sluts and floozies

[glBock]

Contrary to popular opinion, both types of women are not the same. A slut, IMHO, is akin to a saint; I love sluts because I feel like a slutty man. Why do I see sluts as saints?

Because in my definition a slutty woman or man have merely discovered, or rediscovered, their own sexuality, and they are allowing one's sexuality to come out into the open. And they are (prepared to) act accordingly.

I posit that many Litsters are sluts, be they female or male. Some of them have acted on the desires of their inner self, and many have not (yet). The latter are looking and lurking here, maybe in the process of becoming comfortable with their inner sluttiness? Because society at large condemns people like that.

So much for sluts, except one more thought deserves to be added: In addition to their sluttiness, genuine sluts are also people of many dimensions. They have a brain and a soul, and many of them have a heart as well. Their sexuality is part of them, but not the only part.

"Floozies" – on the other hand – I see as one-dimensional people, because the only thing they are good at is their sexuality. At least in the realm of woman-to-men relations. One definition of floozy I looked up just now reads:

"A Floozy is a dumb slut who thinks getting attention from guys for preforming sexual favors is something to be proud of".
To which I like to add: and that is ALL that's on a mind of a floozy; achieve recognition from men because of the sexual favors she doles out. Whether "recognition" comes in the form of money, or other (pecuniary) favors, makes no difference.

Floozies, as I see it, are poor creatures, because they lack all the other dimensions that slutty women possess. I have been in (mail) contact with several floozies at different times, and while it felt horny and enticing for a while, the subtlety of a genuine relationship was missing. Simply, because the woman was so damn one-dimensional.

And – very sadly – discerning the difference between a floozy and a slut is not as easy as it sounds. One of them I met was a sociology researcher with a PhD, who I am sure was a rather multi-dimensional woman IRL, but when she exchanged mails with me, all she wanted to come out was the floozy in her.

So in case you are a woman and you have read all of my thoughts up to here, and if you consider yourself a genuine slut and not a floozy, and like to live out some of your sluttiness with me: send me a PM, and we shall see what develops.
.

 

[SuperSissy]

Contrary to popular opinion, both types of women are not the same. A slut, IMHO, is akin to a saint; I love sluts because I feel like a slutty man. Why do I see sluts as saints?

Because in my definition a slutty woman or man have merely discovered, or rediscovered, their own sexuality, and they are allowing one's sexuality to come out into the open. And they are (prepared to) act accordingly.

I posit that many Litsters are sluts, be they female or male. Some of them have acted on the desires of their inner self, and many have not (yet). The latter are looking and lurking here, maybe in the process of becoming comfortable with their inner sluttiness? Because society at large condemns people like that.

So much for sluts, except one more thought deserves to be added: In addition to their sluttiness, genuine sluts are also people of many dimensions. They have a brain and a soul, and many of them have a heart as well. Their sexuality is part of them, but not the only part.

"Floozies" – on the other hand – I see as one-dimensional people, because the only thing they are good at is their sexuality. At least in the realm of woman-to-men relations. One definition of floozy I looked up just now reads:

"A Floozy is a dumb slut who thinks getting attention from guys for preforming sexual favors is something to be proud of".
To which I like to add: and that is ALL that's on a mind of a floozy; achieve recognition from men because of the sexual favors she doles out. Whether "recognition" comes in the form of money, or other (pecuniary) favors, makes no difference.

Floozies, as I see it, are poor creatures, because they lack all the other dimensions that slutty women possess. I have been in (mail) contact with several floozies at different times, and while it felt horny and enticing for a while, the subtlety of a genuine relationship was missing. Simply, because the woman was so damn one-dimensional.

And – very sadly – discerning the difference between a floozy and a slut is not as easy as it sounds. One of them I met was a sociology researcher with a PhD, who I am sure was a rather multi-dimensional woman IRL, but when she exchanged mails with me, all she wanted to come out was the floozy in her.

