Currently a hot topic across "Top pics" and "Top journals" (even if the more entertaining ones have been deleted). The general thrust of the argument appears to be this-
1- Girls are posting pictures of themselves in underwear.
2- This is "skanky".
3- However, if the girl in question is "truly beautiful", and the photograph is technically proficient/photoshopped, it becomes "not skanky".
Now, personally speaking I think that argument has a huge bullseye painted all over it, but it's one worth discussing. What is "skanky" to you?
Neither. It is never as simple as "black or white/ this or that/ this means that". I've included a list of general criteria to be met for someone to be classified as a skank. None of the items listed alone make anyone a skank, rather a combination of the items within my criteria together make or determine who is or isn't a skank.
PS: In "economically deprived times" one who be foolish to live in the slums or any city for that matter. Most things are over-priced in cities. When money is tight its a lot cheaper to live in a smaller town.
In "economically deprived times" one who be foolish to live in the slums or any city for that matter. Most things are over-priced in cities. When money is tight its a lot cheaper to live in a smaller town.
Well...not necessarily. Go out to small towns here, things are likely more expensive. Shipping costs, etc. Also, less competition.
Cities also have the advantage of centralisation - more likely to find a job in a city, more likely to find other services, etc.
Never knew so many users on VF were "Pro-Skank"!
Highlighting the flaws in your argument =/= "pro skank". Whatever that means.
Fetch the smelling salts please. A delicate little flower appears to be on the verge of swooning.
I`m pro skank. Now take that statement with some salt, I won`t "date" a skank(maybe an ex skank if shes reformed), but lets be honest here boys....you`re clubbing, you bar hopping, you`re at a keg party etc....admit...when you`re got your holligan on and you`re beer goggles and jager brain just wan`t fun...well you know....a slut is a good woman to find.
Besides, lets not pretend to have standards when you see a hot girl in revealing clothes, dirty dancing with her bisexual friend in a club...come on, you know it...you`re standards are not that high when you see a hot woman, sluts can be very pretty and clean too.
More power to those slutty girls, they should never be ashamed when they`re "single", or in an open relationship to slut it up, good time girls are some of the best conversationalists too, better to dance, party with some life loving lasses that play a little loose with societys rules, then some prudish, self important fun nazis.
Only pointing it out, because some people here seem to pretend they`ve never seen pretty girls sluting it up on the dancefloor, or at a party and never wore a smile watching them.
What consenting adults get up to sexually with themselves, or with other consenting adults, is their own business. If society is capable of being destroyed or harmed by that, then society needs to be mercifully taken outside and shot, because it's clearly too feeble to survive.
And anyone offended by it is firmly entitled to their right to feel offended by it. However, quite what they do with that sense of offence remains a mystery to me.
I don't get why poor people are considered skanks that's weird. I'm not the richest person and yes I'm proud of my unique physique so I show it off. But I think skank has more to do with being a slut than anything... A slut is someone who sleeps around... A skank is someone who has diseases and is unclean and sleeps with anybody. Honestly I think a skank is someone who sleeps with someone on the first or second date has one night stands and is the epitome of a dirty whore. Sluts and hoes are people who sleep with anybody they aren't in a relationship with or dating and had only been on less than 10 dates... Poverty has nothing to do with this and neither does adoring one's physique... I do find it odd a bit to dress in your undies and let strange people look at you. But it's not skanky imo. I may be pretty revealing on my tops and am poor but I don't think virtuous girls really can be a slut skank or a ho. It's reserved for those who sleep around...
Why does sleeping with someone after 'less than 10 dates' make one a slut/skank?
I sure as hell didn't wait 10 dates before sleeping with the people I've slept with, and I have only slept with a few people, and was in long term relationships with 2 of those, and am currently in a relationship with the other.
Sleeping around doesn't make you a skank or a slut. Bring riddled with sexually transmitted infections or selling your body for sex makes you slutty. Two adults having sex with consent and pleasure does not equal sluttiness.
"Sleeping around doesn't make you a skank or a slut."
Thats kind of a tricky one, like how prolific would someone have to be with sleeping around to be considered a slut ? Would you not consider them a slut, by society`s standards if they were not only prolific in how many men they slept with, but also how frequently and how consistent they were ? I mean to say, some women, or girls, really do get around, I`ve known some to have engaged in sexual behaviour with almost whole social groups.
They often have little sense and end up boning people that only the women of the lowest standards would go home with, simply because they were on a rush of life, feeling good at the time, looking for fun, no inhibitions, leading to embarassing encounters with ugly men with tarnished reputations. Further more it can take little, very little effort into having one of these women either go home with you, or perhaps even head to the nearest bathroom/toilet/side alley of a club etc etc.
Sometimes women who sleep around consistently...well without being judgemental, just being brutally honest, well they are sluts, slappas, hoes, puta, camboyana etc etc. sometimes life is simple in how we should percieve things, sometimes it is as simple as it first seems. I personally see a slutty girl...as a slut, puta, simple as that. Its not my place to try and determine all the reasons and motivations behind why a woman engaged in sexual behaviour with so many people, why they do so, so very frequently, why they sleep with some really ugly men, or what I would personally consider a loser, its not my place to pass judgement on women to maybe enjoying sex a little too much for their own good.
