Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Book Slut Vs. "Real" Slut


So, 21 men by the age of 14 is cool?

Posted by Fnarf | June 23, 2008 1:12 PM

This leads to some interesting math. If sluthood requires sleeping with more men than you age times 1.5, then a sixteen year old girl is a slut only if she's slept with 24+ men, which seems like a lot to ask of most high-schoolers. But a 20 year old woman is a slut if she's slept with 30+ men. So in those four years between 16 and 20, including the vital first two years of college, she can cut back to 1.5 men per year and maintain slut status. Then, a thirty year old woman would only have to have slept with 45+ men, and in that decade also fuck only 1.5 men per year. This math seems skewed somehow.

Posted by Bill | June 23, 2008 1:15 PM

My opinion is using strictly numbers to defines slutiness is useless. For example when I was in college I considered the girl who slept with 2 sets of roommates (and as far as I know no one else) more of a slut then someone who slept with 10 guys.

Posted by nathaniel | June 23, 2008 1:27 PM

Something like the "answer my friend is blowing in the wind" is coming to my mind.

Posted by OR Matt | June 23, 2008 1:34 PM

The Bible says the maximum is 1.

If you don't believe the Bible, then think for yourself.

Posted by elenchos | June 23, 2008 1:34 PM

Uhm, the bible isn't that specific about the number you sleep with. There are a few loopholes.

Namely "till death do us part"
Otherwise, if you are man, and living in the desert, concubines and multiple wives are allowed (Abraham).
OR you can be King David, and then you can swap wives all you want with a little impunity.

Posted by OR Matt | June 23, 2008 1:39 PM

Hey wait a minute. Having multiple wives IS in fact something most people have moral objection to, yet the bible ISN'T specific on the number of wives you get, it's just mostly specific about sex outside of marriage.

As long you are properly married to the woman, you can have as many wives as you want.

Futhermore, MOST people morally object to having multiple wives and if they are Christian, assume the bible has something to say about it.

What do you know? Morality that arose WITHOUT affirmation from the "good book".

Posted by OR Matt | June 23, 2008 1:45 PM

JESUS says it's 1.

I'll pray for you...

Posted by elenchos | June 23, 2008 1:46 PM

Can it go the opposite way? I would really love to see a mathematical formula for prudes, thankee very much.

Posted by Marty | June 23, 2008 1:47 PM

There is no slut math. Sluttiness isn't about how many people you sleep with, it's who they are and why you're sleeping with them. Do you want attention and think having sex with someone will make you feel better about yourself? Are you trying to prove something to someone? Are you sleeping with people to spite them, yourself, or someone else? Congrats, you're a slutty slut.

If you just sleep with a ton of people cuz you're horny and it's fun, you're fine. Welcome to Seattle.

Posted by Matt Fuckin' Hickey | June 23, 2008 1:49 PM

@10 sound a bit a defensive ....

Posted by OR Matt | June 23, 2008 1:52 PM

Glad to hear I'm not a slut.

Now, if you want to count women ... (does math in head) ... I'm good until I'm a lot older.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 23, 2008 1:54 PM

Heard another interesting mathematical dating theory this weekend- those you date should fit into an "age range" between ((your age / 2)+7) and ((your age - 7) x 2).

Which, at 27, puts my dating range between 21 and 40.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | June 23, 2008 1:56 PM

Holy shit, UNPAID BLOGGER...

According to that formula, my dating range would be 28 1/2 to 72???

If I took advantage of that full range = definition of a slut.

Posted by pgreyy | June 23, 2008 2:06 PM

greater than 6 per year since you've started having sex.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 23, 2008 2:09 PM

If you've ever had sex at the Eagle, you're a slut.

Posted by throwing stones from my glass house | June 23, 2008 2:13 PM

Arbitrary. What about men sluts? I've worked in straight bars and those guys took the cake when it came to sluts! Would it include blow jobs?

Posted by Vince | June 23, 2008 2:34 PM

I don't think total number is as important as the rate. (30 guys by age 20 is cool, but more is not?) And as #10 says, the reasons are big too.

