Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 2

Version of this done to straight men
What's it called when straight men are shamed for seeking/having casual sex with women? They're often labelled perverts, creeps, slimeballs, players, womanisers, pigs, rats etc. They're rarely called sluts, but it's similar in that they're being insulted and reprimanded for being non-monogamous. There should either be a section on this added to the article, or there should be a separate article about this. Jim Michael (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's the same thing, even if it's called something different feel free to add it, or point us to material here, and it will probably be added.GliderMaven (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No; we actually had an extensive discussion about not using stuff that doesn't explicitly refer to slut shaming above. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it's about the topic, and the topic is whatever we define at the top of the article, and it's not defined as the phrase 'slut-shaming' because wee're not writing a dictionary.GliderMaven (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * that is not what we found in the earlier discussion, with regard to this topic in particular. I understand that you feel differently - am just informing you that there is a local consensus as of now to be rather strict about the scope. If you want to change that, you need to work to change that. Edits that fly in the face of it won't stick. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Really, where exactly??? I 'understand that you feel differently', but no.GliderMaven (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a big purple box on the page above containing a smaller white box in its upper right hand corner. The purple box contains something we call a "Request for comment" (RfC) and the smaller box contains something we call the "close" of the RfC, which summarizes the consensus of the people who responded to the RfC.   This is what I meant by "extensive discussion" above.  Please read the "close".  Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Content removal
User:Thall101 please give more extensive reasoning for the content you removed:
 * diff at 01:42, 3 March 2017
 * diff at 01:58, 3 March 2017
 * diff at 02:02, 3 March 2017

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Addition
User:MatthewCourtney2004 please explain why the unsourced content should remain. You have added it several times and it has been rejected each time for being unsourced opinion:
 * diff 07:09, 9 May 2017
 * diff 07:57, 9 May 2017
 * diff 08:10, 9 May 2017
 * diff 08:40, 9 May 2017
 * diff 09:34, 9 May 2017

-- Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:In-text attribution
Barbara (WVS), regarding this, per its quote marks, it is something that is supposed to have WP:In-text attribution. Arguments should not be in Wikipedia's voice unless the arguments are widely supported and/or known to be facts. Even in the case where they are widely supported, they should sometimes be attributed via in-text attribution to a particular viewpoint or group.

As for your "brevity" edits, like this one, be sure that you are not cutting important detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content from the "In school dress codes" section
A lot of the content that Barbara (WVS) removed from that section is specifically about slut-shaming. She moved it to the Dress codes article, but it is arguably more relevant at this article. Unless necessary, it makes no sense to have sections that consist of a single sentence. So unless a valid reason is given for not having that content in this article, I will move it back here and tweak it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The content that was moved is very relevant to dress codes. The dress code article needed the content to provide information for readers about the conflicts associated with dress codes. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), like I stated, since the content is specifically about slut-shaming, it is arguably more relevant to this article. It should probably have a summary there and be covered in more depth here. Otherwise, just about all of the content on this specific aspect should be located at the Dress codes article. And like I stated, I see no point in having a single-sentence section in this article called "In school dress codes." We are either going to cover that topic in this article or we are not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And, yeah, looking at this this and this, I see that you moved and combined the material with an existing section. That's better than a single-sentence section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Student editing and WP:Tone
ElishaHigh, Snat1 and Deboliven, regarding this, you need to keep WP:Tone in mind. We do not just drop quotes upon quotes in an article. And in that regard, also see WP:Copyvio. Read WP:Synthesis as well. We can also see here that GorillaWarfare reverted due to errors and predatory open access journal access. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight with regard to changing the lead sentence to "people"
GliderMaven, regarding this, this, this and this, the literature on slut-shaming overwhelmingly pertains to women and girls. That is why the article focuses almost exclusively on women and girls, and men and boys' treatment of them. It's why Jytdog and I have been reverting anons trying to imply that the term is broader than it is. It does not simply apply to "people." It overwhelmingly applies to women and girls, just like the term slut does. And we make it clear in the Slut article article as well that the term slut mainly applies to women and girls. The fact that slut-shaming sometimes applies to gay men does not negate the sex/gender it overwhelmingly applies to. And per WP:Due weight and WP:Lead, the lead should be clear that it mainly applies to women and girls. Your wording of "people," as if it typically applies to men and boys, is WP:Undue weight. If we need to go to a WP:RfC over this, we will, but it will be a waste of time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As seen with this and this edit, I've provided two WP:Reliable sources restricting the term to girls and women, like the vast majority of other sources do. The latter source also notes how the term emerged -- to reclaim the term slut and empower girls and women with regard to having control over their own sexuality and how they express it. Except for discussion of gay men, what WP:Reliable sources apply the term to boys and men in this way or state "people" instead of "girls," "women," or "girls and women"? Even sources discussing it with regard to gay men don't say that the term emerged as way to empower gay men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Another tweak here, and added a dictionary source here. Other dictionary sources state the same, with different examples provided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, and actually under Wikipedia policies you basically have just two choices. Either use the definition of 'slut shaming' I changed it to, to be inclusive of men, or delete all references to slut shaming of men from the article. You can't have it both ways.


