Why "sluts" and "studs" are not the same thing, and never will be

Wibbs

Agonist wrote: »

Insofar as what the OP said about biology and evolutionary imperatives it's all well and good, ut isn't there a case to be made that humans are able to live independently from their instincts a good deal of the time?

Very much so and I'm saying this as someone who is very reductive about this stuff. IE think most stuff about "love" etc is based in the groin and biological imperative and the rest is magical thinking.

A good example and the most extreme noted in the article; incest. We as a culture find it horrid, but not all cultures did. Obvious example the ancient Egyptians. Brother and sister matings were not uncommon and often encouraged. Modern examples? Ok not nearly as close a coupling as siblings, but some cultural groups in India/Pakistan have a tradition of close marriages between cousins and this is leading to huge increases in genetic damage. Hell in Ireland not so long ago first cousins marrying wasn't that unusual. So even something as culturally black and white as incest... well it turns out it isn't.

If you hand around with accountants the women just won't be attracted to the guys who are having the most sex.

Sorry I'm not getting this example?

Earthhorse

Dudess wrote: »

I agree there isn't any need for "Men are xyz" comments to be fair.

Men are xy, actually.

Agonist

Wibbs wrote: »

Very much so and I'm saying this as someone who is very reductive about this stuff. IE think most stuff about "love" etc is based in the groin and biological imperative and the rest is magical thinking.

A good example and the most extreme noted in the article; incest. We as a culture find it horrid, but not all cultures did. Obvious example the ancient Egyptians. Brother and sister matings were not uncommon and often encouraged. Modern examples? Ok not nearly as close a coupling as siblings, but some cultural groups in India/Pakistan have a tradition of close marriages between cousins and this is leading to huge increases in genetic damage. Hell in Ireland not so long ago first cousins marrying wasn't that unusual. So even something as culturally black and white as incest... well it turns out it isn't.

Yes, and some muslims too, right up to the present day. wiki

Sorry I'm not getting this example?

Ok, possibly bad example. I did find it hard to come up with an example of women not being attracted to alpha male types, interestingly. I'm generalising about female accountants, and I've known plenty, and their sensible and staid way of viewing the world certainly overrided (overrode?) their instincts to lust after the unreliable but attractive men.

MonkeyBalls

@ Wibbs: just because a handful of cultures can enforce something, doesn't mean the universal biology is overridden. Every culture on earth naturally avoids incest. Incestuous marriages among the Egyptians and others were an attempt to consolidate power. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this disproves the incest hypothesis, i.e. a trans-cultural emotional adaptation that evolved to deter interbreeding. Children who are raised together - even if they're not siblings - find each other innately unattractive as mates (especially the woman, who accrues higher costs), and when in the small few cases where incest does occur, it's nearly always by siblings who have not been raised together.

PrincessLola wrote: »

So we should be allowed to have to slut/stud double standard because biology backs it up?
In that case fathers-rights groups will have to shut the f*ck up because biology backs the fact that women are the primary care-givers.

Just sayin' that just because there is scientific data behind it doesn't make it okay.

It's a good question, and a tricky one. But bear in mind that whether we should be "allowed" to have a certain different standard in society makes no differences as to whether it will exist or not. As I specifically wrote, shutting down the word "slut" - as with the word retard, the n-word, etc - only gives it more power.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I think people are posting without reading the article or indeed, even the thread. It's not about the 'word' slut, it's about the very concept that society has that women who sleep around are somehow of lesser worth than a man.

I realise that the word 'slut' is being used in the thread title and is also in the title of the article in fact, but to focus on the word and word alone, misses some of the points made and whether you (collective you) agree with them or not, some of them are quite valid.

Perhaps it would be best to use less emotive words when discussing the subject as I think the word 'slut' carries with it such negative connotations and weight, that it suffocates any possibility of a rational debate on just why society thinks less of a women that is as promiscuous as her male peers.

Yeah I agree, though there is a lot to be discerned from the power of the word slut - its power is not an arbitrary cultural coincidence.

Edit: it's hard to come up with a less emotive word when it's the very potency word itself that I'm trying to explain (i.e. not as a transient cultural artifact but a biological adaptation), but I take your point.

Off topic: but I find that girls like Eternal who complain about the use of the term slut have no problem using the most vile insulting language against males (loser, creep, a$$hole, pussy), which are arguably as potent as the slut insult. There's a double standard for you to chew on.

