Tag: omfg

Here is one further thought on the preceding definition of the word “slut.”
If you haven’t yet read it, please scroll down and do so.
Your back, good. So we agree that, for better or for worse, this phenomenon exists. Society places pressure on other genders to limit their number of sexual partners, creating these sometimes hurtful stigmas. However, what these other genders don’t realize is that men suffer from this same pressure, only in reverse:

THE OMFG LAW OF MANSLUTTERY
The pressure that society places on women to avoid sex without intimancy is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the pressure that society places on men to avoid intimacy without sex.

In other words, a woman who sleeps with a man on the first date faces the same kind of criticism from her female friends that a man receives from his male friends when he DOESN’T sleep with a woman on the first date. In addition, the criticism of male peers is often more harmful than that of females, who will mainly limit their attack to snarky comments. Men will actually whip you with rolled up towels and draw penises on your face while you sleep.
If a man allows himself to get a reputation as someone who will take a girl out several times without pressuring her into sex, he becomes a ManSlut. Like a woman’s insecurity as to whether or not a man will continue to date her after she’s put herself on the line by sleeping with him, a man will lie awake at night wondering if a woman will ever sleep with him now that he’s put himself on the line by taking her to dinner several times. Both parties run the risk of giving up their most precious resource and getting nothing in return. So the next time that you other genders complain about feeling like a slut, think about all the wayward ManSluts out there…the nice guys who let a girl get inside their wallet and then never hear from them again; the emotional trauma of a $150 dinner without even a trip to 2nd base. Have some sympathy for the men who took no for an answer.
And gentlemen, do not let yourselves fall into this trap. Beware the plight of the ManSlut.
Remember OMFG’s words of wisdom:
No one fucks the cow when he’s buying them milk for free.

Okay. It’s time to start some shit. Specifically with the person who wrote this book:
Much kerfuffle has been made by other genders about the “double standard” when it comes to the use of the word “slut.” The argument is essentially that the inclination to sleep with many people whom you barely know is viewed by society as a negative trait in women and a positive trait in men, and that this is unfair. My refuffle (i.e. rebuttal of the kerfuffle) is many-layered:
LAYER 1: It’s easier to be a slut than a stud. Every man knows that sleeping with a woman, any woman, especially one that you just met, requires a great deal of work: lying (mostly), back-handed complements, spending money, beating-out other males, wearing uncomfortably tight pants and reshaping your body in strange and unnatural ways. Men, on the other hand, require little or no effort to seduce. While a woman may have to put in some work to sleep with a man of very high social status or a reality TV star, it is a safe bet that 3/4 of the men in any given bar on any given night will sleep with a slice of pineapple if the opportunity presents itself.
It follows then that society would place greater value on the more difficult task, just as video games offer greater rewards at higher levels, while the “princess” is obtained only at the highest level of all. (Please note that I am not nerdy, this is just a good analogy).
LAYER 2: Men and women, though similar in many ways, have some biologically differences. Can we agree on this? Furthermore, these differences have to do chiefly with their sexual organs (i.e. bait and tackle vs. whale eye). Still with me so far? Now, doesn’t it seem to make sense that their attitudes towards sex could be just as different as their naughty bits? Therefore, is it not right and good and just that we use a different social standard to interpret their sexual behavior? A “double standard” if you will? And thus OMFG’s gender politics come beautifully into focus: we are all in favor of social and economic justice, fair governmental treatment and equal opportunities for all genders. But a double standard for sexual behavior? That one we might want to keep.
LAYER 3: RETURN TO LAYER ISLAND
The following is copied from an evolutionary psychology article that I found floating somewhere in the internet’s bastion of truth:

Since a man cannot be sure he is the father of his mate’s children, he would be more upset by a mate’s sexual infidelity than a woman would because women are always sure the child she is bearing is her own. In contrast, a woman who can benefit from a mate’s contribution to child rearing, would be more upset by a mate’s emotional infidelity (and the risk of economic abandonment it might presage) than a man.
(Buss, Larsen, Westen and Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, and Buss, 1996; Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst, 1982; Wiederman and Allgeier, 1993)