 * Per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary the first sentence is supposed to define the scope of the article, and define the term for the purposes of the article. If it's as you wrote it, then slut shaming of men is completely off-topic and must be removed. Note that Wikipedia is not bound by dictionaries in any way, we, as editors have to decide the scope of the article. In my opinion, based on the references, slut shaming clearly isn't and shouldn't limited to girls and women, and no number of quoting dictionaries changes that. Note that dictionaries don't even define words or phrases, they just record how they're commonly used. That's got nothing to do with encyclopedias. Wikipedia does not have to use the same terminology as other places. We usually do, but not always. The more important things for encycloepdias are clarity and scope.GliderMaven (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There is no Wikipedia policy that supports you on this. Not a one. WP:Due weight and WP:Lead support me because the vast majority of the sources talk about the topic in relation to girls and women being slut-shamed, not in relation to men and boys being slut-shamed. Sources only talk about men being slut-shamed in the context of gay men, and most of those sources aren't even using the term slut-shamed, which calls into question our WP:Synthesis policy. Furthermore, our leads begin with the most common definition/usage all the time. Also, our WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy does not apply to using dictionary sources. Dictionary sources are used all the time on Wikipedia for lead sentences if appropriate. Using a dictionary source in the case of this article is appropriate. And, as noted, in addition to that source, I've provided two book sources restricting the term to girls/women. And most of the other sources in the article also only discuss this topic in the context of girls and women being slut-shamed. You have provided no WP:Reliable sources showing that the term applies to people in general or to men outside of discussion of gay men. As for the scope of articles, that's decided by WP:Reliable sources. For example, you can want the slut topic to be about boys and men being called sluts all you want to, but sources are very clear that it is almost exclusively discussed in the context of women and girls, and that men and boys are usually not seriously called sluts (and that even when they are called sluts, it is usually in a joking or boastful manner). So, again, this can go to WP:RfC, but it will be a waste of time and will not get you what you want. In the meantime, I will contact the following WikiProjects about weighing in: WP:Women, WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Gender Studies, WP:WikiProject Sociology, WP:WikiProject Discrimination and WP:LGBT. I would contact WP:Sexuality, but that WikiProject is mainly inactive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've come across a Sage Publications source stating that heterosexual men have also been slut-shamed, but the source notes that it's rare for heterosexual men to be slut-shamed and that the effects are not as harmful. This is similar to heterosexual men being called sluts in a way that is usually said in a joking or boastful manner. In the Slut article, we note that men may be called sluts, but that it's rare and is usually qualified with words such as man, as in male slut or man-whore. I'm hardly seeing anything covering heterosexual men being slut-shamed. This is what I mean by WP:Due weight. We often go with the most common definition/usage for a term first, and then note the less common definitions/usages or aspects. This doesn't make the minority aspects off-topic. All that stated, before this 2017 edit, the lead used to state "people, especially women and girls." I can go with that. The Sage source notes that slut-shaming mainly happens to girls and women (scroll up above the page I linked to), and this abstract version of the source shows where it states "disproportionately girls and women." So, including that source (and using it to replace the dictionary source), I've changed part of the lead to "especially women and girls" for now. I also mentioned heterosexual men in the lead based on that source, but the lower part of the article should also mention the impact on them. But again, there is little out there about slut-shaming happening to heterosexual men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn is correct. Wikipedia describes what is not what ought to be. There is a double-standard in society whereby a heterosexual woman who is (or is perceived to be) promiscuous is dubbed a slut and a heterosexual man who is (or is perceived to be) promiscuous is back-slapped and regarded as a legend. The term is sometimes applied to gay men - again due to double-standards. The research which has been cited backs this up. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think sources do show that slut-shaming is extremely common used as an attack against the LGBTQ community as a whole not only as individuals. The clear matter is however that I would state slut-shaming is almost always against gender and sexuality groups with less power including women, the LGBTQ community and HIV+ people. Rather than stating people I think stating women and sexual minorities would be more accurate.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely "women and girls", not "people" in general and also not "sexual minorities". Men are as likely to be lionized for promiscuity as they are vilified, and "slut-shaming" against gay and bisexual people is too tied up in issues of homophobia generally to be really isolated as a phenomenon here, IMO. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No offense Roscelese but saying that slut-shaming of the LGBTQ community is too tied up with homophobia to fit in this article is like saying slut-shaming against women is too tied up in misogyny. Slut shaming is sociologically a use of power by a person with privilege. That could be male privilege, heterosexual privilege, cisgender privilege, hiv- privilege. Now I absolutely think that the majority of cases of slut-shaming are against heterosexual women but then again I think it should be stated that Women as a group outnumber LGBTQ people as a group and other sexual minorities. Now the one think that I think might be different but I can't be sure is that slut-shaming against LGBTQ people happens against the communities as a whole as well as individuals. Also I think this especially affects women of racial, religious and sexual minorities who I feel are compounded by slut-shaming that ends up being a combination of racism, classism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, weightism homophobia or transphobia in comorbidity with misogyny making it even more powerful. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * what I'm saying is that, for purposes of the article lede, I don't really think it's possible to extricate "gay men and bisexuals, as a class are stereotyped as promiscuous" from "gay men and bisexuals are shamed for being promiscuous" - nor - "gay and bisexual individuals are shamed for having lots of same-sex partners by people who would also shame them for having one same-sex partner." Does that make sense? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't even the question, apparently FlyerReborn wants to write the lead sentence, which sets the scope for the article so that straight men or boys cannot even in principle be slut shamed. Only women, girls and gays. And apparently none of those are people either, since he specifically deleted that precise term. If it ever does happen, and of course it's impossible, it has to go in another article, which doesn't exist. Terms like 'fuck boy' don't exist. No one ever uses that term. And if they do it's totally not slut shaming. Or is it? Yeah it is. Or even if you guys think it isn't, we shouldn't write the lead sentence to exclude slut shaming of boys. Look, we're really not defining the term 'slut shaming' we're defining the concept the article is supposed to cover.GliderMaven (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * GliderMaven, I don't think the article states anywhere than heterosexual males are not slut-shamed but it is without a doubt significantly less common and has significantly less power. Straight men (in most societies) are praised for promiscuity not shamed. Now if you want to talk about slut-shaming in say religious circles I would agree with you that because of the emphasis on monogamy everyone who has sex outside of a single marriage would be quote on quote "slut-shamed" although I don't think a priest, rabbi, imam or other leader would ever call someone a slut or whore. It is certainly not the same. Roscelese I understand the difficulty in phrasing it and I also want it to be clear I'm talking about cisgender-heterosexuals slut-shaming the LGBTQ community as a whole. Even when they are in monogamous relationships many heterosexuals will stereotype all LGBTQ people as being sluts, whores or other despicable terms. I actually think the stereotypes of promiscuity, intentional std spreading, sexual assault and child molestation are examples of how the LGBTQ community is sexually demonized. In general though I really think this article should have more intersectional discussion not only for sexuality but race, religion, weight, class and other vulnerable idenitities especially Women of these identities. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that either stereotyping a community as promiscuous whether or not individuals in it are, or opposing any sexual activity between certain partners whether promiscuous or not, constitutes slut-shaming as the term is understood. This is not the way to go about addressing intersectional issues. I can't believe I'm writing this in a serious discussion about an encyclopedia, but that's not what a "fuckboy" is. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience, slut-shaming is a concept that refers to criticism or ostracism within a given group of people. If straight people criticizing gay men for being promiscuous is an example of slut-shaming, that's news to me; I'm inclined to just think of it as homophobic abuse. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but we would need reliable sources to extend the scope of the article to include that. Again, in my experience, slut-shaming has historically been atypical within the gay male community. (There's no lack of talk about sluts, but it's usually ironic or campy or in the nature of gentle teasing, not serious criticism.) As LGBT populations continue to move into the mainstream and adopt the folkways of the majority's culture, it may be becoming more common, but we'd need reliable sources for that, too. My sense is that the current wording is fine. Rivertorch FIREWATER  17:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In response to your -- GliderMaven's -- accusation that I "want to write the lead sentence, which sets the scope for the article so that  straight men or boys cannot even in principle be slut shamed. Only women, girls and gays." No, I want to write the lead sentence according to our WP:Due weight policy (which you apparently do not understand even though you've been pointed to it more than once now) and our WP:Lead guideline. Beginning an article with the most common definition for a topic, which Wikipedia does all the time, does not mean that the other definitions/aspects must be excluded. I can point you to numerous examples showing just that. I already pointed you to the Slut article, which begins with a focus on women and girls, as it should. It doesn't mean that men being called sluts can't be covered in that article; it wouldn't mean that even if the lead sentence didn't include "generally" for women and girls, and simply stated "women and girls" without "generally" instead. But it does indicate that, per the literature, most of that article is going to be about girls and women. The same goes for this article. Starting off with a definition does not make the article any less about the concept. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles begin with a definition because they obviously should define what the topic is first, as made clear by WP:Lead sentence and the "not a dictionary" policy. Concepts include definitions, which is why many articles have a Terminology or Definitions section. None of this makes the article a word article or solely about the word. None of this falls under a "not a dictionary" violation. What the "not a dictionary" policy is saying is that, while our articles should begin with a good definition, our articles should be about more than just a definition. And this article obviously goes beyond simply defining the term. Lastly, I am not a "he," but rather a "she." And I've already compromised by having the lead state "people, especially women and girls." Both "people" and "especially women and girls" is supported by the very first source. And that very first source makes it very clear that slut-shaming rarely happens to heterosexual men. Rainbowofpeace, the sources aren't showing me that it's WP:Due weight to begin by stating "women and sexual minorities." I don't see any reliable source defining the matter that way. I do see the "Among gay men" section stating "There has been research supporting that LGBT students were more likely to be bullied and called sluts than heterosexual students." But the source it's seemingly based on does not use the term slut-shaming. It's a 2004 source, which is before the term/concept slut-shaming existed. As was made clear by the 2016 RfC, we should avoid adding something as slut-shaming simply because it seems like slut-shaming to us, although GliderMaven has forgotten this once before. But even if that source used the term slut-shaming, the vast majority of the slut-shaming literature, which isn't a lot, focuses on girls and women. So it would be a WP:Due weight violation to give sexual minorities as much weight as women in this case. We can mention sexual minorities in the lead if sourced with no WP:Synthesis violation, and as long as we cover sexual minorities lower in the article, but it shouldn't be in the lead sentence. And as noted above, I did compromise by beginning the lead with "people, especially women and girls." The lead also mentions gay men, with WP:Due weight (corresponding to the sole section dedicated to gay men lower in the article). And it mentions that heterosexual men are rarely slut-shamed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The current version looks good to me. Much improved with the reference to gay men. AnaSoc (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Slut-shaming is overwhelmingly about women and girls. In my recollection, the expression followed the campus use of walk of shame (which I'm not wikilinking, because the existing article on it is rather poor) which term goes back decades, at least, although written attestations may be newer. Here's what ngrams has to say about this point (spoiler) . The article currently makes no mention of 'walk of shame' and if sources can be found which link them, it should.
 * On a side note: there's a problem with the "reclaiming" assertion in the second sentence, and I'm looking at that. Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply moved to new section, below. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reappropriation
Mathglot, I do not understand your objection to the "reclaiming" aspect. The source states, "The phrase [slut-shaming] became popularized alongside the SlutWalk marches and functions similarly to the 'War on Women,' producing affective connections while additionally working to reclaim the word 'slut' as a source of power and agency for girls and women." The wording that I added states, "The term is used to reclaim the word slut and empower women and girls to have agency over their own sexuality." That is what the source is stating. It is stating that the term slut-shaming is "working to reclaim the word 'slut' as a source of power and agency for girls and women." As for this aspect not being mentioned lower in the article, it is easy enough to duplicate the material in the "Definitions and characteristics" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The wording I used was not stating that slut-shaming is being reclaimed. How can slut-shaming be reclaimed in a positive way when it was never used in a negative way to begin with? It's not even yet an old enough term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's how I read it, though, and since the source didn't say that&mdash;as you say it's not even old enough&mdash;it seemed like unsupported assertion. If you meant "slut" is being reclaimed then maybe we just need to reword it so it's clear.  I'll self-revert, but let's figure out a better way to say it.
 * (P.S.: Added section title "Reappropriation" above your comment and reindented it, in a technical WP:TPO violation, in order to separate it from the "Undue" section above for clarity; if you don't approve, please join them back together and reindent as needed including this comment. Thanks.) Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Flyer, Follow-up edits prevented an WP:UNDO; I can roll back to before my revert, but that will undo your changes; tell me which you prefer: rollback to 4:25 May 1 and reapply, or just reinsert missing stuff from here? Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, I don't see how stating that the term slut-shaming is used to reclaim the word slut is not clear. As for reverting, when that happens, all you need to do is save the version of the article before the contested edit. In this case, click on this edit, push "edit," and then save that version of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, I must have clicked the wrong source, or maybe read the right source but not seen the sentence somehow. Anyway, it's in the body now as well, so there's no longer any problem with it. Have a minor quibble on the use of reclaim instead of reappropriate as as I'm more familiar with the latter term (and that's also what the article about it is called; reclamation is currently a redirect to a disambig page which includes reappropriation) but if the verb form reclaim is used that way as well, then it's fine. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We can pipelink "reappropriation" since it's clear that it's what the source means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the United states a High-context or low-context culture?
After making a minor edit to this article where it says 'Slut-shaming is common in America because it is such a high-context culture.' and making it into a reference to the High-context and low-context cultures article I started also reading that article and there it says: 'Data was gathered in India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States where the results confirm that "high-context nations (India and Thailand) prefer the avoiding and obliging conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the United States), whereas low-context nations prefer the uncompromising and dominating communication style more than high-context nations."' So what is the deal, is the US high or low context, I'm at a loss.