MonkeyBalls

Agonist wrote: »

The article was interesting enough not to need jibing insults towards women, particularly in the addendum. That kind of thing is not going to lead to productive debate but will probably lead to louder, lower quality debate.

Insofar as what the OP said about biology and evolutionary imperatives it's all well and good, ut isn't there a case to be made that humans are able to live independently from their instincts a good deal of the time?

In general, and according to "stereotype", the points hold true but in normal life not necessarily. If you hang out with science PhDs you won't find the women being labelled as sluts. The women will be in the minority and highly prized. If you hand around with accountants the women just won't be attracted to the guys who are having the most sex.

However, I think that the unemployed guys who father eight children by five different women will always be able to find a mate. It's always going to be harder to find examples that break the rule.

I think that as people marry later now, there's a good chunk of your twenties where it's fine for both sexes to enjoy plenty of sex and it's not going to impact on your future long term mate.

I agree for the most part.

dominiquecruz wrote: »

I think the concept should be eradicated; its disadvantageous for both sexes. Women calling women sluts only makes it OK for them too to be classed as such. Men calling women sluts discourages promiscuous sexual behaviour.

I say, hurrah for sluts. Both men and women. Lets all have more sex

As I said, it cannot be eradicated because it's based on human nature. "Let's have more sex" is a nice idea in theory, but in practice, with the complexities of the real world in tandem with human nature, it's unrealistic

Bottle_of_Smoke

What needs to be stressed, and I think the article does this pretty well, is that the arguments made are reasons people tend to regard promiscuous women as *bad*(therefore derogatory word like slut used) but promiscuous men not noteworthy. It doesn't actually argue promiscuous women are bad or wrong in any way.

Hypothetically if there was no risk of being cuckolded, say all babies were DNA tested at birth by law. Or there was some imaginary way men would simply *know* they were a baby's father....

Would the slut/stud namecalling be different? I definitely think so. Cuckolding someone is in my opinion as bad as murder.

So the promiscuous girl is being thought of as someone who is more likely to end up cuckolding a man. Is this true? Very controversial but I suspect statistically speaking it is. This doesn't mean all ''promiscuous when single'' type girls will cheat when in a relationship, of course not. Its just telling the difference is next to impossible and humans folow patterns.

Procasinator

While I wouldn't say I disagree with the whole blog post, it is quite a casual piece.

You refer to studies, but from the abstracts the studies don't seem to quite match up.

First assertion:

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.

The studies abstract says:

We recruited two groups of women who differed in their number of lifetime sex partners in order to investigate several hypotheses related to female sociosexuality. Specifically, we explored whether women who engage in casual sex have low mate value, are especially likely to have come from stressful family environments, or are masculine in other respects besides their interest in casual sex. Women with many partners were not lower than other women on direct or indirect indicators of mate value. Nor were they more likely to recall adverse family environments during childhood. On several measures related to masculinity, women with many sex partners were elevated compared with other women.

The abstract doesn't mention self-esteem, and seems to indicate that only some characteristics of masculinity in the females were related to many sex partners.

The second assertion you made:

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.

The abstract from the 'thorough' study mentioned:

Examines association between intimate premarital relationships and subsequent marital dissolution. Results suggest neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage.

Which appears to be rather about premarital sex and cohabitation of a couple that go on to be marry, and the effect (or lack of) that has on the future relation woes.

Neither abstract suggestions your assertions are the primary topic (or even mentioned as a secondary) of the papers. I haven't read the papers (cause I ain't paying for 'em), but you could always quote any relevant information in the papers.

--Kaiser--

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What needs to be stressed, and I think the article does this pretty well, is that the arguments made are reasons people tend to regard promiscuous women as *bad*(therefore derogatory word like slut used) but promiscuous men not noteworthy. It doesn't actually argue promiscuous women are bad or wrong in any way.

A point, I think, missed my many here

Would the slut/stud namecalling be different? I definitely think so. Cuckolding someone is in my opinion as bad as murder.

Lol....wut?

MonkeyBalls

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What needs to be stressed, and I think the article does this pretty well, is that the arguments made are reasons people tend to regard promiscuous women as *bad*(therefore derogatory word like slut used) but promiscuous men not noteworthy. It doesn't actually argue promiscuous women are bad or wrong in any way.

