Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why "sluts" and "studs" are not the same thing, and never will be
-
05-04-2011 11:23am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
fakearms123 wrote: »There's no such thing as an ugly stud but you can find plenty of ugly sluts in coppers
There's no such thing as "ugly" except in sentiment and behaviour.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Poor Craythur wrote: »Because men who are studs have to work at it, women can get it easier. Many men would hump anything. So it doesn't necessarily show skillz on the woman's part.*
* I'm a woman, before anyone has a go.
An honest woman, you got it.
There are other reasons, but that's a big one.
Edit: is this against the rules? Someone said inb4 the lock. If so, my bad.0 -
-
-
MonkeyBalls wrote: »What about this dude?
Dunno, can't open it at work. Is it a self portrait? :P0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Am I the only one who noticed the vagina?
Anyway, great piece .. here it is for those on a mobile or who turn up after the edit
Love the bit on 'white knights'.Sluts versus Studs: The Definitive Guide
I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard this question, mostly from women:How come when men sleep around, they're STUDS, but when women sleep around, they're dirty SLUTS?It's not faayyyuurrrrrrr!There is an answer. The different connotations of "slut and "stud" are justified.
The answer is not that men are bitter, jealous misogynists trying to keep women down by shaming them, or that slut shaming is a residue of religious guilt or an oppressive patriarchal society deathly afraid of female sexuality. That stuff exists, but it's a symptom, not a cause. Different standards are not always arbitrary and in need of debunking by cultural theorists. Read on.
Some essential background:
Men and women are different:
Men have cocks, women have vaginas. Men impregnate, women get pregnant. Men compete, women choose. In the jargon: humans are "anisogamous" (small, cheaply produced sperm fertilises large, nutrient-rich, energy-expensive eggs) and we are "sexually dimorphic" (men are bigger and stronger).
Humans, like most primates, are "moderately polygynous":
Polygyny means: the most attractive men make sexy time with most of the attractive women. This is so important that I'll provide a thought experiment to show the consequences:
Line up ten horny men, and bring in ten women who get to choose their partners.
What's gonna happen?- Ideal outcome: All of the men and all of the women get to pair up just as they wanted. Everybody's happy. Nobody is left heartbroken and alone.
- Actual outcome: The men and women vary in attractiveness, and do not match up equally. George McStud is tall, handsome, charming, and oozes confidence, whereas Dilbert McNerd is scrawny, timid, and creepy. The rest of the men lie somewhere in between. The women may range from Milla Jovovich on one end, to a beer-swilling bearded swampmonkey on the other.
Here's where biology comes into play. Technically, all that the ten women need from George is a few minutes of thrusting followed by a grunt, and his manly seed has done its job: ten pregnant women, who will all be unavailable for other men because they'll be busy for the next three years raising their studly children (in George's harem).
Milla, on the other hand, does not benefit by sleeping with more than one man. And only one man can have her. It only takes one encounter, and she's pregnant. If she cares about the health of her child, she should choose the best mate, not indiscriminately sleep with anyone.
Objection: "It's pointless to talk about biology and take morals from it, that's like, a fallacy."
I hear ya. Read to the end.
These biological differences have enormous repercussions:
Once Milla gets knocked up, the other nine guys have to mark her off the list; she'll be busy with someone else's kid for the next three years. But: George isn't necessarily out of the race. Having sex with Milla was five minutes seconds of his time.
There are now ten guys competing for nine girls. Then George, the sneaky devil, gets another girl knocked up, and that's eight girls left.
And then seven. And then six.
And so on.
Hooking up is a "zero-sum game":
That means: the girl one man gets is a girl taken away from another man. (+1 "win" for George plus – 1 "loss" for another guy = 0). Remember, the sex ratio is 50:50.
Eventually, six or seven increasingly desperate men may be competing for, say, one or two girls, whose value has skyrocketed; the girls just have to sit back while the men fight for them; that includes the swampmonkey, who now feels like a supermodel and acts accordingly.
That is the effect of polygyny. Immutable biology sets the rules of the game: Men compete (which is why men are larger and stronger), and women choose (as well as compete among themselves). Once the top guys have finished impregnating all ten girls (or the most attractive ones), the bottom-tier dregs of manhood are left involuntarily celibate, nursing their limp, sad, unused penises, weeping bitter tears.
This can be summed up neatly:
Most men are expendable; most women are not.
Biologically, the inherent value of the average woman is greater than that of the average man. To make a hundred babies, you need just one man and a lot of women. (King Ismael of Morocco reputedly sired six-hundred sons in his harem, while plenty of King Schlumps of Celibacy sired only bored indifference in women.)
In the jargon, women are the "limiting resource". And to maximise the health and survival of their children they need to be more selective than men about who they sleep with. Women can only have a limited amount of offspring. Men, on the other hand, can have a virtually unlimited amount of offspring, meaning they have less of an imperative to be as choosy as females.
Among nearly all mammals in nature the females are choosier and less promiscuous than the males.