So in case you are a woman and you have read all of my thoughts up to here, and if you consider yourself a genuine slut and not a floozy, and like to live out some of your sluttiness with me: send me a PM, and we shall see what develops.
.

Interesting, thank you. I think I'm always a slut and sometimes a floozy. Is that possible?

 

[glBock]

Interesting, thank you. I think I'm always a slut and sometimes a floozy. Is that possible?

Yes, if you define these terms the way I do. You are a multi-dimensional slut all the time, and some of the time you focus your whole self on one dimension only.

The PhD sociologist I met was most likely a slut also, with her husband, I would guess. Only for and with me, all she wanted to be was a floozy.

 

[stiv837]

My wife has always called herself a slut. never heard her use the word floozie to describe herself.

 

[AlliaPotestas]

Interesting - these words of course, tend to be associated with women because men are not admonished in the same way for having a sexual appetite...

In truth we are all complex creatures worthy of respect, but by deciding someone is just a slut, or just a floozie, we dehumanise them which justifies our own poor behaviour towards them. I say ‘we’, I obviously don’t mean me - I mean the men on a sex site who encourage women to contact them and then take some sort of moral high ground because a woman on a sex site is looking to talk about sex...

People come to lit for all sorts of different reasons, some (male and female), will be getting 99% of their needs fulfilled elsewhere and just want a quick wam-bam-thank-you-mam with a stranger to get them off sexually... to consider such a person just a slut or just a floozie shows a lack of imagination or empathy.

Just my tuppence worth...

Side note - I adore the floozie in the jacuzzi, and in my neck of the woods the word is used endearingly...

 

[glBock]

Interesting - these words of course, tend to be associated with women because men are not admonished in the same way for having a sexual appetite...

In truth we are all complex creatures worthy of respect, but by deciding someone is just a slut, or just a floozie, we dehumanise them which justifies our own poor behaviour towards them. I say ‘we’, I obviously don’t mean me - I mean the men on a sex site who encourage women to contact them and then take some sort of moral high ground because a woman on a sex site is looking to talk about sex...

People come to lit for all sorts of different reasons, some (male and female), will be getting 99% of their needs fulfilled elsewhere and just want a quick wam-bam-thank-you-mam with a stranger to get them off sexually... to consider such a person just a slut or just a floozie shows a lack of imagination or empathy.

Just my tuppence worth...

Side note - I adore the floozie in the jacuzzi, and in my neck of the woods the word is used endearingly...

Alia, I see that you understood essentially nothing in the post I wrote.

I talked About multi-dimensional women on the one hand - I called them sluts and I equate sluts with saints, hardly something derogatory.

And I talked about what I call floozies on the other Hand, and I make a distiction between the two.

Yes, reading a mail or a post, and trying to actually understand what it says, is an art that not everybody has mastered.
.

 

[Jada59]

I fail to see the comparison to a saint. The word saint has religious connotations. And why label anyone?

 

[AlliaPotestas]

Alia, I see that you understood essentially nothing in the post I wrote.

I talked About multi-dimensional women on the one hand - I called them sluts and I equate sluts with saints, hardly something derogatory.

And I talked about what I call floozies on the other Hand, and I make a distiction between the two.

Yes, reading a mail or a post, and trying to actually understand what it says, is an art that not everybody has mastered.
.

Obviously I am still working on written comprehension. Forgive me.

You state that you have had several mail corespondents which have failed to work out because “because the woman was so damn one-dimensional.” I counter that there is no such thing as a one-dimensional woman, and applying a descriptor like floozie to her, does have the effect of dehumanising her. Which perhaps helps you cope with the failed relationship - there is no need to address whether your own behaviour may have contributed to the failure, you have already decided she is less than you...

 

[AlliaPotestas]

I fail to see the comparison to a saint. The word saint has religious connotations. And why label anyone?

