Why Are Promiscuous Women Still Treated With Contempt?

Pug160

OK, I should state that I sort of already know the answer to this question already, as do most of us. But why is it still happening in 2013, when we're supposedly sexually liberated? My understanding of this is that some women look down upon promiscuous girls because they think it lowers the overall value of women as a whole. They think women should not give away sex easily or cheaply, that it is something that should only be given away when the man has displayed some sort of virtue, and that even then it shouldn't be done overtly. They want men to earn it, basically.

But then you have some men who also ostracise these women and/or look down upon them. But this seems even more ridiculous coming from men, surely? Fair enough, a lot of men perhaps wouldn't want a future wife or girlfriend to have a reputation or be seen as easy, but why ridicule a person's lifestyle when it is no concern of yours.

In my view, if it weren't for sexually promiscuous women, a lot of men would still be virgins or would have needed to see an escort by now. Yet there are men and women who seem intent on sabotaging this whenever possible.

--Kaiser--

I predict a thread full of rational posts, reasoned responses and no sexism at all

Prodigious

Human nature is to want what we can't have. If Mila Kunis was going round Coppers shagging every man left right and centre, would she be as attractive?

Nodin

Pug160 wrote: »

OK, I should state that I sort of already know the answer to this question already, as do most of us. But why is it still happening in 2013, when we're supposedly sexually liberated? My understanding of this is that some women look down upon promiscuous girls because they think it lowers the overall value of women as a whole. They think women should not give away sex easily or cheaply, that it is something that should only be given away when the man has displayed some sort of virtue, and that even then it shouldn't be done overtly. They want men to earn it, basically.

But then you have some men who also ostracise these women and/or look down upon them. But this seems even more ridiculous coming from men, surely? Fair enough, a lot of men perhaps wouldn't want a future wife or girlfriend to have a reputation or be seen as easy, but why ridicule a person's lifestyle when it is no concern of yours.

In my view, if it weren't for sexually promiscuous women, a lot of men would still be virgins or would have needed to see an escort by now. Yet there are men and women who seem intent on sabotaging this whenever possible.

Humanity has not out-evolved the arsehole stage yet.

Galwayguy35

Pug160 wrote: »

OK, I should state that I sort of already know the answer to this question already, as do most of us. But why is it still happening in 2013, when we're supposedly sexually liberated? My understanding of this is that some women look down upon promiscuous girls because they think it lowers the overall value of women as a whole. They think women should not give away sex easily or cheaply, that it is something that should only be given away when the man has displayed some sort of virtue, and that even then it shouldn't be done overtly. They want men to earn it, basically.

But then you have some men who also ostracise these women and/or look down upon them. But this seems even more ridiculous coming from men, surely? Fair enough, a lot of men perhaps wouldn't want a future wife or girlfriend to have a reputation or be seen as easy, but why ridicule a person's lifestyle when it is no concern of yours.

In my view, if it weren't for sexually promiscuous women, a lot of men would still be virgins or would have needed to see an escort by now. Yet there are men and women who seem intent on sabotaging this whenever possible.

I think you need to get out a bit more.

Lock and key and ANGLE GRINDERS

No wait, forget the angle grinder

Tombi!

AH answer: they're all filthy hoors

Actual answer: women are blamed for pregnancy, the entire thing of "if you dress a certain way, you're more likely to be raped", etc and so on.

Nodin

Prodigious wrote: »

Human nature is to want what we can't have. If Mila Kunis was going round Coppers shagging every man left right and centre, would she be as attractive?

Yep. Bukkake excepted.

keith16

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I predict a thread full of rational posts, reasoned responses and no sexism at all

you sed sex lol1111!

bnt

Because antibiotics are a relatively recent invention?

Phill Ewinn

Smaller words please. This isn't the crosswords forum.

Ilik Urgee

Ilik Urgee likes this thread

--Kaiser--

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Smaller words please. This isn't the crosswords forum.

There's a crossword forum?!? See ya losers

Killer Wench

Why are promiscuous women still treated with contempt? I think it is because a female's vagina is viewed as being the property of some man in her life. Maybe a husband or a boyfriend. If she is a chaste virgin, then it belongs to her father or brother. A woman who has given it away to many men means that no one owns that property so she has no value.

Napper Hawkins

It's none of my business what other people get up to. Live and let live and all that ****e.

That said, a woman who's ridden everyone who smiled in her general direction is someone I wouldn't touch with yours, thanks.

returnNull

Who cares? lets be honest if they didnt have tits and vagina's you wouldnt talk to them.

okedoke

If a man and a woman have sex and the woman finds herself pregnant later she knows for certain the child has 50% of her genes thereby making it worthwhile expending time and resources in raising the child. The man does not, the woman could have had sex with a different man as well as him. Leaving him to spend time and resources bringing up a child without his genes.

This fact as been true for ever since homo sapiens emerged (and before) and provides a pretty good evolutionary explanation for why men are much more concerned about female promiscuity than women are about male promiscuity. This is hardwired into human psychology.

Killer Wench

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

There's a crossword forum?!? See ya losers

Wait... is there really a crossword forum?

*squirts with glee*

Killer Wench

That is so not right! :mad:

Killer Wench

Killer Wench wrote: »

That is so not right! :mad:

Left?
Socialist?
Wrong?

How many letters?!

--Kaiser--

Killer Wench wrote: »

Wait... is there really a crossword forum?

*squirts with glee*

If you find it, can you link it (srs)?

Killer Wench

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

If you find it, can you link it (srs)?

We've been hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Lied to. Misled.

--Kaiser--

Killer Wench wrote: »

We've been hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Lied to. Misled.

Initially somebody looks under thread (4).
:pac:

Legs.Eleven

I judge men who judge. I think they're spas, so it all balances out. That's all I have to say about that.




Edit: and women. I judge them too.

Prodigious

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I judge men who judge. I think they're spas, so it all balances out. That's all I have to say about that.

Nice, Legs.

Killer Wench

ANSHUTMKW
LONFFUPMM
YOUZAAYTC

Legs.Eleven

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I judge men who judge. I think they're spas, so it all balances out. That's all I have to say about that.

Just don't tell them when you're in court

Pug160

Killer Wench wrote: »

Why are promiscuous women still treated with contempt? I think it is because a female's vagina is viewed as being the property of some man in her life. Maybe a husband or a boyfriend. If she is a chaste virgin, then it belongs to her father or brother. A woman who has given it away to many men means that no one owns that property so she has no value.

Now hold on just a second here: let's not entirely blame men for this. From what I gather, women are much more vocal in their contempt for these girls than what men are, presumably for the reasons I gave in my opening post. They do have value, by the way. Enough value to apparently lower women's stock as a whole, because women are generally viewed as the key holders to sex.

darragh16

Where are all these promiscuous women?

darragh16

darragh16 wrote: »

Where are all these promiscuous women?

In irish universities, waiting for rich businessmen

WinnyThePoo

If a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a ****ty lock.

Czarcasm

Killer Wench wrote: »

ANSHUTMKW
LONFFUPMM
YOUZAAYTC

Where's my cake?

Czarcasm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

If a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a ****ty lock.

Or it's just rusty and needs a squirt of 3-in-1 oil - good as new!

Killer Wench

Pug160 wrote: »

Now hold on just a second here: let's not entirely blame men for this. From what I gather, women are much more vocal in their contempt for these girls than what men are, presumably for the reasons I gave in my opening post. They do have value, by the way. Enough value to apparently lower women's stock as a whole, because women are generally viewed as the key holders to sex.

I should say that my previous post is the historical perspective. I totally agree that women have internalized it.

Jimmy 5F

It stems from the agricultural revolution and the new idea at the time that was property.

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=seductive%20reasoning%20101&oq=&gs_l=

I reccomend you watch the above videos. They are entertaining, enlightening, educational and funny. If you don't have time to watch them all I'd recomend to watch part 2.

Legs.Eleven

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

If a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a ****ty lock.

Let's see if I can try one...


A sausage roll with one sausage inside is fine but a sausage roll with lots of sausages inside is tastier. Mmmm. Sausages.

Potatoeman

Pug160 wrote: »

OK, I should state that I sort of already know the answer to this question already, as do most of us. But why is it still happening in 2013, when we're supposedly sexually liberated? My understanding of this is that some women look down upon promiscuous girls because they think it lowers the overall value of women as a whole. They think women should not give away sex easily or cheaply, that it is something that should only be given away when the man has displayed some sort of virtue, and that even then it shouldn't be done overtly. They want men to earn it, basically.

But then you have some men who also ostracise these women and/or look down upon them. But this seems even more ridiculous coming from men, surely? Fair enough, a lot of men perhaps wouldn't want a future wife or girlfriend to have a reputation or be seen as easy, but why ridicule a person's lifestyle when it is no concern of yours.

In my view, if it weren't for sexually promiscuous women, a lot of men would still be virgins or would have needed to see an escort by now. Yet there are men and women who seem intent on sabotaging this whenever possible.

I find it weird that some guys would not date someone they have had a one night stand with. I've gone outwith women I have one night stands with and I think most people havehad one night stands. So you get a weird logic if a woman likes a guy she won't sleep with them but also if she does some guys may not meet her again.

The Backwards Man

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Let's see if I can try one...


A sausage roll with one sausage inside is fine but a sausage roll with lots of sausages inside is tastier. Mmmm. Sausages.

I'm gonna try too. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but if you have a bird in the hand and a bird in the bush you only have two birds instead of three.

NuckingFacker

Killer Wench wrote: »

ANSHUTMKW
LONFFUPMM
YOUZAAYTC

Maybe?