Hnapel (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The alternative to slut-shaming
What about the other extreme virgin shaming? That's real too. It is seen as just as harmful and emotional tramatizing. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That is outside the scope of this article. However, I encourage you to write an article on the subject.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021
In the introduction of the english article about slut shaming the author mentions that it an act of reclaiming the word slut which firstly is completely untrue (as it, as the name states) is a form of shaming, and secondly completely contradicts the sentence before! I propose that the sentence "The term is used to reclaim the word slut and empower women and girls to have agency over their own sexuality" should be deleted. Emilialunarobert (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That line is well sourced, and I believe you're misreading it. The people using the term have no problem with being sexual, or "sluts." They have a problem with being shamed for that behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benitakeziaho.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SarpreetDhillon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
I am going to propose another addition to the definition. Slut-shaming can also be used to refer to a type of slander where the target has not behaved in any “inappropriate” sexual behavior and yet stories about her are created and then the slut/whore term is applied to shame or ostracize that individual. Often this is done out of jealousy or anger at the target having refused a sexual advance. Russtykey (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To add anything like this you'll need to add coverage in independent, reliable sources that specifically use this term. Keep in mind that this is already somewhat covered by the general definition "practice of criticizing people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate expectations of behavior and appearance regarding issues related to sexuality". The definition will also need to be neutrally written. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 The following comment was made at the top of the page by Russtykey at 02:49, 4 February 2022 and moved here by Mathglot (talk) at 18:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC) 

