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

Raekwon · 06-04-2011 03:45PM

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.

+1

I've noticed this sort of behaviour quite frequently on boards and it's always blatantly obvious what the posters motives and real intentions are. It also usually only occurs when debates get quite heated between the opposing sexes and the 'whiteknights' come in solely to dissect male posters arguments with their dry wit and bashful humour plus the hopefully add a few more notches on their internet bedpost (ie: make a few female friends). Btw this behaviour is usually encouraged by some female posters who add 'humorous' sexual innuendo to keep these 'whiteknights' fighting in their corner. It's actually more common online then it is in real life situations which pretty much sums up these sort of people perfectly IMO.

WindSock · 06-04-2011 03:46PM

Re: sexual jealousy, I wasn't advocating free love to shag everything in sight, you left out my bit at the end of as long as you are not hurting anyone. That means taking responsability for your decisions.

And re: animals, yeah we are animals of course but we are like no other species in that we have the ability to change social order that is not based on procreation but pleasure.

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 03:47PM

Pwindedd wrote: »

But if it only opens each lock once and occasionally gets rusty it's not that masterful - and if there are many similar keys to chose from, even less so !

I'm both impressed and amused that you attempted to use logic to argue against such obvious nonsense. Somehow I doubt it did any good.

Ectoplasm · 06-04-2011 03:55PM

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

strawman

Actually, what I wrote was a pretty reasonable interpretation of what you said - however if it was not what you meant, why not clarify? I HATE this lazy ass shít which all too often is pulled out to dismiss a point someone doesn't want to discuss or simply to score 'points'.

OP initially, I thought, ok this is using pretty nasty terminology and applying massive generalisations but what he's talking about is actually interesting. Since your first post though, you've been pretty consistent in being quite offensive so now I've no clue whether this is just trolling or not.

Scanlas The 2nd · 06-04-2011 03:57PM

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.

Women should be given custody more often than men because on average they are better child carers than men.

stovelid · 06-04-2011 04:11PM

Raekwon wrote: »

and the whiteknights come in solely to dissect male posters arguments with their dry wit and bashful humour

Golden chance missed to introduce pawn, Queens and Board(s) references to further the (already extended) devious female sexual chess metaphor.

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 04:22PM

So glad I decided to take a peek in here today.

liah wrote: »

When the hell will people grow the hell up and stop using crap like this to justify their hypocritical, judgmental, and frankly, hateful attitudes?

Stop bringing up this "master key" and "men chase, women choose" bull. It doesn't do anything for your argument. In fact, it just makes you look like an asshole. Why?

Because we're freaking human beings. We're not a goddamn lock and we're not a goddamn key. This isn't some game, this isn't some competition - we're people, not your freaking pawns. Sex isn't a "prize." You're not better than someone just because they have sex with you. What the hell even makes you think that? What is so wrong with your ego that you have to come to that conclusion about someone? Who the hell are you to judge why someone has sex simply based on their gender?

You (collective "you" for anyone who thinks of people as sluts yet sleeps with them) spend all this time manipulating us into the sack and then start calling us lesser human beings and "sluts" because of it. Because we enjoy the physical act of sex with you. Do you not understand how hypocritical and ridiculous that is? We have sex for THE EXACT SAME REASONS YOU DO. And YOU slept with US, too! And you call us lesser ("slut," "insecure," "messed up") for it without even a hint of irony, or a thought that if you can apply it to her, she could apply it to you! What the hell does that say about you?

Just freaking THINK about what you're saying. Think about how it makes you feel as a human being, not as a man, not as a woman, but as a person with actual thoughts and emotions. Engage your empathy a little. How it would feel to be objectified, manipulated, seduced and then shamed and branded a slut, all because you had sex? Why would you even want to do that to another human being? Seriously? Why do you enjoy the fact that you have so little consideration for another person? Why do you laud that, why are you proud of that?

Chrissake. I don't care how this comes across. This one's been pent up for a good long time, I don't give a crap how it's received, I won't be coming back to the thread, so don't bother replying to it. Just really, really needed to get that out of my system.

Cop the hell on and drop the judgment. I guarantee you that unless you're not human, you're no bloody angel, so drop the namecalling and take a second or two to actually understand what it is you're saying, and the impact it may have on another person who has thoughts and an ego and feelings just the same as you do. If you still want to say crap like that, and have it in your head that women who have sex just as much as you are somehow "beneath" you (skip the jokes).. well, just stay the hell away from me.

*applause*

It really is pathetic how many logic pretzels must be formed in order for people to justify slut-shaming. The fact is that like you said, we are all humans, and really there is no excuse for it.

It's one thing to examine why the double standard exists. It is quite another to attempt to justify it and declare it rational and fair.