Posted by Greg | June 23, 2008 2:36 PM

@16 - if you've ever not had sex at the Eagle, you're a slut.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 23, 2008 2:39 PM

One can be king/queen for a day. One can be slut for a few months. The total number of partners isn't the issue. It's the number in a row.

if (cocks sucked in a row > age/2)

A college student sucking 10 cocks in a row is a slut. A housewife sucking 10 cocks in a row is just going though an experimental phase.

Posted by eclexia | June 23, 2008 2:53 PM

formula amended:

total # of men > (your age - 17 (the typ. age of consent)) x 1.5 = SLUT.

so, you're 21 and you've fucked 6 guys? not a slut.

you're 41 & you've fucked 37 guys? ?SLUT! you were only allowed 36.

Posted by max solomon | June 23, 2008 2:55 PM

This is all well and good, but does anyone know if there is a formula for prudishness?

Posted by Sarah | June 23, 2008 2:57 PM

"Slut" is an arbitrary term, so it stands to reason the definition of a slut is anyone who has more sex than you.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | June 23, 2008 3:03 PM

@23 for the win!

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 23, 2008 3:05 PM

I like 23 too!

Posted by OR Matt | June 23, 2008 3:20 PM

If you have sex with someone you met via SLOG comments, both (all?) parties are permanent sluts forever.

Posted by Jimmy Jackhammer | June 23, 2008 3:54 PM

No, that means you were attracted to their mind before you were attracted to everything else.

But that might make you a book slut ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 23, 2008 4:05 PM

Yay! I'm not a slut (truthfully I always thought I was...)

OTOH, I WAS a slut back when I was about 23, since most of my activity happened between the age of 19 and 23. Now I guess I've just got good memories...

BTW, the sluttiest sluts I ever knew were straight guys who were just plain helpless in the face of an offer. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Posted by Nora | June 23, 2008 4:14 PM

@28 - um, you mean we can say no?

Seriously, it's like that game Fable, where you can go to bed with your wife - has any straight guy playing that game EVER said no?

If you really want us, it's not that hard ... or should I say, it is that hard ... oh, never mind, I'll just be discrete and ponder particle physics and the meaninglessness of homelessness.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 23, 2008 4:33 PM

wtf is fable old man?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 23, 2008 4:47 PM

oh snap!

Posted by Will in xBox not 360 Seattle | June 23, 2008 5:12 PM

Yep, 23 has nailed it.

And it reminds of an old George Carlin routine:

Anybody who drives faster than you? They're a MANIAC! Anybody who drives slower than you? They're an IDIOT!

So, I guess a prude is anybody who has had fewer partners than you?

"Zero" might be another definition, or hint.

Posted by CP | June 23, 2008 6:08 PM

Research Grant Proposal:

Collect a group of sluts. Measure important slut characteristics (e.g. age, number of partners, hair color). Use half of sample to build slutiness measure model (CART=Classification And Regression Trees is a good candidate method). Use remaining half of slut sample to validate model. Submit to important journal.

Posted by umvue | June 23, 2008 6:37 PM

Amendment to Proposal:

Collect some nonsluts too (if possible).

Posted by umvue | June 23, 2008 6:42 PM

Dayum! I'm not even into double-digits, and I could have surpassed 40 people by now without qualifying for sluthood! I'm actually feeling like kind of a loser now.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | June 24, 2008 12:04 AM

Wow. Whether I use the original formula or the one where you subtract 17 first, I'm way behind. I need to increase my number by double digits to even approach slutiness. It makes me sad (and quite frankly, horny) to have such a small number.

Posted by Jo | June 24, 2008 2:40 AM

I think this 1.5 business is a bit generous. The mathematical standard I choose to go by is if your age > # of people who you have had sex with, you are a tramp. Maybe a loveable tramp, but a tramp nonetheless.

There are also situational questions to be answered, so a pure mathematical formula cannot really be effectively used.

For instance:

1) Can you list all of their names?
2) Last names, too?
3) Where did you do it?
4) How?
5) Why?

Posted by Sara | June 24, 2008 10:39 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.