Slut and saint are both one-dimensional descriptors in my book... and not true to life, we are all more than this...

 

[glBock]

a note to Alia and Jada ….

… regarding your smart comments on this and another thread. I don't know, why remarks of mine here or there seem to attract y'all so much. If it amuses you to deposit comments, which are based on your non-understanding of what I write about, so be it.

I keep wondering however, why you cannot find something useful to do instead. Christmas is nearing, damn it, can't you just simply bake cookies or cakes? Or focus on threads the conversations on which you DO understand?
.

 

[jaF0]

What does this have to do with 'Personals'? Are you seeking the company of one, or both? Or are you proclaiming yourself to be one, or both and seeking company?

 

[glBock]

What does this have to do with 'Personals'? Are you seeking the company of one, or both? Or are you proclaiming yourself to be one, or both and seeking company?

Sometimes it helps to actually read post #1. And if you still don't understand it, read it another time.

I see that some people not used to ads longer than 5 sentences in a row, take a little longer to grasp something as complex as the ads I tend to write.

 

[AlliaPotestas]

Ahem... suggesting that I am consigned to the kitchen for daring to have an opinion, is not the way to persuade me to go away nicely.

I stand by my belief that there is no such thing as a one dimensional woman.. or man for that matter... and I don’t like the lazy label, the dehumanising aspect does scare me because there are sections of society that consider the rape / abuse / humiliation of such folk more palatable, because they are seen as less than human...

Good luck finding your slut that is also a saint, I do hope you don’t stumble across a floozie in disguise, happy Christmas, x

 

[Booboobear84]

Without looking at the picture I'm guessing that's in Dublin. There was a statue there that they described that way when I was there in the 80s.

My view is that we call a guy that gets as much sex as he wants a stud, which in nominally positive. What I would like is for us to look at woman who gets all of the sex she wants as positively. I like the word slut, but will never use it pejoratively. As in I love a woman who embraces her inner slut. Is suspect thisis a losing battle, but . . .

 

[jackdaw]

Without looking at the picture I'm guessing that's in Dublin. There was a statue there that they described that way when I was there in the 80s.

My view is that we call a guy that gets as much sex as he wants a stud, which in nominally positive. What I would like is for us to look at woman who gets all of the sex she wants as positively. I like the word slut, but will never use it pejoratively. As in I love a woman who embraces her inner slut. Is suspect thisis a losing battle, but . . .

I think, however, that it's Nottingham! Am I right, AP?

 

[Booboobear84]

I think, however, that it's Nottingham! Am I right, AP?

I peeked. Certainly not the Dublin thing of which I was thinking.

 

[MidnightRyder1a]

Interesting - these words of course, tend to be associated with women because men are not admonished in the same way for having a sexual appetite...

In truth we are all complex creatures worthy of respect, but by deciding someone is just a slut, or just a floozie, we dehumanise them which justifies our own poor behaviour towards them. I say ‘we’, I obviously don’t mean me - I mean the men on a sex site who encourage women to contact them and then take some sort of moral high ground because a woman on a sex site is looking to talk about sex...

People come to lit for all sorts of different reasons, some (male and female), will be getting 99% of their needs fulfilled elsewhere and just want a quick wam-bam-thank-you-mam with a stranger to get them off sexually... to consider such a person just a slut or just a floozie shows a lack of imagination or empathy.

Just my tuppence worth...

Side note - I adore the floozie in the jacuzzi, and in my neck of the woods the word is used endearingly...

Floozie in the Jacuzzi, I cannot contain the smile that phrase brings to me. As in the whole basis of this thread. I leave the job of assigning definitions to Webster. They've been doing it for a long time and seem to have a good handle on it. On a personal note, Floozie is more of a playful term, and Slut more of a term of endearment to my heart. But that is my point of view in my corner of the world. And I'm sure it's different to other people in other places.

 

[AlliaPotestas]

I think, however, that it's Nottingham! Am I right, AP?

