about evaluating sluttiness--we all know you get docked purity points for diversity, but what about frequency? If "other things" in the body is what measures the slut, it seems possible that a monogamous woman who has frequent sex with her husband might qualify as a slut, even if he's the only man she's ever slept with? Debbie is too busy snickering at sluts, who of course are always some other woman, to address this taxing definitional issue.

Some anti-choicers get out of the child's play of merely speculating on sluts and go into the exciting arena of field research. While there's no doubt that the misogynists who linger around women's health clinics to take pictures of women and their cars do so to harass women for the high crime of seeking reproductive health services, part of it might also be field research, collecting examples of sluts in the wild so that the true believers can better identify them on sight in the future. (Turns out that "sluts" who use reproductive health services are easily identified by being female and human, at least in America, since 98% of women will use contraception at some point in their lives.) In my town of Austin, roving bands of anti-choicers congregate with their fire and brimstone signs in places they seem to choose for being the natural habitat of the free-roaming American slut, mostly the college campus and sometime downtown at night. They're much like biologists collecting samples, except real biologists generally don't intend to use their knowledge to stomp the collected species out of existence.


. . . . .
8 comments

I guess it's okay to propagate false stereotypes when conservative Christians are involved, huh? Calling women sluts:bad. Making pro-lifers out to be people who think all women are sluts: good.

Submitted by AveMaria on October 17, 2007 - 10:59am.

If you think that women having sex is so bad that it should be punished by sex, then it's sort of definition, not a "stereotype". Saying that anti-choicers think all sexual women (i.e. all women) are sluts is like saying anti-choicers think abortion is wrong. It's a definitional issue---if you weren't hostile to female sexuality, you wouldn't be out campaigning against it.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on October 17, 2007 - 12:36pm.

Excuse me for mentioning this, AveMaria, but nowhere in this article does Ms. Marcotte say that pro-lifers (or, more accurately, anti-choicers) think all women are sluts. In fact, she devotes some space to discussing what activities and choices would make these people think a woman is a slut. Would it be too much to ask that you actually read an article before you comment on it, and then comment on what it actually says?

Submitted by Gordon on October 18, 2007 - 2:47pm.

Excellent post (as usual).


The definition of what constitutes a slut, of course, varies by who you are and where you sit on the sexual continuum. For example:


To some women, any other woman who's had more sexual partners than she has is a slut (that number fluctuates, of course, based on the individual making the characterization).


Any girl who's got a better looking guy than you do is a slut.


Any girl who looks better than you do, has a bigger chest than you, etc., is a slut.


Any girl who's stolen or is dating an ex partner of yours is a slut.


Any girl who has the audacity to display the fact that she enjoys being a sexual individual is a slut, even if she's a virgin.


And, of course, to a guy, any girl who won't go out with you (or whom you think won't go out with you) is a slut.


What's even more interesting is that, as you get older, apparently, you disinherit your slut label and get the right to judge others. For example, one well known abstinence only until marriage promoter had multiple sex partners in her teens and early twenties (and had an abortion herself). Yet she is now one of the senior slut-shamers.


Fortunately, it is becoming more "acceptable" amongst the younger cohorts to not have to deny being a sexual individual. Though it has by no means gone away, the stigma of being associated with sluttishness has lost its power over girls (less so in some places than others, of course). Just as the younger cohorts are much more tolerant of GLBTQ individuals than the older individuals are, they are tending toward more acceptance of the fact that sexuality is not a disease that needs to stigmatize an individual. Sadly, those are not the voices you hear in these types of discussions - only the "ex-sluts."

Submitted by Caitlain on October 17, 2007 - 1:08pm.

I always have to laugh at the Viagra commercials. They have a million men standing on a hill with big smiles on their faces endorsing Viagra. BUT, there is never any mention of Viagra making men more "sexually permiscous." Their only problem is they can't get it up and they are so very happy now they can get it up. There are never any questions from the pharmacist as to whether the Viagra will be used for procreation as the Bible tells all the good Christians that is what sex is for and nothing more; there is never a question as to whether they are married or not; there is never a mention from the public as to whether the Viagra is a good thing or not, it's just assumed that a man has an absolute God given right to get a hard on. End of discussion.

Then along come the women...

Can you even imagine the public uproar if there were women standing around on a hill with big smiles on their faces touting birth control and the belief that now they can have sex and enjoy it without fear of becoming pregnant? Let's not forget the debilitating periods birth control is often prescribed to combat. Do you think the almighty, holier than thou pharmacists ever for one moment give a thought to the women who are prescribed birth control for horrendous periods without which they are completely down for the count one week a month? No, of course not after all, isn't that God's curse on women to suffer?

Why is it women are assumed to not need sex like men, to not want it, to not enjoy it and if they do have it, they MUST become pregnant? Why is it sex is only acceptable to the Christians if one night of pleasure leads to 9 months of hell and 24 hours of sheer hell giving birth? Why is it women are discouraged from enjoying their sexuality without fear of pregnancy?

Most of all, why is it Medicare and most health insurance will not pay for birth control at $10 a month but will more than willingly pay for Viagra at $10 a pill? Personally, I feel birth control is far more necessary for good health than Viagra but hey, I'm not a man.

Submitted by Anonymous on October 17, 2007 - 4:53pm.

Slut
That is a terrible word to call a young lady. But its all different with a guy. A guy can sleep around with who ever he pleases and is not called a damn thing but a ''player''. But I'll tell you one thing the men are the ones sreading the diseases. Cause is'nt it a fact that a guy can get tested for the HPV and the pap will come back negtive everytime. They'll never know if there passing it on to there patners. And how many men do you ever see in a Health Dept. none maybe 1 out of 5 . And you see this sterotyping ladys as Slut is wrong and I wnat to be the one to stop this shit. I'm 17 and I had a boyfriend and I had a couple of boyfriends before him but my mom always made sure I had my every 3 mouth exam. And so me and this guy are seeeing each other and i go for my exam and the doctor tells me that I have HPV. So I'm shoked because I knew I did not have this before him and I started talking so i tell him about it and he want me to forgive him . He tells me sorry but sorry dont cut it . Now you tell me whos the sorry one and whos the slut?

Submitted by Anonymous on October 18, 2007 - 1:58am.

If like me you are of a certain age...did you ever imagine in your lifetime that a man, any man, even ONE man (-let alone a MILLION men) would admit that he needed a PILL to help him get it up!!! Let's see that's one million times $10 times 3 or 4 times a week, wow, talk about inflated profits!

Flo Kennedy, one of the heroes of my generation, liked to say that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement!

Of course, she also compared giving birth to shitting a watermelon, to give the guys an idea of what it is like. Love her, miss her, hate the Viagra mantra, which is of course, you are right, every man has a God given right to a hard on (and Medicare pays, even for a 90 year old man, I know his urologist!) but birth control is a "sin" not to be supported by our employers or our political (religious) leaders??

Who are all these men having sex with anyway?????

Submitted by Sandra Jolly on October 21, 2007 - 2:37pm.

Thanks for the link Amanda. I'll pass your post around.

Submitted by Michael Hussey on October 17, 2007 - 7:03pm.