Now we get to one of the reasons studs are admired: they represent the winners of the competition. Unless they are frequently slumming it, they are admired - or at least less resented - for having the qualities to seduce the choosier sex, including exerting quite a bit of effort, not least of which involves navigating an asteroid belt of cockblockery. Being in the most sexually desired tier of men, floating above the sea of WoW-playing virgins, you would expect them to be confident, charming, good-looking, funny, and dominant. And you would be right. Studies confirm that "studs" tend to have high self-esteem and the attributes just mentioned. (Many of them are also obnoxious dip****s – as are many attractive girls – but that's another matter.)
Any girl - one with her hair matted to her head, a pissy look on her face, no makeup, the conversational talent of a monkey, and a muffin top flopping over her jeans - can saunter into a bar anywhere in the world and get a guy to throw one into her later that night.
Objection: "So it's easier therefore it's wrong? Nonsense! Resentful male!"
Stay with me.
The studies reveal (along with the experiences of people who interact with humans) that, in sharp contrast to "studs", sluts tend to have low self-esteem and to be emotional wrecks. And women with high self-esteem tend to pursue long-term committed relationships.
This is not a coincidence.
If you want a relationship with someone who is emotionally balanced, has self-respect and self-esteem, and has good impulse-control, a slut is not your best port of call. There are exceptions, but they're hard to find.
The next big fact about human sexuality:
Human females have internal fertilisation and hidden estrus (sort of), and, consequently, cuckoldry is an inherent risk for men.
"Hidden estrus" means that there are no distinct signals when females are ovulating, and so the man can never know for sure if he has fertilised her eggs, or if it was a "Sneaking Fertilisation" (scientific nomenclature for a sneaky ****) by some other guy, which happens a lot in mammals with hidden estrus.
In other words, she can get knocked up by a stud and then foist the child on some unwitting guy, who pours his hard-earned resources into raising "his" kid. (Over one million men in the United States are unwittingly raising a child that is not their own.)
The past does not equal the future, but how someone acted the past is a good indicator of how they will act in the future. In a long-term relationship, a slut is a higher risk for infidelity than a relatively chaste girl (thorough studies back this up), and the consequences of female infidelity are extraordinarily severe, in the form of paternity fraud.
Paternity fraud is genetic death.
When a man (the competitive, resource-accruing sex) marries a woman (the choosy sex), he invests his resources heavily in her. Working hard to accrue these resources, he diverts much of them into feeding, protecting, teaching and raising his kids, and he trusts that these kids aren't a product of another man's load spurted into his wife.
If he marries a slut, there's an increased risk that she will cuckold him. This outcome is worse than celibacy. It is the worst betrayal of all: genetic death in combination with the insult of propagating a competitor's DNA. It elicits an intense emotional response that most women may not be able to empathise with.
Now, infidelity ain't cool, whether you're a man or a woman. But the consequences of it differ between men and women. A woman who has a five-minute romp with a tattoo-clad ex-con she met at a bar can get pregnant and leech from the doting cuckold his resources, his support, his hard earned money, his time, his sacrifices, and his love.
Now flip it around: imagine a stud cheats on his wife by having a quick, thoughtless five-minute romp with a random girl he met at a bar. He cannot come back with a child and foist it off as his wife's. He cannot destroy her genetic raison d'être.
This is why male sexual jealousy evolved (women also react with intense jealousy, but it's directed more towards emotional than sexual infidelity). Many men truthfully proclaim that they love "sexually liberated" women (and rail against the condemnation of sluts), but pay attention and you'll see this: they love them for short-term fun, easy sex, banter and friendship, but those same men will loathe the idea of marrying such a girl and having children with her. This is adaptive. And it is practical. Ancient biological forces, combined with the economics of mating, combine to make a slut a good short-term mate but poor long term one, just as an incorrigible rake is a good short-term mate but a poor long term one.
Women lie about their past and demand not to be judged precisely because they know how damaging promiscuity is to their reputation and their prospects as long-term mates. If a girl tells you she's slept with 10-15 guys, the real answer is probably closer to 30, (alongside 20 blowjobs that don't count.) Men lie too, but in the opposite direction; they lie up, to appear like studs. Men would count "girl accidentally brushed against my crotch in supermarket queue" as part of their notch count if they could get away with it.
Despite feminism, the pill, and Cosmo magazines, the deep-rooted remains. Birth control may reduce the cuckoldry risk, but it does not remove the underlying emotional mechanisms that evolved to prevent cuckoldry from happening. If you asked a man why he feels pity and contempt for a guy who marries the town bike, or why he feels contempt for the girl he and his buddy just double teamed an hour after meeting her, he probably won't be able to articulate the exact reasons – because they are hardwired, visceral, the product of adaptations, not purely reasoned conscious thought but a set of drives that ensure you don't **** up your reproductive success. (Anyone who claims to be above natural instincts is simply a liar or woefully lacking in self-awareness.) It's like asking the question, "why do you feel incest is wrong, even when the participants use birth control and maintain emotional distance?"
Culture cannot overwrite biology, only harness it.