Not Dublin... and not Notts... although close...

Both beautiful floozies in their own way but I am going to be prejudiced and pick mine (although I am Irish blood, English heart... so I can have both... who is going to come and install them in my garden? Warning - it’s not very big - they’d have to share a jacuzzi...)

The Dublin floozie depicts a James Joyce character - Anna Livia who personifies the River Liffey...

Whereas the Brummie floozie is engraved with the words of TS Elliot...

And the pool was filled with water of sunlight,
And the lotos rose, quietly, quietly,
The surface glittered out of heart of light,
And they were behind us, reflected in the pool.
Then a cloud passed, and the pool was empty.

Anna is beautiful in an ethereal sort of way, she looks other-worldly... you can see her as the personification of water... she reminds me of the victim women you find in pre raphaelite art (arty types will disagree with me - but they always look like they have one foot in this life and one foot in the other... or maybe I haven’t been exposed to enough yet...)

Whereas my floozie better personifies me in a bath - a woman of substance and all that... if I had a daughter, she would be the floozie I would want to point out... big and bold and towering over even the guardians of the fountain... and look at how she holds her head... proud... there is something beautiful about how unashamed she looks...

Anywhos - I’ll let the OP have his personal back and once more wish him luck in finding that needle in a haystack, the woman that is a saintly slut without an inch of floozie in her... although looking at my two floozie’s, the man is missing out... incidentally I always assume men that want saintly women have mommy complexes... I’ll just leave that there...

 

[Chris_Michael]

It seems like semantics, IMO.

Who cares if the OP is dehumanizing somebody? It’s all sunshines and rainbows until a woman feels dehumanized. Men can be thought of as bank accounts and life security blankets, dying in wars they didn’t start and paying for the houses/beds their wives cheat on them in... but man, call a woman a slut and all of a sudden, we’re talking rape culture.

Stupid. Fucking stupid.

 

[AlliaPotestas]

It seems like semantics, IMO.

Who cares if the OP is dehumanizing somebody? It’s all sunshines and rainbows until a woman feels dehumanized. Men can be thought of as bank accounts and life security blankets, dying in wars they didn’t start and paying for the houses/beds their wives cheat on them in... but man, call a woman a slut and all of a sudden, we’re talking rape culture.

Stupid. Fucking stupid.

I actually have no problem with the word slut between consenting adults, I do have a problem with someone bitching about floozies being one dimensional... and de-humanising any woman that isn’t a saint does make a rape culture more acceptable in some communities...

ps - it is the 21st century, some of us women actually earn more than our blokes... and women are the biggest losers in wars - wars that are almost always man made... But I don’t want to start a battle of the sexes... I love men... funny... intelligent... thought-provoking creatures that they are... I would never dream of assuming a high sex drive made them one dimensional...

 

[Chris_Michael]

I actually have no problem with the word slut between consenting adults, I do have a problem with someone bitching about floozies being one dimensional... and de-humanising any woman that isn’t a saint does make a rape culture more acceptable in some communities...

ps - it is the 21st century, some of us women actually earn more than our blokes... and women are the biggest losers in wars - wars that are almost always man made... But I don’t want to start a battle of the sexes... I love men... funny... intelligent... thought-provoking creatures that they are... I would never dream of assuming a high sex drive made them one dimensional...

Oh, so you do have a problem with how he complains about sluts being sluts? What's your endgame? To stop him from being able to say what he thinks?

I'm sure you'd have no problem with a woman saying that "players" are pieces of shit, but studs are fucking awesome. If a woman posted that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. As a matter of fact, if a woman posted calling men sluts, we wouldn't be having this conversation either.

....no we wouldn't.

....no.... we wouldn't.

Okay, at this point, if you believe you would have still stepped in on a woman complaining about one-dimensional male sluts, you're just straight up dishonest.

