Slutshaming: Double Standards, Reputation and the Limits of Debate

Slutshaming refers to belittling, insulting or devaluing a woman because of her presumed sexuality, her number of partners, her dating choices or her presence on paid platforms. The term is deliberately harsh: it refers to stigmatization that may take the form of mockery, rumours, exclusion or verbal attacks.

The issue gives rise to deep disagreements. For some, it is above all an injustice rooted in a sexual double standard: sexually active men are supposedly valued, while women are more readily condemned. For others, reputation-based judgments are broader social mechanisms that do not concern women alone and that help define collective norms.

Neither approach ever removes the need for one essential rule: criticizing a behaviour, expressing a relationship preference or rejecting a practice never gives anyone the right to humiliate, harass or use violence against another person.

The sexual double standard: a widely debated idea

The sexual double standard is based on the idea that the same behaviour is judged differently depending on the sex of the person involved. In its classic formulation, a man with many partners may more easily be portrayed as attractive or experienced, while a woman in a comparable situation is judged more harshly.

This perception has long shaped many discussions about sexuality. It explains why slutshaming is frequently presented as an expression of a social order that disadvantages women: female sexuality is said to be monitored and sanctioned more severely than male sexuality.

More recent findings, however, suggest that this view should not be treated as an unchanging rule. A 2023 survey conducted in Norway with 900 participants examined judgments about behaviour regarded as involving multiple sexual partners. According to the reported findings, women who had had many partners were not judged more negatively than men in the same situation. Men engaging in repeated casual encounters were reportedly judged more unfavourably.

This single study is not enough to establish a universal trend. Nevertheless, it is a reminder that sexual norms change across periods, environments and social groups. It is therefore preferable to avoid absolute claims about what “men” or “women” all supposedly think.

Judgment among women also exists

Reducing slutshaming to an exclusively male practice does not account for the full reality described in the debate. Women can also judge other women harshly over their sex lives, reputation or romantic behaviour.

A study published in 2013 is often cited on this subject. Participants were asked to assess the fictional profile of a young woman named Joan. The information was identical except for the stated number of partners: two in one version and twenty in the other. The version portraying Joan as having had twenty partners was reportedly judged more harshly, particularly in terms of emotional stability and competence.

The most striking point is that this judgment did not necessarily disappear among participants who said they held modern views on sexuality or who themselves reported having several partners. In other words, a person may support sexual freedom in principle while retaining more restrictive reputation-based criteria when judging others.

This observation does not justify contempt. Rather, it highlights the strength of informal norms: they are not imposed only from above or by a single group, but are also maintained, challenged and transformed within everyday relationships.

Reputation as a mechanism of social control

Reputation affects many areas of collective life. A person known for cheating, lying or failing to honour commitments may lose the trust of others. From this perspective, reputation helps guide behaviour and limit certain harms in social, friendship and professional relationships.

Some apply this logic to sexuality and believe that reputational norms can encourage more stable relationships, less exclusively based on the pursuit of immediate gratification. Under this view, men and women alike have an interest in not reducing their partners to a merely sexual function.

But this interpretation raises a major difficulty: reputation can be useful when it is based on facts, reciprocity and respect for commitments; it becomes destructive when it turns assumptions, rumours or private choices into grounds for public degradation. A social norm cannot serve as a pretext for stripping someone of their dignity.

The distinction is therefore important between saying, “This behaviour does not align with my values,” and assigning a person a degrading label. The first statement expresses a personal boundary. The second confines and diminishes someone, and may fuel a collective dynamic of harassment.

Criticizing practices without legitimizing violence

Debates about sexuality, dating or the monetization of intimate content can be heated. Some people criticize platforms such as OnlyFans, believing that they encourage the commodification of desire or alter expectations in relationships between men and women. Others see them as an individual choice that should be respected.

Whatever position is taken, no criticism can justify insults, threats, harassment, assault or any form of violence. Condemning a behaviour according to one’s own values does not mean condemning a person to mistreatment.

This clarification is essential because the language of shame can very quickly slide into a logic of social punishment. Moral disagreement authorizes neither cruelty nor barbarism. A society that claims to defend rules must also defend everyone’s safety and respect.

Sexuality, relationships and mutual expectations

The debate around slutshaming also reflects concerns about loneliness, couple formation and the way romantic expectations are shaped. Some argue that sexual liberation does not automatically reduce isolation, particularly if relationships remain concentrated around a limited number of highly sought-after people. Others challenge this analysis or believe it does not allow for general conclusions about contemporary relationships.

In any case, the search for satisfying relationships cannot be based on contempt for one sex or another. It requires the ability to state expectations clearly, whether they concern exclusivity, the number of past partners, fidelity, sexuality or plans for a relationship.

It is legitimate to seek a person whose choices and values align with one’s own. It is equally necessary to accept that everyone retains their freedom of choice. Compatibility is built neither through shame nor coercion, but through a mutual and informed decision.

FAQ on slutshaming

Does slutshaming affect only women?

The term primarily refers to the stigmatization of women because of their sexuality. However, men can also face sexual or relationship-based judgments, even if the forms these judgments take and the social expectations involved are not always the same.

Can someone disapprove of sexual behaviour without engaging in slutshaming?

Yes. It is possible to express a preference, value or personal boundary without insulting or degrading others. The difference lies particularly in respect, the absence of harassment and the refusal to reduce a person to a label.

Can reputation play a useful social role?

It can influence trust and relationships. But when it is fuelled by rumours, humiliation or collective pressure, it can cause disproportionate harm and undermine people’s dignity.