In saying that I`ll stress that I don`t look down my nose at a good time girl, its their life, they every right to act like a red blooded man. However if they end up sleeping with other women`s boyfriends, as is often the case, they often find themselves in a world of drama. Sluts seldom make good girlfriends either, less inhibitions, more likely to be in social enviroments where drugs and/or liquor is present in sizeable quantities. Just from my experiences, an easy women you meet, may be good looking and may rock at the things involving carnal pursuits...but they`re seldom trustworthy people. Best to keep as friends, or those one time companionship outings. They make great conqubines however. Apart from that, its a women`s right to decide how she spends her time and how she goes about indulging in her more physical apetites.
Truth be told, they often make life so dificult on themselves, early pregnancies, unexpectedly and unplanned as far as falling pregnant. Or you get very sexually active women who are on the pill for reasons of living the lifestyle they wan`t without fear of pregnancy, only to still have unprotected sex with strangers. The stigma os slutty girls, very sexually active, very easy girls, falling prey to stds and acting as carriers...well it often is true for reasons that it does not need a rocket science to work out.
my physique type is unique. Body types that are popular usually aren't lollipops in shape rather pears hourglasses and other shapes. My shape is not common naturally among most women.
anyhow. To me sleeping with someone you aren't planing or not sure you're going to be with forever is sleeping around which is imo a slut or whore. I don't have much problem with people like that I was just speaking of the definition personally. Under 10 dates you really can't truly tell it's a long term reliable relationship. I actually personally would prefer to wait 3 times that amount. But I'm not saying if not waiting that long you're a whore. I'm not imposing my beliefs it's my opinion really probably influenced by the lifestyle I live.... Last poster I haven't read your post but will soon
for me I don't believe in having sexual relations with a guy until it's serious and not just serious but plans for marrying are already planned out. I think also after almost a year of exclusive dating that I should know if the relationship is stable enough for a longterm relationship ending of course in marriage. The goal personally to me is marriage. But that's just my personal prefference
How can you know after only a year whether or not you're going to marry someone? :disturbed I've been in relationships that were a few years long, and marriage never came into the question. Actually, it did in one relationship. But turns out I didn't know him that well because he was an alcoholic, so we broke up.
If you want to wait that long to have sex, that's totally cool and your choice, but to call people whores or skanks for waiting less time than you is very judgemental. I may not be a virgin but I'm very far from a whore. I'm the most prudish person I know.
Plus, if you're getting close to marriage, and it turns out the guy or girl can't sexually satisfy you, you've either wasted a couple of years with them (if you break up over it), or you'll have a marriage with little to no sexual pleasure. It's not exactly a great situation either way.
I don't think people who wait less time are sluts. Like I said 10 dates or less. That's far from 30...
And yea my grandparents married after meeting for 2 months guess what they had marriage that lasted 40 years. My mom married my dad after 3 months. And she still can't move on because she knew he was the one. Plenty of people marry after a year of meeting each other. It happens a lot. I've known people to get engaged at that point and then to soon marry I'd just personally prefer to be close to engagement or engaged before I did that. I'm not calling anyone a slut for not doing that just ones who do it before 10 serious dates. I think waiting 2 to 3 months is not much and not slutty I just chose to wait longer....
Numbers of dates isn't what I mentioned in my last post.
I said it's very judgemental of you to call people sluts for waiting less time than you.
And sure, marriages between people who barely know each other can work, but considering around 50% of marriages end in divorce, it's highly unlikely that if you marry someone within a year of meeting them, you'll be with them for the rest of your life.
from my experience it can work you don't have to live unmarried forever. Because if you spend all that time in a relationship I believe you've wasted your time imo. I'd only give a year if he's not into marriage then I don't need to waste my time... I'd know that before a year was up so it's more efficient. Plus if my goal wasn't marriage. Who would you trust more to stick around the one who you liked a few weeks and gave it up to or the guy you have feel in love with for months and feel like the relationship has been tested enough to go to that level? I'd trust the latter imo...
I do think some are sluts not everyone. Just like you think who have slept with people they knew less of are sluts that's how it works.
If you really think that a man will trust you more for waiting for months to sleep with him, you have a very quaint, somewhat skewed idea of what relationships are about.
it's not about the man I'm with. It's about my feeling like I am comfortable about the relationship. It's not all about the guy... It's also about what I feel just think like I can get pregnant but some women do and the go on bedrest while pregnant and sex is not an option. I don't want to have to worry because I'm not having sex with him for whatever medical reason he'll be cheating. It's to test stability long term relationship stamina so to speak and whether he can really be by me even if I couldn't give him sex. I don't like men who can't wait it's a way to weed them out imo.
Posting dictionary definitions in threads such as this one is something we've seen with dreary inevitability over the years. I'm left wondering if the people doing it think they're doing something original, witty and wise.
Please note that in the opening post the question is "What is "skanky" to you". That should provide a clue that personal interpretations are being sought in a bid to open up a discussion.
It is not (and I really can't stress this too firmly) an indication that I, or any other regular users of this forum, require assistance with how to use a dictionary. Please refrain from further instances of boring everybody in this manner.