In case you’re dazzled by the long list of phycologists that support this theory and the use of the fancy word “presage,” I will codify (double fancy word bonus) my argument with the OMFG translation of the preceding statement: Men stress about sex, women stress about love. This is the SOCIAL result of the BIOLOGICAL differences discussed in Layer 2. THERE-MUTHAFUCKIN-FORE, men have created a social stigma, “slut,” to discourage women from promiscuity and to ensure paternity of their offspring. Other genders have a similar social invention that fills their biological needs, insuring the male’s continued economic support of their children. It’s called marriage.
It is important to note that there is another significant usage of the word “SLUT:” as an acronym for Seattle’s new public transportation system, the “South Lake Union Trolley.” In this usage, the word is an example of urban planning gone terribly, hilariously wrong and can be enjoyed by people of all genders.
The SLUT: Come on and ride it.

Once signifying the state of things as they actually are rather than as they appear to be, reality now denotes a television show featuring untrained actors, poor writing, amateur set design and heavy editing. It is common for the actors to be B-list or lower level celebrities and/or to be engaged in some kind of competition.

This is a ground breaking modern term in that it now means the opposite of what it used to mean. “Reality” TV now implies a greater effort at audience deception. Unlike scripted TV, which is forthcoming about its fictionalization, Reality TV hides its staged nature by cutting production values on all fronts to give the appearance of a documentary program. It then creates false conflicts, false personalities and results in false celebrities. The technique of using a familiar term to promote its polar opposite is a classic bait-and-switch that currently permeates every corner of our popular culture.

It’s as if the FDA began distributing “safe sex” prophylactics made out of diseased penises.

For a more detailed study of the Reality TV Apocalypse check out “TMZ TV,” appearing this week at the Access Theatre in New York as part of Madair Production’s Project Playwright IV.

In the last several decades, this word’s meaning has gradually changed from “One of several options” to “Good.” This term can apply to any type of art form, but the most prominent examples are the music scene of the mid-nineties and the comedy scene of the early-zerosies. Used primarily by bitter hipsters, “Alternative” categorizes their place within an art form and simultaneously explains why they aren’t getting paid for their work. Anyone who creates something new and original will try to classify it as “Alternative,” simply because it is an alternative to what has come before it. As is everything. “Alternative” also carries with it the implication of “Street Cred,” giving the impression that something is better because less people know about it (even though this might not technically be true).

Example:
“Hey Jeff…haven’t seen you with a lady in a while. You doin’ okay?”
“Yeah, well I’ve been doing the alternative dating thing a lot lately.”
“Oh yeah? Alternative to what?”
“Too…um…not paying…for sex”
“Kinda just gave it away there Jeff.”
“I know. Fuck!”

“Alternative” is closely related to “Underground” or “Independent” in that it usually denotes a subset within a genre that receives less funding and poorer distribution than projects with suitable financial backing, which are dubbed “Mainstream.” However it is interesting to note that “Alternative,” which used to only indicate something in relation to something else, remains the label for its subset even after it has grown to dominate and monopolize the industry.

“Hook-up” – Once meaning something that one does to a VCR, this term now denotes something ambiguous and sexual that happens between two people, usually without prior intent. This term is revolutionary it that it imparts no information whatsoever as to the nature of the sexual act, and could in fact refer to anything from light kissing to aggressive anal sex. In this promiscuous age, sexual relationships between men and women are becoming less and less formal all the time, and it has become necessary to develop a term that could encompasses both borrowing a DVD and sweaty, loveless intercourse.

NOTE: While in the past “Hook-up” was an acceptable term for a non-sexual rendezvous between two men, in recent years that has ceased to be the case, and use of the term in that sense is now correctly considered gayer than a bundle of dicks.

Example:

“Yo man, what are you doing tonight? We should hook up later.”

“Um, no thanks…
my…uh…asshole is
um…on fire.”