I am going to propose another addition to the definition. Slut-shaming can also be used to refer to a type of slander where the target has not behaved in any “inappropriate” sexual behavior and yet stories about her are created and then the slut/whore term is applied to shame or ostracize that individual. Often this type of slut-shaming is done out of jealousy or anger at the target having refused a sexual advance.

As far as citations, I have only personal experience of this. I think it should be encompassed in the definition because one is being shamed for being a slut even if one did not actually do anything.

Or maybe someone did something so then everything a-z is considered fair game to be assumed. So that seems to me yet another form... when things are exaggerated... For that, see the movie Easy A. In fact not until seeing that movie did I realize what had been done because no one told me what the gossip was at the time.

Sorry if my form is not correct. This is my first attempt at becoming an editor. I had heard the term and noticed people using it in different ways. Checking wiki, I see just the one type of definition, and that seems rather limited to what I have observed going on in various court cases, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russtykey (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not certain whether what you describe is distinct from gossip (which often is malicious) and character assassination (which specifically aims to destroy someone's reputation). It also overlaps with the old proverb Give a dog a bad name and hang him, where you cause someone harm by destroying his/her reputation. Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Problems in definition
The definition, as it stands, would include the following as "slut-shaming":

-Someone asks a person to a funeral because that person is dressed in lingerie.

-A person expresses hurt and anger when their partner violates a mutually consensual commitment to monogamy.

- A man who hires a sex worker where local law prohibits it is fined.

- An educator informs students about the risk factors resulting from sexual activity.

Obviously, these things are not slut-shaming. The definition is in serious need of correction, and in particular, narrowing. 2604:CA00:10A:456E:0:0:1065:472 (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17
— Assignment last updated by Kkwon02 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by Catalina0222 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-16
— Assignment last updated by James073 (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Article needs more info on women-women
This article really needs to elaborate more on the slut-shaming of females by other females, which from what I've read as well as personal anecdotal experience, is far more prevalent and serious than male slut-shaming. Currently, this article has two sentences devoted to this and this article generally exudes the general assumption about slut-shaming being a thing that men do to women, which is not only literally untrue, but hyperbolically the opposite.