Hypothetically if there was no risk of being cuckolded, say all babies were DNA tested at birth by law. Or there was some imaginary way men would simply *know* they were a baby's father....

Would the slut/stud namecalling be different? I definitely think so. Cuckolding someone is in my opinion as bad as murder.

So the promiscuous girl is being thought of as someone who is more likely to end up cuckolding a man. Is this true? Very controversial but I suspect statistically speaking it is. This doesn't mean all ''promiscuous when single'' type girls will cheat when in a relationship, of course not. Its just telling the difference is next to impossible and humans folow patterns.

Very good post and question. I would say that, if there was no cuckoldry risk (somehow, evolutionary, men were guaranteed to know that their kid is really theirs), then I definitely agree, the slut/stud thing would not exist or would be vastly different.


edit: @Procrastinator, I gotta bounce, but I'll get to that later; I randomly chose one study for my hyperlinks out of many

OutlawPete

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Edit: it's hard to come up with a less emotive word when it's the very potency word itself that I'm trying to explain (i.e. not as a transient cultural artifact but a biological adaptation), but I take your point.

I see that but by using the word to describe any subset of women you will be seen as approving of it's use in a "derogatory" context and also in fact as part of the cause of just why women are even seen that way. When women (and some men) read your blog I think they will just come away from it thinking that YOU are misogynist and a Neanderthal and that what you have written is just personal views rather than a commentary on how and why society takes this stance, which is a shame.

As I said in my opening post, I believe it is women that use that word 'slut' mostly and usually with scowls on their faces as they say it too - whereas when I witness men using the word, they say it with cheeky smile on their faces, usually accompanied by their mouth hanging open afterwards. The negative side to a woman society would see as a 'slut' not actually kicking in (in his mind at least) until after he has shagged her (which is where I think the brilliance of your article lies, in explaining just why in fact that is).

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Off topic: but I find that girls like Eternal who complain about the use of the term slut have no problem using the most vile insulting language against males (loser, creep, a$$hole, pussy), which are arguably as potent as the slut insult. There's a double standard for you to chew on.

Oh I totally agree and you seen what happened when I took a female user to task for saying that she "truly" believes that "men are insane". I was the one then in the wrong, for daring to even mention it I guess (one women criticised the comment though in fairness) but of course you will always get those type of guys who will fall over themselves to have a go at any man who has the audacity to complain about something that a female has done or said. Usually they are the ones who contribute very little but just sit on the sidelines trying to impress women with how evolved they are and how they are not like those big bad bitter sexist misogynists. Some people will do almost anything for a little positive attention from the opposite sex I guess and for the most part, I think the vast majority of women can see that in fact.

Little Acorn

Outlawpete

you will always get those type of guys who will fall over themselves to have a go at any man who has the audacity to complain about something that a female has done or said. Usually they are the ones who contribute very little but just sit on the sidelines trying to impress women with how evolved they are and how they are not like those big bad bitter sexist misogynists. Some people will do almost anything for a little positive attention from the opposite sex I guess and for the most part, I think the vast majority of women can see that in fact.

Are you on about this "white knight" thing? Apologies if you are not, or if you have a different meaning for the term.

Quote from "White Knight" description.

With his refined intellect and sensitivity, Captain-Save-A-Hoe fends off the Neanderthals who would be so immature and thick-headed as to mock a girl who spreads her legs for every douchebag with a functioning penis. "Don't judge, you misogynists!"

Some of his common utterances:

"Ugh, if a man did it, he'd be called a stud".
"Misogynist"
"I don't judge a girl for her sexual past"
"I forgave her...she was drunk".
"I loved her with all my heart".
To his girlfriend, in private: "Would you....dildo me up the ass?"

(I have no proof about the last one, but I'd bet good money it's true.)

He can be found on internet forums spouting pro-feminist platitudes and private-messaging girls with lots of smilies and probably **** to their occasional responses.

Do people who use the term white knight, think that all men who DON'T judge a girl for how many people she has slept with, who feel that the double standards ARE unfair, and who may just happen to hold the same opinion as a lot of women on issues, are just all liars?
Do people who use the term, think that these men are all completely lying just to get sex or attention of females?
Is it not possible that they are just saying these things, because they actually REALLY DO believe in them, and that they are NOT in anyways "desperate" for approval of women?

