Aggressive Slut Shaming

🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

Aggressive Slut Shaming
Shame Is An Emotion We Can Only Feel When We're Part Of A Group
Slut-Shaming Can Make Women Feel Isolated — But It Doesn't Keep Them From Forming Strong Friendships
Slut-Shaming May Lead To Lower Self-Worth
Does Slut-Shaming Make Us Blame Ourselves?
The 19 Best Tweets & Memes About Bisexual Awareness Week
These 4 Signs Are The Seductive Sirens Of The Zodiac
How September's Mercury Retrograde Will Affect Your Sign's Sex Life
Black Women's Equal Pay Day Highlights An Upsetting Problem
Get Even More From Bustle — Sign Up For The Newsletter
From hair trends to relationship advice, our daily newsletter has everything you need to sound like a person who’s on TikTok, even if you aren’t.
© 2022 BDG Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
What exactly is "slut-shaming"? Though one 2011 study found that almost half of all US women have been slut-shamed , it can be difficult to define, especially since it is often mixed with other kinds of sexist shaming and behavior-policing, including body-shaming and victim-blaming in sexual assault cases. Perhaps the best working definition is, as Oxford Living Dictionaries puts it, "shaming a woman for her sexual experiences, real or invented, because of perceived violation of ideas of purity and morality." In its purest form, slut-shaming is an attack on someone's character and reputation, and one that demonizes female sexual agency.
Women across the world are generally taught from birth, implicitly or explicitly, that their sexual behavior defines their worth in the world. And women who violate, or are simply thought to violate, expectations of female sexual behavior — expectations which can include anything from refraining from pre-marital sex to being monogamous to not openly enjoying or being interested in sex — have been considered extremely dangerous by a variety of cultures for centuries ( the Romans were dedicated to controlling female sexuality, for example). Such women have incurred steep penalties for just as long — and nowhere is that more obvious than in modern cases of women whose sexual assaults and harassments are excused by observers, and sometimes even law enforcement , because of their own perceived past sexual behavior.
But despite its heartbreakingly long cultural history, long-term studies of slut-shaming's psychological effects are very thin on the ground. Women often don't want to talk about it, and scientists often aren't interested in studying it, even though conclusions can be easily drawn about how truly devastating it can be. However, there's a bit of science around to show how slut-shaming can rear its head years after it actually happens.
The sensation of shame is linked to our reputation with other people. That's how you distinguish the agony of shame from the pain of guilt: while guilt can exist without other people around, shame is contingent on being shamed, on having your actions perceived as sinful or shameful by the world around you. It's a matter of exposure and public perception. In fact, some ideas about the etymology of the word "shame" trace it back to the concept of "disgrace" in Old English, in which acts brought negative consequences not only to you but to your community.
Unsurprisingly, feeling shamed can be truly psychologically crushing. Slut-shaming is particularly powerful as a psychological weapon because of the atmosphere of shame and silence that surrounds sex in general in most parts of the modern world; sex itself is seen as shameful, to be a woman who has somehow transgressed sexual mores is more so, and to be publicly seen to do so is essentially a triple shot. Perversely, many societies carry the contradiction of women as both necessarily pure and sexually sacrosanct, and sexually flagrant and sluttish by nature. We're under huge pressure to live up to some vision of virginity — but if we fail, we are thought to play into beliefs about our own gender's weaknesses.
But beyond shame's deep psychological power, what does being slut-shamed it actually do to us?
Because shame is basically a reputational threat, it separates people from those around them, marking them out with a version of the "scarlet letter." It's likely to add to a sense of isolation and pervasive distrust; it's also thought that isolation is likely one of the big contributors to the rates of self-harm following slut-shaming behavior.
But surprisingly, one of the most prominent studies about judgement of sexual behavior, conducted in 2015, found that it wasn't as bad as it appeared, at least among college-age women. According to the study, women who had more sexual partners also encountered more shaming behavior, like being talked about behind their backs — but it was also found that they were more likely to have strong friendship groups and a best friend than those with fewer partners. The scientists behind the study wondered if perhaps the judgement made peoples' social bonds stronger, or gave them more resilience; however, it could also just be that having the social skills to have multiple partners in college also meant that people were more capable of nurturing friendships, as well.
So while slut-shaming often has a severely negative impact on the lives of women who experience it, it doesn't necessarily isolate them.
Even without a lot of studies, we can project that being shamed for something like sexual reputation can have long-term psychological effects. For instance, a 2004 study about shame found that encountering feeling of "low social standing" increased people's cortisol levels and their sensations of low self-worth, as humans are social animals who receive a great deal of their information about themselves from others. The reflected implications of slut-shaming — that the person experiencing it is of low worth and unwanted — can create huge damage to lasting self-esteem levels, and that sort of problem can extend throughout life, which we know from bullying studies ; these kinds of behaviors can lead to particularly negative results for women.
Shaming around specific things like clothing can also create social anxiety in the future , as women police themselves to attempt to avoid the punishment of further shaming, and worry themselves into knots about the volatility of other peoples' judgements. There needs to be more research on this topic, of course — but I'd lay a heavy bet that people who encountered damaging slut-shaming likely have a significantly higher risk of developing social anxiety than the general population.
While we can apply some general research about how people experience shame to the specific problem of slut-shaming, we hit a wall — because most shame-related research focuses on people who have actually done something wrong.
Studies on shame tend to focus on people who've done something genuinely wrong, usually criminals. It's from those studies that we get many of the links between feeling ashamed and, for instance, aggressive and isolating behavior . One study, however, found that there's a distinct difference between people who feel ashamed and genuinely believe they've done something wrong, and those who feel shamed but blame others. In the case of the criminals in the study, those who believed they'd done wrong didn't offend again, while those who thought others were to blame did. In other words, people who felt personally and truly ashamed changed their behavior; those who didn't kept doing the same stuff.
These conclusions are of limited and confusing application to those who have experienced slut-shaming, because victims of slut-shaming have done nothing wrong. Anecdotal evidence shows us that many subjects of slut-shaming genuinely do start seeing themselves and their sexual behavior as "dirty" — but there's also the possibility that subjects of slut-shaming refuse to accept the shame and push back. And that can give us a bit of hope — because if subjects of slut-shaming don't truly believe themselves to be shameful, even if they're unable to prove it to those around them, they might be less likely to "behave" and bow to the shamers.
As The FBomb editor Julie Zeilinger wrote for Mic.com, slut-shaming is essentially about control, and those who manage to get through it without being made to feel unacceptable by outside forces may survive the best.
If you've experienced slut-shaming, professional help might be a good way to help you navigate any long-term effects you've been struggling with. And remember that feeling bad after being slut-shamed doesn't make you weak, or somehow guilty — it just means that you're a human being, dealing with the complex psychological mechanisms that fuel shame.

“Slut-shaming” is the act of criticizing a woman for her real or perceived sexual promiscuity. Until now, much scholarship and journalism has focused on the slut-shaming of school-aged girls and young women. This article broadens the discussion about this harassing behavior by illuminating an overlooked area: slut-shaming in the American workplace. This article focuses on how courts have dealt with hostile work environment cases based in whole or in part on rumors about adult women’s alleged sexual promiscuity. In particular, courts have struggled with how to interpret Title VII’s seemingly simple requirement that conduct occur “because of” sex. Courts have often failed to recognize the gendered aspect of sexual rumors about women. Due to the continued existence of the sexual double standard, rumors about women who engage in sex acts with men penalize women for violating gender norms.