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.

QFT!

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.

Oh no, except for calling them "whores". Oh wait, that's not bad either?

So when men call women sluts and whores, that means they find them charming and lovely?

Go on, pull the other one. (Also, see the OP's other comments in this thread for more ass-revealing comments.)

I just have to say, the cognitive dissonance that this double-standard creates is just mind-boggling. On the men's side... well just in this thread, we've see that sluts are whores and they're pitiful creatures with low self-esteem, but thank god for them! And it's scary and bad that they're such whores because of all those diseases they must surely have, and of course I wouldn't with someone else's... unless she was hot! but I wouldn't care about her...

And on the women's side, how many women might have enjoyed a casual encounter with a willing partner, but denied herself (and him) the pleasure, simply due to worrying about him thinking she was 'easy' or a 'slut'? This is something men don't ever have to worry about, due to that bull**** about master keys. :rolleyes:

Leaving the issues of STDs and cheaters aside, because honestly that's a personal responsibility issue (using condoms, not getting invested in people you don't know well, etc.)... what is the reason to shame women this way? There really is only one.

Yes, biology can tell us why it may have started. Biology also tells us why I should like to have lots of sex with every powerful man who walks through my office. Do I do it? No. That is the luxury our massive brains afford us as human beings. I simply cannot wait for the day when people stop trying to using biology as an excuse not to use theirs.

Hookah · 06-04-2011 04:22PM

stovelid wrote: »

Golden chance missed to introduce pawn, Queens and Board(s) references to further the (already extended) devious female sexual chess metaphor.

It's when you get cornered by a Bishop that it all goes horribly wrong.

Procasinator · 06-04-2011 04:30PM

I'll keep it brief, but say:

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

Yet examples of hyper-sexual celebrities (and at sometimes role models) exist everywhere: Jordan, Kate Perry, Rihanna, Paris Hilton, Brooke Magnanti, ...

Playboy bunnies makes fortunes and celebrities date them.

Fools fall for prostitutes.

It seems being a slut (or at least pretending be) can help you climb to the top of the social ladder, and have a huge influence over a large amount of people.

Your argument, MonkeyBalls, may have elements of truth, but I feel it's a little simplistic.

Dudess · 06-04-2011 04:32PM

EMF2010 wrote: »

OP initially, I thought, ok this is using pretty nasty terminology and applying massive generalisations but what he's talking about is actually interesting. Since your first post though, you've been pretty consistent in being quite offensive

Yeah, unbelievably horrible language being used by the OP, who's also being really patronising when the majority of people are arguing back in a reasonable manner. Perfectly possible for the OP to make his points without the mass insults and the patronising - seems the latter serve no purpose other than to get women worked up, and then the OP can accuse them of being irrational. Thankfully most didn't.

Earthhorse · 06-04-2011 04:35PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Point I'm trying to make is, screw "society".

Wasn't that the problem in the first place?

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 04:58PM

Little Acorn wrote: »

As Windsock said, there are paternity tests and such available now, so there should be no need for this "cuckholdry" thing.

True but like I said our monkey brain hasn't quite caught up yet. Plus imagine the shítstorm asking someone to take such a test? The level of screaming "How dare you"'s coming outa that. Game over right there. Now society could make it mandatory at birth say as part of the health screening process, which would actually even up the biological inequality but I could see a lot of resistance to that.

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.

True, but you could answer that a few ways. One way is that many of these men are simply lying. As a guy what I've heard men admit to other men things their girlfriends/wives would scarcely imagine, never mind believe... That I would say is a fair whack of it. Why? They want to be seen as mature or equal minded or one of these so called whitenights of earlier(yea who makes that crap up

). I have to say it has been my experience that a lot (not all of course) of men who claim not to judge simply arent in a position to judge in the first place.

I dunno I would say there is too much black and white in this crap. Too many men who either have women up on a pedestal or look down on them in the gutter. I've also found that the latter 9 times outa 10 started off in the former group but got burned. Poor dears. Grow a pair, get over it. Personally I see women as I see men, some are very cool, some are twats and the rest are "meh". There are some subtle diffs in the mating game, but that's about it.

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 05:03PM

Wibbs wrote: »

True, but you could answer that a few ways. One way is that many of these men are simply lying. As a guy what I've heard men admit to other men things their girlfriends/wives would scarcely imagine, never mind believe... That I would say is a fair whack of it. Why? They want to be seen as mature or equal minded or one of these so called whitenights of earlier(yea who makes that crap up ). I have to say it has been my experience that a lot (not all of course) of men who claim not to judge simply arent in a position to judge in the first place.