Most people, however, are oblivious to the underlying biological forces at work, seeing only the social manifestation of different standards and different behaviour. As a result, they come to false conclusions. They will fail, loudly and aggressively, to see the underlying logic. Many writers, implicitly adhering to a misguided version of equality, have written biased, scientifically-unsound books that insist that gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
These books, owing to their shrewd demographic targeting and emotional appeal, percolate through the vessels of political correctness and the consciousness of feminists (but I repeat myself), who as a result have been miseducated about gender differences to the point where biological explanations seem ridiculous and chauvinistic to them because a writer with a PhD "proved" that gender is socially constructed.
From that position - which feels intellectually sophisticated - the "slut versus stud" dichotomy is a hypocritical double standard, an arbitrary moral code, and those espousing it are sexists clinging to a pre-feminist relic of more ignorant times. But that is nonsense.
Men and women are biologically and psychologically different.
Different meaning "different", not "of unequal value". If men were the ones who made eggs and got pregnant, men would be the loathsome sluts and women would be the admirable studs. Demanding not to be judged for your sexual past and behaviour is futile and hypocritical. Judgement of others is an inherent part of human nature, encapsulated in the self-defeating irony of the phrase "God, I loathe judgmental people". Women judge men on their job, income, status, and popularity with other women, amongst other things (because this knowledge is crucial for female reproductive success), and men judge women on their beauty, femininity, and sluttiness, amongst other things (because this knowledge is crucial for male reproductive success). A woman's status, popularity, income, and job are relatively unimportant to men. We use different standards of judgement for a reason. Asking to not be judged for being promiscuous is like a man asking to not be judged for being a boring, needy, unambitious slob.
In my own experience, women call other women sluts more often than men do. Sluts are a threat to other women, for good reason – they undermine female power – and calling a competitor a slut reduces that competitor's perceived value in the eyes of other men (while also giving the accuser a pleasant jolt of moral superiority.) Women who resent studs will try to cut them down by making a point of calling them "sluts", in an attempt to artificially transfer the negative connotations of female promiscuity onto the man.
So. Women tend to conceal or downplay their promiscuity, because it is not a lifestyle choice without consequence. And if you didn't already know why, now you do.
***
Addendum:
If you try to strike a word down, it becomes more powerful. Women: if you don't want to be called a slut, don't waste your time invoking bonobos or trying to disarm the word slut in public consciousness. Instead, consider not being such a whore. Or better yet: work on your self-esteem, and good things will follow.
As mentioned, there are men who rail against slut shaming; these are usually suck-up orbiter white knights, or, worse, crypto-misogynists (after some probing: "all women are sluts and merely masturbation aids"). And beggars can't be choosers; men of poor mate value who will take what they can and settle with a slut will rationalise it away through a loud and sanctimonious show of nonjudgementalism.
(On the other end, there are guys for whom a "dumb whore!" is a girl who has the audacity to sleep with someone who isn't him. Such men are often insecure and immature about the reality that other penises have been inside their girlfriend.)
Some women embrace their inner slut and aren't mentally imbalanced or filled with self-loathing; they love what they do, they're fun, open, authentic, and sexual people. Such women are rare, and the blunt brush of judgement surely tars them also under the "damaged slut" category. Stereotypes, as it happens, are based largely on reality, not constructed out of the ethereal fumes of culture.
Dre may have been generally right when he said "you can't make a ho a housewife". But: I think a certain minority of women go through a "whore phase" and then settle down and remain faithful not just for reasons of expediency. Such women are almost certainly rarer than the majority of sluts, who are unfaithful and promiscuous wherever they can get away with it (while still young enough to attract other men, for example). Most people pass off lack of opportunity for virtue.0 - Ideal outcome: All of the men and all of the women get to pair up just as they wanted. Everybody's happy. Nobody is left heartbroken and alone.
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Several groggy Saturday and Sunday mornings after severe alcohol abuse and waking up to a girl that looks like a melted manatee would disagree with you.
I think I need a standards buddy for when I get drunk.
Ha, you sir, have got a way with words!
Though not, it would seem, with the ladies:D0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Am I the only one who noticed the vagina?
Anyway, great piece .. here it is for those on a mobile or who turn up after the edit
Love the bit on 'white knights'.
What's REALLY REALLy unfair about the above though is men will push, push, push and pressure you into sleeping with them, and then despise you and make you feel like utter dirt when you do. I had slept with 2 boyfriends my whole life, late 20s now, fell for an alpha male b4 xmas who told me he realy liked me. I let him pick me up in our local club at the end of the night and bring me bk to his friends house a few nights. Total alpha male and v.persuasive and i was pretty weak. There were a load of lads in the house so everybody knew and of course he told them I was chasing him. And he treated me like absolute dirt the next morning. I am now known as easy round town and he is just the stud. Nothing feels worse than this, I have actually felt suicidal over it all. Once you're a slut (in a small town) you're condemned as a slut forever. Men have no idea how hard it is being a woman, they don't have the worry of it all. Feeling like a slut is so awful and a man can never know that particular pain...0 -
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Original Vagina pic has been removed ..
Apart from where I saved it in my hardrive of course
Was that the one at the top of the article?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement