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.
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.
And it's not just men who will be tut tuting; if anything, we have far less reason to complain than women:
MonkeyBalls wrote: » Jealousy is universal, innate, ineradicable, and dangerous.
WindSock wrote: » thankfully we are conscious beings and not just animals
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
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.
WindSock wrote: » Feminists. OP, what are your thoughts on homosexuality?
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.
Little Acorn wrote: » Is there an insulting term for women who support equality issues for men?
Chaotic_Forces wrote: » Stud = master key Slut = lock opened by all keys And so on. Also, inb4thelock.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Would the slut/stud namecalling be different? I definitely think so. Cuckolding someone is in my opinion as bad as murder.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Sorry I'm not getting this example?
Dudess wrote: » I agree there isn't any need for "Men are xyz" comments to be fair.
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?
If you hand around with accountants the women just won't be attracted to the guys who are having the most sex.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f239a1f592c9d35e22a8975f7c3f8848.svg)