I'm also not exactly a fan of how the miniscule info on F-F slut-shaming attempts to attribute it to "sexual double-standards," when it makes sense biologically. An issue I have with the overemphasis on M-F slut shaming is that everyone knows how horny males are, and so why would they be the primary precipitators of slut-shaming against women, when "slutty" women are what guys would want from their greater sexual urge? This connects to my previous statement of F-F slut shaming making sense in that due to the stress of pregnancy and the comparative value of the egg to the sperm, women aren't as sex-craving as men since sex is a lot riskier for them biologically, and so as a response to men, women generally attempt to keep the value of sex high. Women shame other women for being "slutty" since sluts basically work against other women by lowering the value of their sex.  Crusader 1096  (message) 16:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And do you have sources supporting the financial reasons for slut-shaming? We can not publish OR. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moral Animal by Robert Wright.  Crusader 1096  (message) 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You both don't realise that everything you cite on this subject will lead you to a misogynistic evolutionary psychologist. Or maybe you do, and you agree with said misogyny. I saw that, on twitter, one of you asked infamous youtuber WhatIfAltHist for sources to prove that slut-shaming is a strategy used by "females" to "keep the value of their sky high". Proves unequivocally that you like to spread unverifiable information and this page is not NPOV. Covertschreb (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen man he likes WhatIfAltHist no matter what that why he asked him for a source. Rager7 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So he wrote claims on wikipedia before he could substantiate them. That is wrong and not NPOV. Covertschreb (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's thing about him. He thinks he's neutral when he's not. Rager7 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also he listed an entire book as a source. That's not how it works. You need to be able to summarize it and point to specific sections of the book where you drew your conclusions from Covertschreb (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's thing about him he cites a source without even reading/understanding what the source is about. Let alone summarizing said source. Rager7 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you and @Rager7 please provide substantiated evidence to "debunk" the point? Or are y'all just going to whine about "mUh MiSoGyNy" or whatever. Looking at your user page, I can assume the only reason you're this salty is because infamous Whatifalthist dare say that maybe the Indo-European invasions did happen or that not all of India's issues is due to the British.
 * Plus, don't come at me with a he wrote claims on wikipedia before he could substantiate them when @Rager7 failed basic WP:BURDEN guidelines as proven here. Not to mention that I haven't even written the damn claim either. Crusader 1096  (message) 14:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As for debunking your point Slut-Shaming, Whorephobia, and the Unfinished Sexual Revolution by Meredith Ralston is a book that can debunk it. Also, you want to "own" people in arguing for your position which is a close minded and irrational way to debate. In addition, the fact that you are typing to hypocrisy bait shows your demeaning attitude. You can either argue in good faith or throw ad hominem attacks and insults.  Rager7 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Will read, though it seems pretty loaded.
 * Y'all were the one's that were using WP:PUFFERY terms like "infamous" or labeled me as misogynistic. I can't exactly be nice when its clear both of y'all didn't come to argue in good faith.  Crusader 1096  (message) 00:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well guess what I didn't use those terms the other person did. Rager7 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * i called whatifalthist infamous, not you Covertschreb (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems right from my lived experience. In high school, the local chaste priestess led others in writing “slut” on the snowy lawn of someone who had “gotten around.” But I do think men do it a lot also to devalue certain women so they will become more available sexually. This happened to me repeatedly where people invented sexual rumors that weren’t true about me. Everyone started treating me as if they were true. Mean time, I had not even heard about the rumors and wouldn’t for several years but eventually figured it out and it had made me more “sexually available” because guys always dumped me since I was “just a slut,” so they thought, whereas another girl who had not been slut-shamed likely would have been treated better (again anecdotally from my seeing how other women were treated after sexual relationships). In other words, it worked as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy for the men as a group to devalue a woman, and also made their behavior “okay” to the community (“just a slut, after all“). But then, yes, to your point, many other women became harder to get because they didn’t want the slut rubric applied to them. It’s kind of a hierarchy. Extreme level: Princess Diana keeping herself “tidy” vs now Queen Camilla not being considered viable by the powers that were back then. So Camilla was slut-shamed but eventually love conquered all. And the courtiers who wanted their filly in the contest to be queen one day did slut shame many others to knock others out of the running. Both male and female courtiers engaged in these behaviors … Anyway I was (unbeknownst to me) slut-shamed to the greater community based on false allegations, and then gaslit and told I was being ostracized for other reasons. I had pushed away several guys … and only after seeing Easy A did I realize dudes make stuff up to make things easier for themselves with certain targeted women. And I have attempted to use “Easy A” as a proof source on here to no avail. Lol. So now … time to get into MacKinnon & Dworkin again. I am sure they have a proper source somewhere …. Russtykey (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. And then the non-slutty women who slut-shame raise their own value in the marriage market since most men don’t want to marry a slut. At least that is the gambit of the slut-shamers v the slut-shamed. Russtykey (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have got to love the rumor mill. In my adolescence, I developed a short-lived blister on my lips and visited my family's pharmacist (a distant cousin) to get medication. She recommended to me medication for herpes labialis and STDs, and gave me advice to use protection while performing oral sex. It was the first time I realized that I was rumored to be gay, because I was spending my free time with a male classmate. And I am male. I can only imagine how much bullshit the local gossips produced about the girls in the area. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)