If you're a woman who makes more money than your bloke, that sounds like a personal choice. If he cheats on you in the house you pay for, then he sounds like a floozie. OH WAIT, you take offense to that. No no, he sounds like a typical man. There you go, that's more your style, right?

As far as women being the primary victims of war, oh my fucking god... what the fuck ever. And we've all heard this shit before, Hillary.

https://pics.me.me/women-have-always-been-the-primary-victims-of-war-women-5612743.png

 

[AlliaPotestas]

Oh, so you do have a problem with how he complains about sluts being sluts? What's your endgame? To stop him from being able to say what he thinks?

I'm sure you'd have no problem with a woman saying that "players" are pieces of shit, but studs are fucking awesome. If a woman posted that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. As a matter of fact, if a woman posted calling men sluts, we wouldn't be having this conversation either.

....no we wouldn't.

....no.... we wouldn't.

Okay, at this point, if you believe you would have still stepped in on a woman complaining about one-dimensional male sluts, you're just straight up dishonest.

If you're a woman who makes more money than your bloke, that sounds like a personal choice. If he cheats on you in the house you pay for, then he sounds like a floozie. OH WAIT, you take offense to that. No no, he sounds like a typical man. There you go, that's more your style, right?

As far as women being the primary victims of war, oh my fucking god... what the fuck ever. And we've all heard this shit before, Hillary.

https://pics.me.me/women-have-always-been-the-primary-victims-of-war-women-5612743.png

Are you ok lovely? Genuine question... you sound a little bitter about things...

He wasn’t complaining about sluts... he has no problem with sluts. He has a problem with floozies...who he sees as one-dimensional which I counter no-one really is.

My comment on women bearing the brunt of war was less to do with losing sons, which is of course a horror no parent should endure. It was more about how rape is used as a weapon... the statistics are terrifying...

Once more, are you ok? x

 

[RubenesqueAphrodite]

P.s.a.

Men and women are equally stupid.

Men and women can be ~to varying degrees~ both slutty or not.

Hillary would have made a shitty president.

Floozy vs Slut is semantics.

I'd have chimed in if the OP were a female and the discussion had gotten this far..but that's just me. Had this not gotten bumped so many freaking times with non-reponses, it would not have garnered much attention from anyone, I suppose.

Chris is probably ok...

 

[Chris_Michael]

Are you ok lovely? Genuine question... you sound a little bitter about things...

He wasn’t complaining about sluts... he has no problem with sluts. He has a problem with floozies...who he sees as one-dimensional which I counter no-one really is.

My comment on women bearing the brunt of war was less to do with losing sons, which is of course a horror no parent should endure. It was more about how rape is used as a weapon... the statistics are terrifying...

Once more, are you ok? x

Are you really going to both strawman me and commit an ad hominem attack in same post?

In my original post, I say it seems to be about semantics. To me, it seems like he’s just saying that floozies are one dimensional sluts. I’ve never heard the term “floozie” before. So, it’s not something I’m accustomed to. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t weigh in on somebody who’s obviously high jacking a thread to utilize a double standard to express their moral outrage.

The statistics are terrifying? What do rape statistics have anything to do with this man’s thoughts on sluts and floozies? Why even bring it up? Are you suggesting that this man’s thoughts are a contributing factor of rape in our society? Because if so, that’s stupid. Why not say his thoughts on women in high heels and revealing dresses dehumanize women and is a contributing factor to rape in our society?

 

[Chris_Michael]

Men and women are equally stupid.

Men and women can be ~to varying degrees~ both slutty or not.

Hillary would have made a shitty president.

Floozy vs Slut is semantics.

I'd have chimed in if the OP were a female and the discussion had gotten this far..but that's just me. Had this not gotten bumped so many freaking times with non-reponses, it would not have garnered much attention from anyone, I suppose.

Chris is probably ok...

Oh shit, long time no see! How have you been?

Dang it’s been like 2 years since I’ve seen you. Or it feels like it!