Women who sleep around are 'sluts'

=Framework=I can negate the resolution in any way--rather than having to provide any consistent advocacy, negative is free to prove the resolution wrong in any way possible. =Case=I. Sleeping around is locational Pro did not offer a definition of sleeping around and since the next round is his last, he cannot. This means that the judge is absolutely bound to accept my definition as there is no competing advocacy against it. I define sleeping around as a locational movement of sleeping position--thus a woman who commonly sleeps in different locations like a businesswoman or a traveling missionary sleeps around. Pro gives no reason to assume these are immoral women just because they lead busy lives and cannot always sleep in the same place. Remember, as the judge you are *bound* to accept my definition because Pro did not offer one and it would be unfair to let Pro define sleeping around in his last round as this could allow him to construct an entirely new advocacy for me to have to attack. At this point you can stop reading and vote Con because there is no arguable worldview where sleeping in different locations is immoral.If you don't buy that and instead choose to go off Pro's implied definition, you still negate based on all of the kritiks I'm about to make. II. Argumentation ethicsThe terminology of the resolution is inherently aggressive and should be rejected due to discourse ethics. Basically, by using aggressive terms like slut, the resolution is implicitly devaluing anything a woman who "sleeps around" has to say which causes us to shut out potentially valid worldviews. The judge should automatically vote negative on any resolution which violates the core priniciples of discourse by implicitly violating the nonaggression principle. Voting aff is the equivalent of voting aff on an affirmative action debate that uses racial slurs in the resolution. As a voter, we have autonomy to make moral decisions and voting on a resolution that is inherently offensive and which devalues discourse we undermine the principles upon which reasonable discussion lays. III. LinguisticsWe should reject a resolution that uses the word "slut" because usage of these slurs in doscourse acknowledges on some level their validity and helps move along the patriarchal nature of the English language. A study of the English language found over ten times the number of slurs against promiscuous women compared to those for men[1] and those against men were much less potent. As the Encyclopedia Brittanica explains: "...ladies’ man, lady-killer, gigolo, stud, and sugar daddy obviously do not have the same condemnatory overtones as most of the female terms. They embody machismo notions of power and conquest." The sexual double standard is so culturally ingrained that it's seeped into our very language, in order to break free of the system of oppression we need to reject it in all it's forms and that includes refraining from the usage of these slurs which necessitates negating.IV. Slut shamingPro is engaging in slut-shaming. Slut shaming is when someone “publicly or privately [insults] a woman because she expressed her sexuality in a way that does not conform with patriarchal expectations for women”[1]. This serves to keep women from advancement in society by establishing the legitimacy of a double standard as well as perpetuating the rape culture. Tanenbaum explains the mental impact of being slut shamed:"A reputation acquired in adolescence can damage a young woman’s self-perception for years. She may become a target for other forms of harassment and even rape, since her peers see her as “easy” and therefore not entitled to say “no”. She may become sexually active with a large number of partners (even if she had not been sexually active before her reputation). Or she may shut down her sexual side completely, wearing baggy clothes and being unable to allow a boyfriend to even kiss her."By labeling women as "sluts", we are damaging their self perception as well as reducing her ability in the eyes of others to resist unwanted sexual contact. We should reject a resolution who's terminology leads to such horrible consequences.V. Pro is keeping down the lower classPro's engagement of slut shaming is handing the privileged to uphold their status at the expense of everyone else. A study at the Universities of Michigan and California at Merced surveyed students sexual attitudes[2] and determined that: "...the act of slut-shaming was largely determined along class lines rather than based on actual sexual behavior. What's more... more affluent women were able to engage in more sexual experimentation without being slut-shamed, while the less-affluent women were ridiculed as sluts for being “trashy” or “not classy,” even though they engaged in less sexual behavior."Thus by voting Pro you are affirming the value of a system which maginalizes the lower class. Slut shaming is used as a form of social signalling to oppress those of a different socioeconomic background.VI. Gender is not binary A "woman" can only be a meaningful word when we have something to compare it with, ie a "man". Pro is forcing people into roles and is arbirtarily assigning moral value based on a social construct that doesn't actually exist. Whatever objective morality does exist has to make distinctions based off of reality instead of something made up--limiting certain people's autonomy because of their gender would be the same as limiting someones autonomy because of their hair color. Just as hair color is not a binary but rather a spectrum based upon societal convention and perception where we've arbitrarily decided to call something "blonde" or whatever color, so too is gender. Genderspectrum explains the difference between sex and gender[3]: "Gender on the other hand is far more complicated. Along with one’s physical traits, it is the complex interrelationship between those traits and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception."You can't assign moral value based on arbitrary factors. Unless and until Pro proves that gender is binary and not fluid, we can't make autonomic decisions based on who Pro decides is a woman. VII. Queer theory By making a resolution that presumes a gender binary, Pro is enforcing heteronormality and keeping down LGBTQ populations by exclusion. Yep, Lovaas, and Elia in 2003[4] explain how heteronormality harms LBGTQ communities:"Perhaps one of the most powerful forms of normalization in Western social systems is heteronormativity. Through heteronormative discourses, abject and abominable bodies, souls, persons, and life forms are created, examined, and disciplined through current regimes of knowledge and power (Foucault, 1978/1990). Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others."Gomez '05[5] explains how exclusion almost always materializes into violence in order to maintain heterosexual supremacy:"In a compulsory heterosexual system of domination, non-heterosexual practices and identifications are a threat to the system. Keeping them as inferior is...instrumental to heterosexual supremacy."Thus by affirming the resolution Pro and any voter who votes Pro is perpetuating a system in which oppresses and marginalizes those who don't fit into the gender binary and, by extention, the entire LGBTQ community. Sources:1. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com...2. http://america.aljazeera.com...3. https://www.genderspectrum.org...4. Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 455. http://la-buena-vida.info...