“[W]hen you want to put down or undermine a woman, accusing her of being slutty works every time.” 1
Workplace rumors about a woman’s real or perceived sexual promiscuity can create a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. A rumor that a woman is sexually promiscuous is a gender-based insult because it censures a woman for violating the sexual double standard. Sexual rumors can undermine a woman’s credibility and call into question her achievements in the workplace. Research shows that people perceive women who they believe have violated the sexual double standard as less competent. 2 Courts’ treatment of such sexual rumors has been inconsistent: some courts recognize the gender-based nature of the harassing behavior while others have failed to recognize that rumors about sexual promiscuity are uniquely degrading and insulting to women because of the sexual double standard. This article addresses why workplace rumors about women’s 3 sexual promiscuity satisfy Title VII’s requirement that the harassing conduct occurred “because of” sex.
The sexual double standard is a “moral code that permits sexual freedom and promiscuity for men but not for women.” 4 Despite American society’s increasingly relaxed attitudes about sexual behavior, 5 women are still viewed differently than men for engaging in the same behavior. A woman who engages in sexually promiscuous behavior with a man is shamed; she is deemed a “slut.” A man who engages in the same sexually promiscuous behavior with a woman is celebrated for his sexual prowess; he is considered a “stud.” 6 A flippant—yet apt—definition that encapsulates the sexual double standard is that a “slut” is “a woman with the morals of a man.” 7
Contemporary feminists refer to the practice of criticizing a woman’s real or perceived sexual promiscuity as “slut-shaming.” Feminist blogger Andrea Rubenstein defines slut-shaming as “the idea of shaming and/or attacking a woman or girl for being sexual, having one or more sexual partners, acknowledging sexual feelings, and/or acting on sexual feelings.” 8 It is “sexist because only girls and women are called to task for their sexuality, whether real or imagined; boys and men are congratulated for the exact same behavior. This is the essence of the sexual double standard: boys will be boys, and girls will be sluts.” 9 Rubenstein notes, “in many cases, the so-called slut’s actual sexual behavior is nonexistent or irrelevant.” 10 The practice reinforces the sexual double standard by intentionally targeting a woman who “does not adhere to feminine norms.” 11
Although recent attention has focused on the problem of slut-shaming among adolescents, 12 the behavior is not limited to teenagers. Slut-shaming can also occur in the workplace. 13 The behavior frequently manifests in the form of spreading rumors 14 that a female employee has engaged in sexually promiscuous behavior with a male superior or male coworker. 15 For example, Marcela Fuentes, a twenty-one year old who worked as a part-time cashier for AutoZone, became the subject of humiliating workplace sexual rumors. 16 After Ms. Fuentes came to work with a fever blister on her lip, her male supervisors spread rumors that she had herpes and that she had contracted it by performing oral sex on a male coworker. 17 The rumor spread quickly among employees, so much so that Ms. Fuentes heard the rumor repeated back to her by an employee at another AutoZone store. 18
Workplace rumors about a woman’s alleged sexual promiscuity are not simply embarrassing invasions of privacy; 19 they are gender-based insults. Many, perhaps most, employees do not choose to make their personal sexual conduct a matter of public discussion in the workplace. Sexual rumors invade that privacy and most likely convey false information while doing so. 20 They also accuse the woman of violating the sexual double standard, of being a “slut.”
Part II of the article will review the origins and requirements for a hostile work environment claim and specifically discuss Title VII’s “because of” sex requirement. Part III will summarize social science research that confirms the continued existence of a sexual double standard. In Part IV, the article will examine hostile work environment cases that have included rumors about sexual promiscuity and analyze how the courts have addressed the “because of” sex requirement. Finally, in Part V, the author offers recommendations for how courts should treat sexual rumors for purposes of the “because of” sex requirement in hostile work environment cases.