Sure there probably are a few who might do it for attention, but it just seems very unfair that some perfectly confident men, who really don't judge women on their sexual encounters, are just dismissed by some other men as being liars or "white knights". It could leave a good few men afraid to speak their opinions, because of fear of being called this by other men.

Is there an insulting term for women who support equality issues for men?

OutlawPete

Little Acorn wrote: »

Sure there probably are a few who might do it for attention, but it just seems very unfair that some perfectly confident men, who really don't judge women on their sexual encounters, are just dismissed by some other men as being liars or "white knights". It could leave a good few men afraid to speak their opinions, because of fear of being called this by other men.

If a guy can back up what he is saying (and not just hollow bullshit) then I generally wouldn't refer to them as such (the 'definition' you included wouldn't be mine by the way, well - not completely anyway as I'm quite partial to a dildo in my lovely bottom thank you very much ). However, the guys with little to say but throw a few insults at users are white-kinighting for sure. These users rarely get involved in debates at all in fact and just are what I would call 'thread commentators'.

There are many women's views I would disagree with, but I can assure you, I would prefer a thousand of them over the twits that think their white knighting wisecracks are in anyway profound. Reason being that I have respect for users that role their sleeves up and get stuck into a debate, no matter how wrong or right they may be. Having the chutzpah to actually post what you believe and own it, gets my respect. Assclowns playing to the gallery and trying to impress women with soundbytes never will. Fcuking scourge of the internet.

WindSock

Biology has played a large part to our social constructions of the words and actions but, thankfully we are conscious beings and not just animals, we don't need to be slaves to our biology anymore. Paternity tests can cure cuckoldry and we can all enjoy shaggin till the cows come home without implication from others tutting at our behaviour. Let them hate and judge as long as you are not hurting anyone then it's all gravy.

As for incest, sure biology says we can't, society says we shant, but there is also the pheromones thing, you are not going to be attracted to the smell of someone with a similar immune system to yours, no matter how hot you think your family are because they may look like yourself, you will be put off by their smell.


And why is this discussion turning into one about percieved misogyny and men who 'white knight' now, Pete? Didn't you berate someone the other day for bringing in 'issues' into a thread where there wasn't any, and now you are doing just that yourself.

Amalgam

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Stud = master key
Slut = lock opened by all keys

And so on. Also, inb4thelock.

I can visualise that.. (don't ask how I stumbled across this Googling for a phone icon)

WindSock

Little Acorn wrote: »

Is there an insulting term for women who support equality issues for men?

Feminists.



OP, what are your thoughts on homosexuality?

Little Acorn

OutlawPete wrote: »

If a guy can back up what he is saying (and not just hollow bullshit) then I generally wouldn't refer to them as such (the 'definition' you included wouldn't be mine by the way, well - not completely anyway as I'm quite partial to a dildo in my lovely bottom thank you very much ). However, the guys with little to say but throw a few insults at users are white-kinighting for sure. These users rarely get involved in debates at all in fact and just are what I would call 'thread commentators'.

There are many women's views I would disagree with, but I can assure you, I would prefer a thousand of them over the twits that think their white knighting wisecracks are in anyway profound. Reason being that I have respect for users that role their sleeves up and get stuck into a debate, no matter how wrong or right they may be. Having the chutzpah to actually post what you believe and own it, gets my respect. Assclowns playing to the gallery and trying to impress women with soundbytes never will. Fcuking scourge of the internet.

I see what you're saying. I too love all the good debates here on Boards, although they can sometimes get a bit heated!:pac:
I'm just wondering though, how exactly would someone prove that they are not lying or white knighting?
If for example a male says, "this slut/stud attitude that some people have is complete double standards and unfair." "I don't care how many people a girl has slept with, she's single and can do as she wishes just like men do"
- would this be seen as a hollow argument/white knighting?
- what more can they do explain it, other than to just say that it is something they believe is unfair?

Or would the above opinions be ok to have and believed, and it's just when the insults get thrown that it is white knighting?

Sorry for all the questions btw, it's just I've only ever heard this term on Boards, and from that link in the op.
I don't really like it if it's just used on men who can't prove or back up what is just their personal belief on fairness. Unless somebody followed them around in their everyday life and recorded how they behaved with women, I don't know how they can be labelled as liars or white knighters, for just stating their opinion.
The popping in to throw random insults thing I can definitely agree on with you though. I think random insults are just sometimes thrown in on lots of different types of debates, mainly to gain a few thanks from both sexes.

