There seems to be some confusion on AB as to the term..."Slapper."
pastafreak has given us the dictionary which implies sexual promiscuity, but that is not my definition necessarily.
Sqad's definition:
A woman, mainly in her twenties or indeed may extend in to her 30's and less likely in her 40's who's dress is "suggestive, hair, mainly blonde but could be any colour, heavy on the make-up, cheap perfume plastered in tattoos.
Language, basic, nouveau riche or "cool" with a degree of commonness.....in the old days described as a "tart" which has now fallen into obscurity and replaced by some as "slapper."
I've hear it used both ways tbh but I would have gone personally if I use it t be someone sexually promiscuous who engages in meaningless and frequent sex without being too choosy about partners :)
Oh lordy...that's some parts of Plymouth on a Friday night. Actually...pretty much any city. It's a style...probably picked up from TV and the media.
But...just because they look a certain way doesn't mean they behave that way. Looks and behaviour do not necessarily go hand in hand.
pasta...quite interesting, but I have tried to explain in a post above that vulgarity doesn't just refer to sexual excess and it may be describing, clothes, appearance and attitudes.
I am not asking you to understand my definition, but just to respect it.
I do respect it sqad. I just get curious as to what the "proper" or accepted usage is... particularly as it is a word not common in my brand of English (north American). ;)
Nice to see a thread which covers semantics from the outset. So many threads on other topics descend into semantics at the expense of the original subject. This one can't do that ;-)