On ‘anti-slut defence’ tactics, ‘slut-shaming’, and their critics

ASD, or anti-slut defence is a term used in the PUA or Red Pill space. It refers to behavioural and psychological tendencies of women to resist seduction by men they really want to have sex with, in order to maintain their non-slutty reputation and self-image.

An ASD is a method used by a girl to abstain herself from responsibility during a situation where there is a likelihood of sex/intimacy.

PUAMore

PUA discussion of ASD centres around methods to overcome it. They discuss methods of influencing the woman’s psychological state, heightening her sexual desire, and making her feel comfortable and safe from condemnatory judgement. The aim is to prevent ASD obstructions, or manage them when they arise.

  • When you make your move to bring her home, this is when Anti-Slut Defence (ASD) normally appears. You want to give her plausible deniability. “Just one drink then I’m kicking you out because I gotta get up early” will usually suffice.
  • Back home when you’re ramping up the kino [that’s physical contact], ASD will normally appear again (major red-flag if it doesn’t). Simply ignore it, take a break and try again.

Britmannia, Game Cheat Sheet

This aspect of PUA teaching is clearly a ripe target for criticism.

There is one more disturbing way in which “game” may increase “success” with women for unscrupulous men: many of the standard techniques of “game”– invading a woman’s personal space, touching her repeatedly, trying to “isolate” her from her friends – may serve as “tests” to find women who are less likely to resist violations of their boundaries. In this way, “game” may serve as a quite effective enabler of date rape.

David Futrelle

Does the PUA notion of ASD imply a disregard for consent? Well, no. The whole point of managing ASD is to get to consensual sex. Does it teach an attitude of male entitlement to sex? I can see why it might appear that way. The attitude it promotes is one of not taking women’s reluctance to have sex seriously. Any sort of reluctance is conceived as a moral posturing, an obstruction to be skilfully managed away. But if you don’t successfully manage it, if you lack the skill, then you’ve failed this test of masculinity. You’re entitled to nothing. Some other man, possibly a better version of yourself, in the same circumstances could have prevailed. But you didn’t. So the Red Pill would prescribe: lift more, practice game more, become better.

Who would maintain this is somehow a ‘pro-rape’ attitude?

Perhaps, one might suggest, that the PUA advice amounts to carefully staying within the bounds of the law; adhering to the letter of the law, but violating the spirit of the law. What is the spirit of the law prohibiting rape? Perhaps it’s something like: we should all respect the sexual autonomy of persons. And some PUA counter-ASD tactics are arguably properly considered psychologically manipulative, to the point of undermining autonomy.

Even if consensual sex is the result, some ways of getting consent may be considered illegitimate. It’s difficult to draw up strict rules around subtle matters like these. So they remain mostly outside the realm of legislative prohibition. (Efforts to change this situation are underway. A topic for another post!)

Let us now turn our attention toward a far more powerful force for overcoming ASD than anything a PUA could muster: feminism. Specifically, the feminist slut-acceptance campaign.

The sexual revolution left women with the short end of the stick, so goes the narrative. Marriage is no longer the strictly mandatory precondition for sex, but only men have been truly liberated to fornicate to their heart’s content. Promiscuous men are celebrated as ‘studs’, while promiscuous women are denigrated as ‘sluts’.

This is a state of inequality, so feminists gotta do something about it. Their response: abolish slut-shaming. This initiative is also connected to protest against using women’s (especially promiscuous) sexual histories as evidence (e.g. in court) to undermine their accusations of rape.

Once a girl or woman is regarded as a “slut” or “ho,” she becomes a target for sexual assault. And if she is sexually assaulted, she may be assigned the “slut” or “ho” identity ex post facto to rationalize the crime and to protect the assaulter.

Leora Tanenbaum, The Truth About Slut-Shaming

See also: Slutwalks:

SlutWalk is a transnational movement[1] of protest marches calling for an end to rape culture, including victim blaming and slut shaming of sexual assault victims.

[…]

The protest takes the form of a march, mainly by young women, where some dress as “sluts” in revealing, sexy attire such as short skirts, stockings and scanty tops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

It should be noted that, being the broad church that it is, feminism is not of one accord in the matter of tactics for achieving liberation from slut-shaming. Anti-porn activist and sociologist Gail Dines and law professor Wendy J Murphy have criticised the Slutwalk movement’s attempt to reclaim the term ‘slut’:

The organisers claim that celebrating the word “slut”, and promoting sluttishness in general, will help women achieve full autonomy over their sexuality. But the focus on “reclaiming” the word slut fails to address the real issue. The term slut is so deeply rooted in the patriarchal “madonna/whore” view of women’s sexuality that it is beyond redemption. The word is so saturated with the ideology that female sexual energy deserves punishment that trying to change its meaning is a waste of precious feminist resources.