Little Acorn

WindSock wrote: »

Feminists.



OP, what are your thoughts on homosexuality?

When I was in school we were taught that feminists could be males or females who believe in equal rights for men and women. That's about all we were taught on the matter, never went too much into the history of the word, but I remember it was seen as a good thing for a man or woman to be.
Again it's only here on boards that I've heard it used as an insult, aswell as other terms that I've learnt from here such as feminazis, and recently whiteknighters.
Who comes up with these names?!:pac:

I've also never heard the terms misandry, and misogyny so widely used except here on Boards, but I get that they are part of some of the arguments so can see why they are used.

Also, I think it was me who dragged this off topic with the white knighting thing!
I am curious about the term, because my understanding of it is that it seems very unfair, but I'm wondering if there are ever genuine good reasons for the term being used. So I was the one who decided to ask OutlawPete about it, because I saw him mention it before.

Wibbs

Hell I've been accused of white knighting on here. More than once. Though I'm actually quite the "unreconstructed" male. I also have no problem stating that I think that there are women who are whores of the highest order that I wouldnt touch with someone elses. Though I'll further admit I'd pull a one nighter with them if they were cute, but no more than that. Yes I can be that hypcritical. indeed if a mate was interested in one of these women I'd warn him off in no uncertain terms. That said of this list in the link?

"Ugh, if a man did it, he'd be called a stud".

I'd agree with that, but it's not an argument, it's whataboutery. Next!

"Misogynist"

Depends on context, but there's enough of them out there so hardly unusual. I've been one myself at times.

"I don't judge a girl for her sexual past"

Yes well I would. I'd narrow it down though. I'd not judge her for the number, I'd judge her by the manner of how she racked it up and why. Some of the biggest sexual/loyalty flakes out there that I'd trust as far as I could throw em have had few enough men.

"I forgave her...she was drunk".

Depends what I'm forgiving her for. Acting like an eejit? Well it would be stratospherically hypocritical of me to judge in that case. :D A brief snog? Meh, could happen. Words would be had, but not the end of the world. A shag? Either scrape her off instantly or emotionally distance myself, keep getting the legover, but eye up an exit.

"I loved her with all my heart".

No problem with that at all. I have loved women with all my heart. Can't see the point otherwise. Well otherwise it's a fcuk buddy minus the buddy. A **** with added DIY around the house and nagging. Sod that.

Wompa1

Little Acorn wrote: »

I see what you're saying. I too love all the good debates here on Boards, although they can sometimes get a bit heated!:pac:
I'm just wondering though, how exactly would someone prove that they are not lying or white knighting?
If for example a male says, "this slut/stud attitude that some people have is complete double standards and unfair." "I don't care how many people a girl has slept with, she's single and can do as she wishes just like men do"
- would this be seen as a hollow argument/white knighting?
- what more can they do explain it, other than to just say that it is something they believe is unfair?

Or would the above opinions be ok to have and believed, and it's just when the insults get thrown that it is white knighting?

Sorry for all the questions btw, it's just I've only ever heard this term on Boards, and from that link in the op.
I don't really like it if it's just used on men who can't prove or back up what is just their personal belief on fairness. Unless somebody followed them around in their everyday life and recorded how they behaved with women, I don't know how they can be labelled as liars or white knighters, for just stating their opinion.
The popping in to throw random insults thing I can definitely agree on with you though. I think random insults are just sometimes thrown in on lots of different types of debates, mainly to gain a few thanks from both sexes.

I think people can do whatever they want alright but it's known in society that these labels are used...whether they agree with them or not. I think the debate going on here is why when the labels are being used it's a possible double standard/why it's not a double standard.

So sleep with as many men as you want but realize there's a consequence that society will deem you a slut because that's the popular view imposed by society at the moment. Personally I do think it's a slight double standard, I agree with the view that women have a much easier time finding sex when they feel like it where as a guy is just lucky to get the oppurtunity and is in a situation where if it's on offer he's got to take it in case it's the last time for a long time..

Women control whether a man gets sex or not
Women control whether they get sex or not

I think that's the context being argued for why women are deemed sluts whilst men are deemed studs..they are lucky to get it.

