A great line in last Sunday's New York Times Review of Books. Actor/player Frank Langella's book "Dropped Names" was being reviewed by Ada Calhoun.  She wrote the following:

"By his cheerful debauchery, Langella reveals something certain commentators have obscured: sluts are the best -- hungry for experience and generous themselves in its pursuit".

What an apt and lovely description, isn't it?

Once you are in control of the terms of a discussion, you are in control of the discussion.

The male equivalent of "slut" - is "stud": which has a much higher positive spin. Almost every man would like to be thought of as a "stud", in some way or another.

Women are on the receiving end of a lot of situations like this. (see the link). An older, unmarried man is a "bachelor". A woman in the same situation is a "spinster". A man who is careful about sexual partners is "selective". A woman who does the same is "frigid".

Perhaps we should start the reclamation of the word "easy". It would describe women who are comfortable dealing with men on the level of physical intimacy, but without the dark tone of moral accusation.

(PS: After memorable encounters with providers, I never use the word "whore" as a pejorative. It would be like calling someone a "plumber" or a "roofer".)

I disagree with Langella's characterization of sluts. They are neither hungry nor generous. They are simply "slutty".

i do not think you can call a slovenly woman lovely..a slut is a slut..

how about SKANK?...promiscuous can work too..