By connecting slut-shaming to ‘rape culture’, feminists have established the moral justification for their campaign to relentlessly pursue total hegemony. No stone is to be left unturned. It’s not enough to reform courts, schools (sex education) and other institutions, unreconstructed individuals must have their opinions and preferences reshaped …

We have become a society where how many people a woman has had sex with will override any quality about her, and will be the main thing she is remembered by. This concept has become so outrageous that women have refused sex with men to keep the count low, or lied about the number in order to not seem fast. A body count is something that men somehow feel the need to find out, and that women are quick to hide.

[…]

We need to learn to involve ourselves in someone’s present without worrying about their past.

Alexis Ditaway, Why I Stopped Answering The Body Count Question

Will this effort have any influence on the fact that men see promiscuous history as a negative indication of relationship commitment potential? Men want loyalty. So what ultimately matters is whether this correlation is true or not. There are empirical studies. E.g:

Research from the University of Utah finds […] Women with only one partner prior to marrying their husbands were most likely to divorce, and only in recent years is higher premarital promiscuity linked with higher divorce rates.

Ian Lang, Science Discovers Strange Link Between Promiscuity And Divorce

Well, that clears things up (not). Manosphere blogs like to cite research that shows a clearer negative relationship between multiple sex partners and stable marriage. Ultimately, the two individuals and their choices are what makes a relationship succeed or fail. That doesn’t mean sexual history, which speaks to character, is not a factor. But a raw bodycount number can only be a rough indication.

Let’s look at the Red Pill dudes again. They’re not primarily looking for long-term relationships. They’re about developing strategy for maximal sexual options, including sometimes one-night stands. Why would they be in favour of slut-shaming? Wouldn’t they, logically, prefer sluts?

Some are:

1. Slut shaming is a mainly a tool used by women to create an artificial scarcity of pussy thus increasing their value. 2. Men who use the term are unwittingly aiding them in this agenda. 3. This affects men in proportion to the number of women they attempt to sleep with. 4. Men should be actively trying to reduce the prevalence of slut shaming to increase their odds of successfully running game.

TheLazyLibertarian asks: Is Slut Shaming Bad For Men?

On the other hand, as quoted above from Britmannia:

Back home when you’re ramping up the kino, ASD will normally appear again (major red-flag if it doesn’t).

This is quite paradoxical. They want some girl to act like a slut. But for this purpose, they’d prefer a non-slut over a slut. And for good reasons, supposedly: sluttiness correlates with troublemaking character traits. Non-sluttiness indicates good judgement, sanity, reasonableness. We could dispute whether this is actually, empirically true. But would anyone dispute a dude’s right to refrain from pursuing sex based on his best judgement?

(Well yeah, the coming age of compulsory cuckoldry…)

Then there are the PUA obsessives, ever-more intensively refining their craft, thirsty for the next challenge. For them, sluts are too easy. They aren’t satisfied unless they overcome a massive resistance. An indication of attraction from a girl makes her less interesting to them. It’s better if she’s already in an ‘exclusive’ relationship. (What I’ve described here is clearly a sickness, isn’t it?)

They’re not going to be shamed into slut-acceptance. But they’re extreme cases. What about regular dudes? What about regular women, will they be convinced?

‘Watching porn makes you a cuck’

There’s a meme you might have seen. Has ubiquitous porn laid the groundwork for slut-acceptance for males? Perhaps not, even though porn is all around us. It’s still morally dubious. There’s the influence of the anti-porn coalition of religionists and feminists. The newest member of that superteam is the medical/psychological faction of porn addiction and porn-induced disorder awareness. They speak directly to the rational self-interest of men (and women).

A notion of porn’s deleterious effects on men is established in Red Pill circles, so its use is generally discouraged.

When you watch pornography, you are being programmed to strongly desire sex with promiscuous women (i.e. sluts). The hundreds of hours of video porn you have watched in your life has molded your mind to expect fast and easy sex from women who serve no real purpose outside of sex, and has actually primed you to look down on virginal women since they can’t provide you with immediate sexual excitement.
Roosh V, The Male Thirst Epidemic Is Primarily Caused By Porn

Porn Can Ruin Your Life

And here’s the proof. And that’s just one of many examples of how damaging it is on the brain.

Some scientists hold the view that porn-induced masturbation is as addicting as heroin.

Jesus Judgement on Return of Kings


Here’s a thought. Would educating your girlfriend about counter-ASD methods make her better prepared for them and keep her loyal? Well, no.

It shows you’re worried about her leaving you. Insecurity!

And these techniques aren’t anything sophisticated or powerful. They only, according to the teaching, bring forth latent desire. If she didn’t want to cheat, she wouldn’t get together alone with some dude. This is what non-PUAs can learn from the Red Pill world: not being fooled into thinking she can be tricked into it against her desire.

You don’t need to be a feminist to realise women aren’t stupid.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “On ‘anti-slut defence’ tactics, ‘slut-shaming’, and their critics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s