Men can be sluts too in my opinion. I think it's foolish and risky behaviour for anybody to sleep around and is a bit of a sign of immaturity really but there ya go...others would disagree.

MonkeyBalls

This is only a fleeting visit. Lots of questions I don't have time to respond to. Someone asked me what I think of homosexuality - I think it's no one's business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, which is a far different matter than what's being discussed in this thread.

Winsock wrote:

Biology has played a large part to our social constructions of the words and actions but, thankfully we are conscious beings and not just animals, we don't need to be slaves to our biology anymore. Paternity tests can cure cuckoldry and we can all enjoy shaggin till the cows come home without implication from others tutting at our behaviour

I['ve gotta disagree with this, as I explained in my post. Some emotions are immutable.

The free-love communities of 19th century American collapsed from sexual jealousy, a pattern consistently repeated around the world. Free love proponents ( not talking about Winsock, btw) are playing with fire, but are too myopic and self-absorbed and too interested in immediate gratification to realise it.

And it's not just men who will be tut tuting; if anything, we have far less reason to complain than women: promiscuous women reduce the market value of an average woman's sexuality, i.e. she is less valuable sexually because a man can just go for the easy target, a slut, and also because sluts are likely to be potential homewreckers; women have a vested interest in keeping their parters away from them. Jealousy is universal, innate, ineradicable, and dangerous.

Procasinator

WindSock wrote: »

thankfully we are conscious beings and not just animals

I agree with what you are saying, but I hate this statement.

We are just animals. We obviously have mental abilities well beyond any other known animal, but we are animals.

However, this is not to say we have no control: plenty of animals can have control, and while many would argue otherwise, a concious. It's also not to say any behaviour can be excused by this fact. It's just to say, there is nothing wrong with being an animal.

Being an animal just means we are not plants, bacteria, etc.. Being an animal is just a classification of what type of organism we are: it's not an offensive thing.

Hookah

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Jealousy is universal, innate, ineradicable, and dangerous.

Except we have effective and efficient birth control available now, which belies the conditions on which our previous emotional insecurities and moral values were based.

Wompa1

Anybody else think Pyschology is a horse sh!t college course!?

hatrickpatrick

Point I'm trying to make is, screw "society". We live in a free country - you don't have to answer to ANYONE about your personal decisions. Unless you're hurting somebody else against their will, you're doing nothing wrong in my view and you should tell the haters to go f*ck themselves.

And if anyone insults you about having too many partners, just say "Go f*ck yourselves because clearly that's all you can get" or something. I honestly can't see any real explanation for that kind of judgmental crap than jealousy, so you'd almost certainly be right in making that statement.

Also can we please lose the gender role crap. All that lock / master key crap makes a lot of assumptions which are purely based on tradition and nothing else. Has it ever crossed your mind that free thinking individuals simply don't want, nor have any obligation, to tow the old lines?

The number of double standards in this thread is staggering. Let people live as they want to live. If it bothers you so much there must be something wrong with your own life, that you have to criticize others instead of sorting yourself out.

PS: Surely the above "market value" definitions of "sluts" actually make them good for society in that they ensure that certain types of manipulative women can't exploit their sexuality to get what they want from guys?

Just throwing that out there. In any case, quit judging people.

Wibbs

Hookah wrote: »

Except we have effective and efficient birth control available now, which belies the conditions on which our previous emotional insecurities and moral values were based.

Tell your monkey brain that. Such technology hasn't been around long enough for our biology to catch up with it.

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

The free-love communities of 19th century American collapsed from sexual jealousy, a pattern consistently repeated around the world. Free love proponents ( not talking about Winsock, btw) are playing with fire, but are too myopic and self-absorbed and too interested in immediate gratification to realise it.

True enough.

And it's not just men who will be tut tuting; if anything, we have far less reason to complain than women:

In a big way. Actually IMHO the sexual revolution did way more for men than women. In fact I'd say it wasn't so great for women at all. They're damned if they do and are damned if they dont. Well it was great for some men. The ones getting the action as it were. They can have so much more consequence free sex than before. Shotgun weddings aren't exactly common these days. Of course this means many more women "holding the baby". And men who two generations ago would expect to meet and marry someone have a lot less choice.

Procasinator

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Jealousy is universal, innate, ineradicable, and dangerous.

Even if jealousy is an universal, innate and ineradicable, that does not mean it is dangerous.