This is consistent with the fact that, overall, women more frequently file sexual harassment charges. The overwhelming majority of sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC and state and local fair employment practice agencies are filed by women. See Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 – FY 2011 , http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm (last visited Mar. 16, 2016). However, the number of charges filed by men has risen since the EEOC first began collecting data. Charges filed by men constituted 9.1% of the total charges in 1992 and 16.3% in 2011. Id. ; Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1992 – FY 1996 , http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment-a.cfm (last visited Mar. 16, 2016). See also , Margaret S. Stockdale, Michelle Visio, & Leena Batra, The Sexual Harassment of Men: Evidence for a Broader Theory of Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination , 5 Psychol. Pub. Pol.’y. & L. 630, 630 (1999) (“Women are far more likely than men to experience sexual harassment.”). Because women file the majority of claims, this article will use female pronouns when discussing sexual harassment victims.
The most extensive treatment of sexual rumors, to date, occurs in those court opinions analyzing rumors about women’s sexual activity. Certainly, male and transgender employees can also be victims of sexual rumors. Some of these male plaintiff cases are discussed in the article. See infra , Part IV.B.1.a. The author did not identify any published or unpublished federal cases involving rumors about a transgender individual’s sexual activity.
The term “rumor” is used to refer to statements made to others about someone’s private or personal matters. Some experts differentiate between the terms “rumor” and “gossip.” See, e.g. , Nicholas DiFonzo, The Watercooler Effect 16, 61 (2008) (distinguishing rumors as unverified informational statements, and gossip as idle, often derogatory, social chatter); Allen J. Kimmel, Rumors and Rumor Control 25–26 (2004) (defining gossip as “idle or apparently trivial conversation about the private, personal qualities or behaviors of others,” and “rumor” as an “unconfirmed proposition” that concerns a topic of significance; acknowledging that “the spread of more titillating organizational hearsay, such as speculation about the sexual exploits or predilections of an employee or the assertion that two coworkers are romantically involved . . . is more likely to be labeled as gossip, although the distinction is often a difficult one to make, particularly when the communication spreads through the office grapevine”). However, it is not necessary to make a distinction between the two terms in this article. Dictionary definitions tend to use the terms synonymously. See, e.g. , Rumor , Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rumor?s=t (last visited June 21, 2016) (defining rumor as “gossip; hearsay”); Gossip , Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gossip?s=t (last visited June 21, 2016) (defining gossip as “idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others”).
102 . See Valenti, supra note 6, at 14.
The four sole male plaintiff sexual rumor cases are not to be confused with cases where a male plaintiff sued for retaliation after complaining about sexual rumors about a female employee. See, e.g. , Lewis v. Bay Indus., Inc., 51 F. Supp. 3d 846 (E.D. Wis. 2014). In addition, because this article does not include an analysis of cases with rumors about a person’s sexual orientation, there are certainly likely to be more sole male plaintiff sexual harassment rumor cases based on sexual rumors about a man’s sexual orientation. See, e.g. , Schmedding v. Tnemec Co., Inc., 187 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir. 1999) (rumors about male plaintiff’s sexual orientation).
In order to contextualize the discussion of Title VII cases about sexual rumors, it is helpful to first review Title VII’s history and the current test for a hostile work environment claim, focusing in particular on the requirement that harassment occur “because of” the plaintiff’s sex. This section will end with a description of the variety of evidentiary routes courts use to determine whether conduct occurred “because of” sex as well as describe a stumbling block for some courts—the so called “equal opportunity harasser.”
Title VII originated as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an omnibus civil rights bill primarily concerned with race discrimination in a variety of circumstances, including employment, voting, public accommodations, and public education. 21 Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 22 Little legislative history exists about the prohibition against discrimination because of “sex” because the category was added as a last minute amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives. 23 Title VII’s language forbids “discrimination” but does not use the terms “harassment” or “hostile environment.” It took several years after Title VII’s passage for courts to recognize sexual harassment as a form of employment discrimination. Since doing so, courts have expanded their understanding of what “because of” sex means to include sexual advances as well as gender-based harassment.
The Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as a type of sex discrimination in 1986. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson , 24 the Court rejected the employer’s argument that Title VII applies only to tangible jo
Granny Milfs Stocking
Incest Grandmother
Tight Teens Assholes