The “slut box” is a dangerous category to be placed in. Relegating a woman to the slut box — sluts are almost universally understood to be female — generally indicates she is of poor moral character and somehow fundamentally different from women who escape the wrath of this category. In other words, the fact that women are still labelled as sluts or non-sluts indicates that a dichotomy exists between promiscuous women and monogamous women.
Women who are featured in pornographic material are an example of an entire class of women who have been relegated to the slut category. For instance, the idea that some women are “too good” to be featured in pornography indicates this dichotomy.
Women in pornography are not fundamentally different than those who are not, other than in their choice of occupation. To imply that some women are “too good” for pornography implies that there are women who are not “good” enough and are deficient in some fashion, which facilitates and solidifies their position as fodder for pornography. I’ve often wondered how men who are in gentle, kind and compassionate relationships can simultaneously view and be aroused by images of women being degraded. This cognitive dissonance stems from the fact that women who are promiscuous are conceived differently and negatively when contrasted with monogamous women. Yet, sexual voraciousness is not indicative of conscience, morality or ethics.
Admittedly, there probably is a difference in values between women who are promiscuous and women who are not. However, this should not be used to justify the idea that promiscuous women are deserving of inhumane or degrading treatment simply because they do not restrict their sexual partners or experiences. We must question and change our assumption that a woman’s sexuality is linked to their morality. Women do not exist as mere sluts or angels, they are on a continuum of human experience of which sexuality is only one facet.