3 ms·

"inherently female", with the exception that it's not anatomically connected to the female gender. Could also have been a male. Just comes off incredibly sexi

• robkeane 12y ago
  The reason this _must_ be a woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
• dragonwriter 12y ago
  > "inherently female", with the exception that it's not anatomically connected to the female gender. Its a reference to a supposed real phenomenon that is sex-specific, so whether it is anatomically connected to a particular sex is irrelevant. > Just comes off incredibly sexist somehow. That's because, while it purports to be a reference to a real sex-specific phenomenon, its actually a reference to a stereotype that is sexist on multiple levels (notably first, the presentation of it as particularly female without any empirical basis, and, second, the fact that the whole reason it even exists and is notable is gender asymmetry in sexual behavior norms.) So, you can't really replace "girl" with "person" and maintain the reference intended, but the intended reference is deeply sexist.