>>10456As I've already said, if you're an anarchist, that's perfectly fine and you can consider my argument refuted. The only problem is that the same refutation can be applied to every single law in existence. If that's your position, I'll tell you up front: You're not going to enjoy this thread or find anything in it interesting.
>>10454(here is a great example of why it matters how sluts and non-sluts treated)
Historically, society recognized these problems, and created a simple mechanism to solve the problem: Marriage. When a man marries a woman, he is expected to provide for her, take her in to his house, and remain devoted to her. The woman in is expected to give the man sex, and otherwise fulfill the duties of a wife. Note how obtaining sex through marriage is not a matter of wham-bam-thank you ma'am: It's a very long term contract, and once you go into it you can't easily get out (past cultures tended to discourage divorce and encourage children). For most people, this gets the wheels turning: "If I'm going to be with this person all this time, I can't make my decision based only on how horny I am right now, or what they will give me for sleeping with them." Sluts are perfectly good for sleeping with, but it would be insane to marry a slut. At this point, sex by itself is not a good enough reason for marriage, and the slut loses her power. Decent women are thereby rewarded: They are preferred for marriage.
The difference between this and modernity is this: We can't tell sluts from non-sluts, but our ancestors could. Firstly, birth control was far less readily available, so any woman who was consistently a slut would soon end up a single mom. Second, people didn't move around so much. If someone was slutting it up, word would travel, and soon everyone would know. Today, teenagers move for college and suddenly they have a whole new environment where they can suck all the cock they want, and nobody back home will know. Better yet, they are guaranteed that at 22 they will move somewhere else and can leave their slutty past behind them. Of course, it needn't stop there: You can always move to a different city and start over.
People started over in this way in the past, too, but it was less common. Therefore, not just a lack of negative history, but lack of any history at all was considered meaningful. If someone is new in town (or class, or school, or work) and has an unclear past, you kind of assumed things about their past. Today, everyone is new, so you can't discriminate on this.
Men would naturally prefer to marry non-sluts. Even the most faggot, liberal, beta manginas who claim to be feminists (they may even believe it) would in the end tend towards non-sluts, regardless of what they say. You can see this even in things like OkCupid statistics, all the liberalism in the world cannot undo nature. However, it is very hard to actually tell who is a slut. Even talking about it is very frowned upon by society (even though feminists claim they are proud to be sluts, they hate being called out for being sluts).
This is why a registry would solve the problem. The reason for outlawing sex is not to prevent sex, but to provide incentive to participate in the registry: Sluts will probably not like it, but if registering is easy enough they'll probably just accept it and play along. In order to be useful, at least 50% of all sluts must be in the registry. After that point, it becomes safer to trust the registry than not, and society naturally begins discriminating against sluts again.
Once men realize that decent women exist and they don't have to settle for only probably-sluts, they will stop basing their whole life around catering to sluts. There will still be thirsty men, but they will understand that good time girls and wife material are different things, and they will aim for the latter. Once men start trying to attract decent women specifically, there will be a reason for women to not be sluts. These men and women who spent a large part of their lives trying to accomplish something besides getting laid will have a much more rational political outlook.