Potatoeman

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

If a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a ****ty lock.

Not if there are orgasms on the other side. :cool:

--Kaiser--

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm gonna try too. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but if you have a bird in the hand and a bird in the bush you only have two birds instead of three.

Never criticise a man til you have walked a mile in his shoes.
Then you'll be a mile away....and you'll have his shoes!

beks101

Prodigious wrote: »

Human nature is to want what we can't have. If Mila Kunis was going round Coppers shagging every man left right and centre, would she be as attractive?

Em, yes. Because she'd still be Mila Kunis

Pug160

okedoke wrote: »

If a man and a woman have sex and the woman finds herself pregnant later she knows for certain the child has 50% of her genes thereby making it worthwhile expending time and resources in raising the child. The man does not, the woman could have had sex with a different man as well as him. Leaving him to spend time and resources bringing up a child without his genes.

This fact as been true for ever since homo sapiens emerged (and before) and provides a pretty good evolutionary explanation for why men are much more concerned about female promiscuity than women are about male promiscuity. This is hardwired into human psychology.

But it seems as though women care a lot about what other women do too. Perhaps even more so than men. Maybe being the key holders to sex empowers some women, and when they see it being given away easily they see their own value reduced. Notice that women who are overtly sexual are often selling something? Selling sex for money or selling themselves to a footballer? In these cases, they are willing to lower their so called value because it benefits them financially to do so.

AudreyHepburn

Having casual relationships and casual sex is one thing but I personally would have no respect for woman, or man, for that matter who throws her/himself at every Tom, Dick and Harry that shows the slightest interest. I think it cheapens you. I see nothing wrong with thinking less of a woman who gives herself to men so easily.

Being intimate with some-one is something you earn, I don't think it's a part of yourself you should throw around lightly. If I am with a man I want him to want all of me, not just a quick ride.

And yes I am aware I'll probably be called a prude and old fashioned for this.

the_syco

I think this is the Crossword forum; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=484

Czarcasm

Pug160 wrote: »

OK, I should state that I sort of already know the answer to this question already, as do most of us. But why is it still happening in 2013, when we're supposedly sexually liberated?

Because society isn't as sexually liberated as you've been led to believe.

My understanding of this is that some women look down upon promiscuous girls because they think it lowers the overall value of women as a whole. They think women should not give away sex easily or cheaply, that it is something that should only be given away when the man has displayed some sort of virtue, and that even then it shouldn't be done overtly. They want men to earn it, basically.

By putting a ring on it? Funnily enough, if you've ever actually listened to her album, she answers her own question as to why some men aren't so keen to "put a ring on it", but you won't hear too many women chanting this down the club -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QczgvUDskk0

Mixed messages or wha'? :pac:

But then you have some men who also ostracise these women and/or look down upon them. But this seems even more ridiculous coming from men, surely?

Some men HAVE dicks, some men ARE dicks.

Fair enough, a lot of men perhaps wouldn't want a future wife or girlfriend to have a reputation or be seen as easy, but why ridicule a person's lifestyle when it is no concern of yours.

See above.

In my view, if it weren't for sexually promiscuous women, a lot of men would still be virgins or would have needed to see an escort by now. Yet there are men and women who seem intent on sabotaging this whenever possible.

Well done Pug, you've just perpetuated the myth and stereotype that some people think "most men think with their dicks".

There's a recurring theme of sexual frustration in your posts Pug tbh, now mind it's just something I've noticed, but as another poster suggested and I concur -

You really do need to get out more and actually TALK to some women, rather than seeing them as brainless walking, talking vaginas.

up for anything

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

If a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a ****ty lock.

Taken from the first chapter of the book, 'Things my Granny said'. A great read in its time.

Potatoeman

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Having casual relationships and casual sex is one thing but I personally would have no respect for woman, or man, for that matter who throws her/himself at every Tom, Dick and Harry that shows the slightest interest. I think it cheapens you. I see nothing wrong with thinking less of a woman who gives herself to men so easily.

Being intimate with some-one is something you earn, I don't think it's a part of yourself you should throw around lightly. If I am with a man I want him to want all of me, not just a quick ride.

And yes I am aware I'll probably be called a prude and old fashioned for this.

Aren't you judging people by your own values. Isn't thatintolerance and no different than judging someone by their race?

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Being intimate with some-one is something you earn, I don't think it's a part of yourself you should throw around lightly. If I am with a man I want him to want all of me, not just a quick ride.

How much are you earning? Apparently there's a good market

IM0

Prodigious wrote: »

Human nature is to want what we can't have. If Mila Kunis was going round Coppers shagging every man left right and centre, would she be as attractive?

5 years ago Id be in that queue like flint, you picked a really bad example btw unless of course you meant now after having her kids...yeah Ill pass

Hownowcow

If "Why" had not been included in the question I would have answered "No".