The First Date Shag Consequences..

liah

The double standard isn't so much the societal outlook of "women get called sluts, men get called studs" as the more personal why on earth would a guy think less of a girl for sleeping with him when he's sleeping with her?

Presumably, he thinks he's worth a relationship despite hopping into bed on the first date, so why would it be any different for her?

I really don't get it. Why don't the rules apply both ways equally?

Reward

liah wrote: »

The double standard isn't so much the societal outlook of "women get called sluts, men get called studs" as the more personal why on earth would a guy think less of a girl for sleeping with him when he's sleeping with her?

Presumably, he thinks he's worth a relationship despite hopping into bed on the first date, so why would it be any different for her?

I really don't get it. Why don't the rules apply both ways equally?

IDK but the double standard is theorised to be rooted in "mommy's baby, daddy's maybe". Men are said to both consciously and unconsciously fear and guard against paternity fraud. Women can police and shame each other for "giving it away" too, and men can pick up on women saying that there is something wrong with women that don't secure various secondary benefits before allowing sex to happen.

Reward

HavingCrack wrote: »

I agree with the first part, you hear women calling other women 'whore' and 'slapper' far more than men do. I'm not too sure is all blame for it shifted to men though.

Its just that Ive rarely heard women bringing up the fact that women shame people about their sexual behaviour, its always a critique of the male contribution as if thats all there is, when women know full well that they are doing it to each other and labeling men for sleeping around. In fact, most modern sexual shaming and sex negativity in society seems to come from a womens political movement.

liah

Reward wrote: »

IDK but the double standard is theorised to be rooted in "mommy's baby, daddy's maybe". Men are said to both consciously and unconsciously fear and guard against paternity fraud. Women can police and shame each other for "giving it away" too, and men can pick up on women saying that there is something wrong with women that don't secure various secondary benefits before allowing sex to happen.

Sounds like a total copout tbh. Fair enough about evolution but we're smart enough to subdue and/or control and/or manipulate other 'instincts,' we should be smart enough to be able to tell that the double standard is stupid and act accordingly and logically.

Reward

liah wrote: »

Sounds like a total copout tbh. Fair enough about evolution but we're smart enough to subdue and/or control and/or manipulate other 'instincts,' we should be smart enough to be able to tell that the double standard is stupid and act accordingly and logically.

Most people do, myself included, I don't really have much sexual interest in women that think there is some sort of ritual, time frame or commitment needed before they will have sex.

But at the same time, when women think about the double standard they don't take fear of paternity fraud into account, its something that they never have to worry about.

liah

Reward wrote: »

Most people do, myself included, I don't really have much sexual interest in women that think there is some sort of ritual, time frame or commitment needed before they will have sex.

But at the same time women don't take fear of paternity fraud into account, its something that they never have to worry about.

No, we just have to worry about getting pregnant and having to deal with the consequences, be it abortion or going through with the pregnancy (which is no picnic), potentially doing permanent damage to our bodies, and being stuck with an 18 year obligation.

We each have things we have to worry about, one doesn't cancel out the other. It's no excuse at all for these kinds of double standards in this century.

Gunsfortoys

I don't see the big deal, if both people are comfortable then why not. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of dating someone after a first date shag so to speak.

Reward

liah wrote: »

No, we just have to worry about getting pregnant and having to deal with the consequences, be it abortion or going through with the pregnancy (which is no picnic), potentially doing permanent damage to our bodies, and being stuck with an 18 year obligation.

Thats a different topic that doesn't really effect the double standard as far as I can see, I think it does affect a womans need for commitment though.

liah wrote: »

We each have things we have to worry about, one doesn't cancel out the other. It's no excuse at all for these kinds of double standards in this century.

If one doesn't cancel out the other why did you write the first paragraph?

Look in my opinion, a man has the right to guard against paternity fraud in much the same way a woman has the right to guard against being left alone with a baby.

Also, I suspect that the number of men that hold that double standard is fewer than the number of women that will label and gossip about both men and women that are sexually liberated.

Reward

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

I don't see the big deal, if both people are comfortable then why not. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of dating someone after a first date shag so to speak.

I wouldn't either but some men that are looking to make a longterm commitment and children are looking for "chaste" women, on the flip side of that some women that are looking for longterm commitment and children are also looking for "chaste" (and monied) men.

Most women are confused by men screening out potential problems with infidelity and paternity fraud but understand it completely when they are screening out "womanisers" and men without the means to support them , they accuse men in general of holding double standards because some men are screening out future potential problems with infidelity and paternity fraud while reserving the right to screen men out for potential problems like infidelity or leaving them alone with a baby.

