There is no such thing as a slut.

In my past articles, I’ve argued the points that get me hot and bothered extensively. I’m still going to do that here, but I don’t want the very simple, unquestionable message of this piece to get lost, so let me just reiterate: there is absolutely, unquestionably, standing-on-a-rooftop-shouting-it-through-a-megaphone definitely no such thing as a slut. And it’s time we let “slut-shaming” fade from our society’s mind: There are no sluts to shame—there are only people.

And not just any people: females are primarily the victims of “You’re a slut,” “Ugh, what a whore,” and, “She’s such a skank.” This is because misogyny, patriarchy, and rape culture perpetuate and maintain the idea that certain women are bad because of their past and present sexual practices. Men are sometimes called sluts (particularly queer men, it’s worth noting), but our society does not endorse those labels alongside an environment of misandry and shame mongering. (For the purposes of this article I’m going to confine my discussion to cisgender individuals; the struggle of sexuality shaming for non-cis folks is a whole different ball game and deserves its own article.)

Now, let me be perhaps the first (although I really hope not) to tell you that you have been lied to: as a member of a patriarchal society that condemns female promiscuity for unfounded and often arbitrary reasons, you’ve been conditioned to think that a woman participating in frequent consensual sex is a shameful thing. This is not only false, it’s cruel, dangerous, illogical, and haughty. And it’s time we explore why it’s a thing.

Our biggest problem with sex is our insistence on moralizing it; we have to see it as either right or wrong instead of something that just is. But here’s the thing: moralization is only valid within a frame of consequences. For example, we moralize murder for consequential reasons: it takes a human’s life, devastates their loved ones, removes them from a world that may have benefited from their existence, etc. It’s easy and reasonable for us to rationalize murder as bad when we consider those consequences.

But the act of consensual sex itself, considered separately from any potential outcomes, should not be thought of in the same way, regardless of how frequently one has it. And before you go spitting all kinds of rebuffs against that, let’s just stop and address some of them:

“First of all, a woman’s virginity is special and should be preserved.” Let’s not do this. As a concept, virginity is as imaginary as being a slut. Go look at a woman’s pelvic ultrasound. There is nothing lost after having sex for the first time, no ball of purity in a woman’s fallopian tubes that a penis is able to suck out. Virginity is as much a tool used to control women’s sexuality as is the word slut.

“A woman who has a lot of sex doesn’t respect herself.” Hush. A woman who wants and gets lots of sex is not only likely a woman who respects herself, but also a woman who treats herself right. That said, unless you’re in her head, you really don’t get to decide either way.

“Well, a woman who has a lot of sex clearly doesn’t value herself beyond what her body has to offer.” Go ask said woman yourself. I think you’ll find that she values a multitude of things about herself besides just her body. And even if a woman considers her body to be her best quality, why does that warrant your condemnation? Everyone knows their strengths and weaknesses; if a woman considers physicality her greatest strength, so be it.

“A man having lots of sex is like a key that opens many locks, but a woman having lots of sex is like a lock that can be opened by many keys.” HO BOY. This is, without a doubt, the stupidest, most infuriating, most inaccurate analogy to ever fuel a legitimate social debate. Let’s set the record straight: locks are designed with the single function of keeping something under wraps. Keys are designed with the sole purpose of opening them. Humans, on the other hand, are multifaceted and multifunctional. Defining men and women in terms of keys and locks fuels the mentality that men are designed only to be after something that women are designed only to protect, and that when a woman decides to have sex, especially lots of sex, she is failing to do that “job.” That’s just utterly ludicrous.

Now, it’s important to note that there are specific outcomes of sex that should be considered critically. Some, for example, are even criminalized: refusing to disclose one’s HIV-positive status when having sex is legally considered a felony in many states because of the danger it presents to the person who may contract the virus. Promising to be faithful to one’s spouse and then having sex with another person is a betrayal of trust, hurtful toward the spouse, and generally moralized as being bad.

But some arguments around being a slut due to the consequences of one’s sexual practices are as invalid as they are unnecessary:

“A woman who has a lot of sex is an incubator for STDs.” 1) Not necessarily true. Any educated woman who makes informed decisions about contraception and regularly gets herself tested can have plenty of sex and not contract a sexually transmitted disease or infection. 2) This is hypothetically as true for men as it is for women, so your double standard is showing.

“A woman who has lots of sex is just asking to get pregnant.” Also not necessarily true. See above comments about informed contraceptive choices.

I could go on and on, but in the end, “slut” is an epithet based not on fact, but solely on skewed and hurtful judgment. My own epiphany that the concept of sluts was conditioned into me over time was akin to learning that the tooth fairy was actually just my parents somehow managing to slide $1 bills under my pillow while I slept: Once I knew about it, I was not only hot and bothered, but also felt like I should’ve realized it all along. I hope this article helps you reach that same realization. The idea of a slut has, from day one, been a daydream, and it’s about time we all wake up.

Kyle R. Whelihan ’17, is a psychology concentrator living in Mather House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.