Like any emotion, jealously can differ between people. Jealously has seen to be different in different cultures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy_sociology).

The immutable nature does not mean overreaction is the most likely circumstance.

Kind of like saying if you go into a bar and knock over someone drink: anything from nothing to getting killed could happen.

Likewise, few would view girls in Ireland who have engaged in 1-2 one night stands as sluts, whereas a girl doing that in some regions (like say a staunch Muslim area) might.

Culture changes, and a definition of a slut is not universal and is ever-changing.

Hookah

Wibbs wrote: »

Tell your monkey brain that. Such technology hasn't been around long enough for our biology to catch up with it.

I know we're not going to undo millions of years of evolution overnight, but we should all make a concerted effort to try.

gargleblaster

What a sad attempt at making slut-shaming seem "OK".

"Instead, consider not being such a whore."

Showed your ass there a bit, didn't you OP?

Someone has some issues.

Wibbs

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Point I'm trying to make is, screw "society". We live in a free country - you don't have to answer to ANYONE about your personal decisions. Unless you're hurting somebody else against their will, you're doing nothing wrong in my view and you should tell the haters to go f*ck themselves.

Eh no, we don't live in anything approaching a free society. That's an incredibly naive view. Its far more complex than that. Oh sure do what thou wilt, but don't be shocked if the "free society" judges you on it.

And if anyone insults you about having too many partners, just say "Go f*ck yourselves because clearly that's all you can get" or something. I honestly can't see any real explanation for that kind of judgmental crap than jealousy, so you'd almost certainly be right in making that statement.

Not always. EG I would be dubious about getting long term involved with someone who never had a long term relationship and went from one guy to the next without a gap. Chances are I'd just be another step on the ladder. I'd be similar about someone with a load of partners. Past behaviour tends to inform future behaviour.

Also can we please lose the gender role crap. All that lock / master key crap makes a lot of assumptions which are purely based on tradition and nothing else. Has it ever crossed your mind that free thinking individuals simply don't want, nor have any obligation, to tow the old lines?

Have you even read the link and or the possible explanations why this gender difference may have some validity?

Little Acorn

I think people can do whatever they want alright but it's known in society that these labels are used...whether they agree with them or not. I think the debate going on here is why when the labels are being used it's a possible double standard/why it's not a double standard.

Yes, that it what the debate is about. I slightly derailed it abit there awhile ago.

I'm well aware that society does deem girls who sleep with lots of people as "sluts". All through growing up in this society girls are taught that.

As a teenage girl I was labelled a "frigid" or "pricktease" because I wouldn't do anything sexual with fellas. Some of my friends were labelled sluts for being more adventurous than me.
You were either a slut or a frigid, no in between.
I remember at one stage thinking, "hate being called a frigid, but jeez the poor girl's who get labelled "sluts" have it much worse!"
I have seen and been a victim of girls who when older made up lies and rumors about other girls to label them sluts, and it's very fcking nasty.

I met my boyfriend aged 17, and have stayed with him to this day, so I never have to put up with any of these "slut" comments as I've only ever been with the one guy for almost 7 years.
HOWEVER, just because I don't experience it myself, doesn't mean I just accept that kind of treatment of other women, some of whom I am friendly with. It does just seem ridiculously unfair to me.
If I hadn't met my boyfriend so young, I don't know if I would have by now had more sexual partners.
Maybe I would have, maybe I wouldn't have, but I hate to think that I would be getting called the same names if I ever had.
So whilst some girls my age might get labelled sluts, I could just as easily be labelled "boring" or unadventurous for only ever being with one man.
It seems you can't escape criticism either way.
Why can't everyone just let people be?


I read the biological reasons behind it, but I don't know if I would put a huge amount of stock in them.
Maybe some of it is true, but there are "biological reasons" used to explain alot these days, such as cheating and what is found attractive etc.
Whilst there might be some elements of truth to these things, there are also always people who defy these biological "rules".
Such as men that don't cheat, people who don't find the stereotypes attractive, and also I believe men who DON'T judge a woman with double standards about the number of people she has slept with.
As Windsock said, there are paternity tests and such available now, so there should be no need for this "cuckholdry" thing.
If some men don't hold these judgments, then I find it hard to believe that it is set in stone as being biological nature, or else ALL men would feel the same about it.