Political correctness is a dogma that warps rationality.

midlandsmissus

Reward wrote: »

I wouldn't either but some men that are looking to make a longterm commitment and children are looking for "chaste" women, on the flip side of that some women that are looking for longterm commitment and children are also looking for "chaste" (and monied) men.

Most women are confused by men screening out potential problems with infidelity and paternity fraud but understand it completely when they are screening out "womanisers" and men without the means to support them , they accuse men in general of holding double standards because some men are screening out future potential problems with infidelity and paternity fraud while reserving the right to screen men out for potential problems like infidelity or leaving them alone with a baby.

Political correctness is a dogma that warps rationality.

Yes but why do men SLEEP with the woman then, and then screen her and dump her.
"I've slept with her, she's obviously not chaste, yet I've done the exact same action as her and I don't judge myself for it". It's ALWAYS the woman's fault.

Honestly sometimes I feel like screaming and banging my head off a brick wall about this.

Sometimes I feel like men's default thinking is: "hate women.Tthey're all cheating lying whores until they prove otherwise". I hate being a woman:(

OutlawPete

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Sometimes I feel like men's default thinking is: "hate women.Tthey're all cheating lying whores until they prove otherwise". I hate being a woman:(

Stop reading Germaine Greer.

HavingCrack

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes but why do some men SLEEP with the woman then, and then screen her and dump her.
"I've slept with her, she's obviously not chaste, yet I've done the exact same action as her and I don't judge myself for it". It's ALWAYS the woman's fault.

Honestly sometimes I feel like screaming and banging my head off a brick wall about this.

Sometimes I feel like some men's default thinking is: "hate women.Tthey're all cheating lying whores until they prove otherwise". I hate being a woman:(

Felt annoyed enough to correct that.

Reward

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes but why do men SLEEP with the woman then, and then screen her and dump her.
"I've slept with her, she's obviously not chaste, yet I've done the exact same action as her and I don't judge myself for it". It's ALWAYS the woman's fault.

Honestly sometimes I feel like screaming and banging my head off a brick wall about this.

Sometimes I feel like men's default thinking is: "hate women.Tthey're all cheating lying whores until they prove otherwise". I hate being a woman:(

Have you never slept with someone that you didn't think you were going to see again or decided that you were not going to see again because you knew they were too much of a player for you, or too unreliable, or too anything for that matter? Do you not have a one night stand category and a potential LTR category?

Even of not and view everyone you sleep with as a keeper, some men do and some women do, thats their right. What do you want, your father and brothers to chase the guy down and force him to marry you?


How do you even know that these guys are doing that in the first place and its not for some other reasons?

midlandsmissus

You're missing the point again.

I'm not saying at all if I sleep with some-one, why won't they marry me.:rolleyes:

I'm saying, why do (some) men look down on women for doing the exact same action they have taken part in.

You said it's to screen out chaste partners. This makes no sense. Why do the action with them then. "I'll sleep with her but she's failed my rules". You did the exact same thing she did. Why does this make her only not chaste?

You are in effect doing an action with them that will then rule them out of what you want.

???

This leads to women thinking they can't have sex too early, and brings about the whole "giving it up" thing women are worried about.

So the whole crazy game is in effect....started by men.

I read somewhere something that I think is very true, "men have a hard time handling getting what they want". I.e. ask a woman to do something, but when she does it she's a slut for doing it.

liah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You're missing the point again.

I'm not saying at all if I sleep with some-one, why won't they marry me.:rolleyes:

I'm saying, why do (some) men look down on women for doing the exact same action they have taken part in.

You said it's to screen out chaste partners. This makes no sense. Why do the action with them then. "I'll sleep with her but she's failed my rules". You did the exact same thing she did. Why does this make her only not chaste?

You are in effect doing an action with them that will then rule them out of what you want.

???

This. A million times, this. So many guys would gladly have one night stands but cannot seem to understand that if THEY are doing it and they believe THEY (the male) are worth the relationship, the same is probably equally true for the woman: they're doing it, and they can still manage to be worth a relationship.

If they want chastity in a partner, why not remain chaste themselves?

I just don't get how they don't see the hypocrisy. Though the mental gymnastics that get used to try to explain it are at least mildly amusing. :pac:

Reward

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You're missing the point again.

I'm not saying at all if I sleep with some-one, why won't they marry me.:rolleyes:

I'm saying, why do (some) men look down on women for doing the exact same action they have taken part in.

You said it's to screen out chaste partners. This makes no sense. Why do the action with them then. "I'll sleep with her but she's failed my rules". You did the exact same thing she did. Why does this make her only not chaste?

You are in effect doing an action with them that will then rule them out of what you want.

???

No, you are missing the point.

Its only some men that will avoid getting involved with women that they see as higher risk of paternity fraud using their sexual behaviour as a measure in the same way that some women will avoid getting involved with men that are higher risk of leaving them with a baby, using their sexual behaviour as a measure. Some women will sleep with a "womaniser" but not consider him for LTR.

If you are accepting of women that use liberated sexual behaviour in a man as a measure of risk and not men, its you that is running the double standard.

Politically correct dogma stops people from understanding the above as it denies the existence of biological differences.

liah

Reward wrote: »

No, you are missing the point.

Its only some men that will avoid getting involved with women that they see as higher risk of paternity fraud using their sexual behaviour as a measure in the same way that some women will avoid getting involved with men that are higher risk of leaving them with a baby, using their sexual behaviour as a measure. Some women will sleep with a "womaniser" but not consider him for LTR.

If you are accepting of women that use liberated sexual behaviour in a man as a measure of risk and not men, its you that is running the double standard.

Politically correct dogma stops people from understanding the above.

I think you are grossly overanalyzing the reason why a lot of men will have one night stands but won't date girls who have them. I doubt most of them even think about it, they just react. Regardless, I seriously doubt what runs through any given guy's head is "sex? on the first date? this is totally gunna be paternity fraud, get her away from me (but only after I bang her!)!"

You may have had a case when there was no such thing as contraception and sex education, but this is 2011. What you wrote is still a complete cop-out. We have condoms, diaphragms, birth control pills, shots, etc. to prevent pregnancy, full stop. There is no one man who has a "higher risk" of leaving them with a baby unless he's a rapist. Paternity and maternity don't come into it for the majority of people (men and women) until they're well settled into a relationship.

You can argue it's back down to evolution and instinct and blah blah blah but I don't put much weight, if any, in that argument; as previously expressed, we can overcome and/or outthink almost all of the rest of our evolutionary byproducts and natural instincts, so this argument holds no water.

Am I really the only one who sees this as ridiculous?

If a woman had one night stands but wouldn't consider one of them for a relationship solely because of that fact, then I would equally call her a hypocrite.

Bottom line: If you (impersonal, collective 'you') are a good person and you believe yourself to be worthy of a relationship, yet you enjoy one night stands, you have no right to consider someone else less than worthwhile solely because they enjoy one night stands also. It's hypocrisy of the highest order no matter what angle you look at it.

midlandsmissus

Reward wrote: »

No, you are missing the point.

Its only some men that will avoid getting involved with women that they see as higher risk of paternity fraud using their sexual behaviour as a measure in the same way that some women will avoid getting involved with men that are higher risk of leaving them with a baby, using their sexual behaviour as a measure. Some women will sleep with a "womaniser" but not consider him for LTR.

If you are accepting of women that use liberated sexual behaviour in a man as a measure of risk and not men, its you that is running the double standard.

Politically correct dogma stops people from understanding the above as it denies the existence of biological differences.

I wouldn't judge a man for sleeping with lots of women, same as I wouldn't judge a woman.
I would have a LTR with a man who's slept with lots of women, what's that got to do with anything? People's behaviour is different from when they're single to when they are in a relationship. It doesn't mean they'll cheat.

All this screening about babies is bull. Contraception for the win. I think the reason the double standard exists ultimately boils down to the male ego. The ego not being able to handle the idea that his woman might have slept with other men, that they might have been "better".

Reward

Its a biological double standard, thats where it comes from, and if you are going to rally against sexual double standards, rally against the ones that affect men and the ones you operate too, not just the ones that affect you, otherwise you are running double standards yourselves.

And if you are sleeping with men that call you sluts here is a tip, stop chosing assholes.

liah

Reward wrote: »

Its a biological double standard, thats where it comes from, and if you are going to rally against sexual double standards, rally against the ones that affect men and the ones you operate too, not just the ones that affect you, otherwise you are running double standards yourselves.

And if you are sleeping with men that call you sluts here is a tip, stop chosing assholes.

But it doesn't excuse it.

And I rally against whatever double standards I come across, I don't like that insinuation at all.

I've never slept with a man who's called me a slut (at least, not that I'm aware of) so I'm also not sure where that comes from.

JackieTokeman

liah wrote: »

You can argue it's back down to evolution and instinct and blah blah blah but I don't put much weight, if any, in that argument; as previously expressed, we can overcome and/or outthink almost all of the rest of our evolutionary byproducts and natural instincts, so this argument holds no water.

Interesting topic.

I think that there might be a cultural component at play here. I'm born and bred in a scandinavian country: if a girl goes home with a fella on the first date there, we generally assume she would be really into us, hence a good bet for a longterm relationship.

In contrast, in spain I had a number of male mates telling me that they will always try it on with a girl on the first date. If she gave it up too easily, she was simply not a runner for any type of relationship, unless it was based exclusively on sex.

Reward

liah wrote: »

But it doesn't excuse it.

And I rally against whatever double standards I come across, I don't like that insinuation at all.

I've never slept with a man who's called me a slut (at least, not that I'm aware of) so I'm also not sure where that comes from.

Then why are you complaining about a double standard that supposedly exists and affects you when it doesn't, if you have never seen it how do you know it is anything more than feminist rhetoric that was relevant in the past that is no longer relevant today?

liah

JackieTokeman wrote: »

Interesting topic.

I think that there might be a cultural component at play here. I'm born and bred in a scandinavian country: if a girl goes home with a fella on the first date there, we generally assume she would be really into us, hence a good bet for a longterm relationship.

In contrast, in spain I had a number of male mates telling me that they will always try it on with a girl on the first date. If she gave it up too easily, she was simply not a runner for any type of relationship, unless it was based exclusively on sex.

Interesting that Scandinavia is known for its generally progressive and comparatively secular culture and Spain tends to be known as being a fairly religious country where men have a bit more clout. Obviously both are stereotypes but it's fun to think about.

The Scandinavian way of thinking makes a hell of a lot more sense, the Spanish one is just hypocrisy.

Darlughda

OutlawPete wrote: »

Stop reading Germaine Greer.

Have you ever bothered reading her books?

Reward

Darlughda wrote: »

Have you ever bothered reading her books?

She is a poisonous irrelevant bigot, if you want to put men off and be unhappy, read her books.

liah

Reward wrote: »

Then why are you complaining about a double standard that supposedly exists and affects you when it doesn't, if you have never seen it how do you know it is anything more than feminist rhetoric that was relevant in the past that is no longer relevant today?

It doesn't have to directly affect me for me to know it exists, I witness it with people I know and have read many counts of it happening. I never said it affected me as I avoid men who are hypocrites and jerks, as a rule, but it has the potential to affect me if I misjudge how someone would react, which any human being has the potential to do.

I'm not sure why whether or not I've experienced it directed at myself decides the validity of my argument. I'm fairly sure my argument decides my argument.

Darlughda

Reward wrote: »

She is a poisonous irrelevant bigot, if you want to put men off and be unhappy, read her books.

Why do you think that she is so bad. That's a stupid comment-'if you want to put men off and be unhappy'..etc.

Kind of makes me think you don't have the intellectual rigour of a woman of her calibre to come out with some thing as knee jerk and silly as that.

Reward

Darlughda wrote: »

Why do you think that she is so bad. That's a stupid comment-'if you want to put men off and be unhappy'..etc.

Kind of makes me think you don't have the intellectual rigour of a woman of her calibre to come out with some thing as knee jerk and silly as that.

How is germain relevant today, the last book of hers I remember was her pro-pedarast one. Given that you are such a warrior against double standards you are no doubt angry about societies acceptance of her sexualising 14 year old boys.

Women that absorb the writings of feminist bigots tend to become feminist bigots themselves, I think thats the point that was being made.

Reward

liah wrote: »

It doesn't have to directly affect me for me to know it exists, I witness it with people I know and have read many counts of it happening. I never said it affected me as I avoid men who are hypocrites and jerks, as a rule, but it has the potential to affect me if I misjudge how someone would react, which any human being has the potential to do.

I'm not sure why whether or not I've experienced it directed at myself decides the validity of my argument. I'm fairly sure my argument decides my argument.

Yeah well the thing is, when I hear people saying "Ive never seen it, but I know it exists" I have to wonder if they are just repeating feminist dogma.

midlandsmissus

Reward wrote: »

Yeah well the thing is, when I hear people saying "Ive never seen it, but I know it exists" I have to wonder if they are just repeating feminist dogma.

It's happened to me and my friends, and see the poster above saying his spanish friends screen women this way.

It exists. We as a society know it. You know it happens, and is prevalent.