I would love to see some examples of what men lie to their supposed loved ones about. Obviously these men really don't love their wives or girlfriends.

And I would also love to see some responses from men to that, about them either being liars or ... what is the implication there? That they're not in a position to judge? What does that mean exactly?

opinion guy · 06-04-2011 05:12PM

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Are people still confused by this? If so, read this and all will be answered. It's basic biology and basic economics.

http://apesinelysium.blogspot.com/2011/02/sluts-versus-studs-definitive-guide.html

I'm just looking for opinions, not to stir up flame wars or anything like that. We've come to a bizarre zeitgeist where any talk of innate differences between men and women is "sexist". I can assure you, I haven't a sexist bone in my body.

This 'argument' is retarded. It assumes humans are automated sex machines with no choice about whether or not to have sex. Since both men and women do have that choice, this 'argument' is specious at best, thinly disguised misogyny at worst.

professore · 06-04-2011 05:18PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

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...

One question ... deep down did you know this was how it was going to end?

HavingCrack · 06-04-2011 05:28PM

I actually realised something on a night out a while back that is quite interesting regards this thread. I find women (a large majority) find it very hard to empathise/understand whatever with men not being able to chat up and bring home a woman for sex. I knew a few sluts who jsut don't get that it's far easier for them to attract a man than vice versa. It is as if it's jsut beyond their understanding.

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Stud = master key
Slut = lock opened by all keys

Raze_them_all wrote: »

My standard response to this.

If a key opens up any lock it's a master key, If a lock is opened by any key then it's a **** lock

FCUK FCUK FCUK, stop using that stupid, annoying phrase.

Wibbs wrote: »

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

.

I wonder how long it will take our biology to catch up. I simply don't know enough about evolution to say.

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 05:31PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

I would love to see some examples of what men lie to their supposed loved ones about.

Some men. Not all, not even that many. What do they say to other men they wouldn't say to their GF's/wives? Common ones would be complaints about nagging, emotional outbursts, general relationship pressures.

Obviously these men really don't love their wives or girlfriends.

Obviosuly but only if you buy into a black and white fairytale notion of love.

And I would also love to see some responses from men to that, about them either being liars or ... what is the implication there?

Ease back on the black and whitism there Ted. Some men.

That they're not in a position to judge? What does that mean exactly?

I have found men that are less successful in the dating game are often the harshest critics of women. Often blaming them for their lack of success. The "I can't get laid, therefore all women are bitches" types. Now you can find such men who aren't like that and you can find men who are successful equally harsh too, but generally less so.

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 05:36PM

opinion guy wrote: »

This 'argument' is retarded. It assumes humans are automated sex machines with no choice about whether or not to have sex. Since both men and women do have that choice, this 'argument' is specious at best, thinly disguised misogyny at worst.

Actually that's a huge part of this equation. We are biological machines and we are often guided by our crotch, but we can still choose not to follow the directions and do so every day. yes when we choose to follow you can take some broad indications from it, the rest of the time it's PUA psychobabble.

MonkeyBalls · 06-04-2011 05:36PM

There are some excellent posters in here, such as Outlaw Pete, Wibbs (when not joking around), Procrastinator, et al but a lot of you are letting your knee-kerk emotions get the better of your reasoning (anyone who accuses me of misogyny simply hasn't read my post and is jumping to grossly incorrect conclusions).

Some of you have issued objections that I took pains to debunk (such as birth control not removing the underlying emotional adaptions), and some of you are flinging around screeching ad homs because I dared to suggest that profligate sexual wandoness is not always a good thing.

Some of you need to grow up and realise there are costs to your actions. You don't have to be a fuddy duddy to point out that the lifestyle choice of sluttiness comes with costs, and you ignore those costs at your peril. People these days want to have their cake and eat it.

Someone suggested that sexual jealousy is not dangerous - come on now, let's not be silly. It is one of the most potent, dangerous forces on earth. Crimes of passion are not weird abberations in human societies. Promiscuous behaviour (from both genders) has costs, depending on the context: it can tear apart families, cause intense jealousy and violence, spread STDs, ruins marriages, destroy reputations, lead men to raise children who are not their own. The list goes on. I explained why there is a slut/stud double standard and why it is not an arbitrary social standard.

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 05:41PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Some men. Not all, not even that many. What do they say to other men they wouldn't say to their GF's/wives? Common ones would be complaints about nagging, emotional outbursts, general relationship pressures. Obviosuly but only if you buy into a black and white fairytale notion of love.

Hah, well that's hardly the kind of stuff that so-called "white knights" would be arguing about, isn't it? (Nagging, emotional stuff, etc.) Due to the nature of the "white knight" insult, I had expected it to be a little more controversial stuff you were talking about.

And yes of course, I was referring to the same subset of men as you. I didn't therefore see a need to specify that that was the case. Will not make that mistake again.

Ease back on the black and whitism there Ted. Some men. I have found men that are less successful in the dating game are often the harshest critics of women. Often blaming them for their lack of success. The "I can't get laid, therefore all women are bitches" types. Now you can find such men who aren't like that and you can find men who are successful equally harsh too, but generally less so.

Once again due to the subject I had expected more controversial stuff.

Regarding the fairy tale notion of love, however (and not to go too off-topic)... if the topic is what makes a woman a slut or a whore or otherwise deserving of being thought of as 'less than', then yes, I think that people who would hide such thoughts from their OHs would not truly love them. They couldn't. How can you consider yourself to love someone if you hide from them? That's not love. And the other person is also incapable of loving you back, because they don't really know you. Again, this is based on the subjects being hidden being more meaningful than being nagged, or having to deal with emotional outbursts. If I'd known that's the kind of thing you were referring to, I wouldn't have even responded to your comment.

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 05:41PM

I have to say I would subscribe to some of the theories MonkeyBalls represents in this thread and his blog. We as humans do tend to deny our animal nature a lot. We do tend to dress up this nature in magical thinking with a touch of mysticism. I've known very level headed fervent atheists who express a belief in "love at first sight". In a few you can even sniff some "fate" stuff when they're in the full flush of luuurve.

While I dont think its as black and white as MonkeyBalls reckons, we do follow the monkey brain way more than we give it credit for or like to admit to ourselves.

Feeona · 06-04-2011 05:41PM

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

There are some excellent posters in here, such as Outlaw Pete, Wibbs (when not joking around), Procrastinator, et al but a lot of you are letting your knee-kerk emotions get the better of your reasoning (anyone who accuses me of misogyny is simply hasn't read my post and is jumping to grossly incorrect conclusions).

I'd imagine alluding to women simply as objects to have sex with (eg you'd like to empty your balls into a vagina without any regard for outer accoutrements, etc) only serves to cheapen your argument, and give it a misogynistic slant.

Which is a pity because it's an interesting debate

Poor Craythur · 06-04-2011 05:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

What do they say to other men they wouldn't say to their GF's/wives? Common ones would be complaints about nagging, emotional outbursts, general relationship pressures.

They don't admit stuff like that to us?

Huh? What sort of men have I been dallying with then, that come straight out with this stuff.

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 05:44PM

Wibbs wrote: »

While I dont think its as black and white as MonkeyBalls reckons, we do follow the monkey brain way more than we give it credit for or like to admit to ourselves.

True, we are humans and subject to all the failings that that entails.

However, some of us recognize it for what it is and at least attempt to rise above. Others wallow.

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 05:45PM

Poor Craythur wrote: »

They don't admit stuff like that to us? Huh? What sort of men have I been dallying with then, that come straight out with this stuff.

The straightforward, honest kind. Be glad!

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 05:55PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

Hah, well that's hardly the kind of stuff that so-called "white knights" would be arguing about, isn't it? (Nagging, emotional stuff, etc.)

Oh these are the same men who are all publicly "cum by ya sensitive to their female side guys" coming out with this. IE white knights.

And the other person is also incapable of loving you back, because they don't really know you. Again, this is based on the subjects being hidden being more meaningful than being nagged, or having to deal with emotional outbursts.

Trust me when you hear a guy in full flight about how his long term partner is never satisfied and always has some bloody thing to whine about, that's a fairly heavy duty hidden thing. Unless you don't think being a nag is that serious? Or having to deal with regular emotional outbursts like an adult child in your life? It's something I'd like to know about. Or another one I've heard more than once or twice, where a man complains that his wife has knowingly and on purpose gotten pregnant without his input. That's not too nice a hidden thing either. Either way there's a low level resentment going on. Not too healthy. I've heard similar from a good third of the guys I've known in long termers.

Of course other men will the odd time moan about the "other half" but it's pressure release and they do love them. Just as some of my women mates will moan about their blokes. And again they love them.

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 06:00PM

Poor Craythur wrote: »

They don't admit stuff like that to us? Huh? What sort of men have I been dallying with then, that come straight out with this stuff.

It depends on the amount they're telling you. Few people, never mind men are as honest as they claim or even think they are. They usually keep something back(naturally). This goes more in very long termers going on for years, kids, mortgage etc. A lot more to lose on both sides by being "honest". There can be very different pressures in such relationships. Hence I would take little relationship advice from someone whose never gone beyond 3 years in one.

Poor Craythur · 06-04-2011 06:05PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It depends on the amount they're telling you. Few people, never mind men are as honest as they claim or even think they are. They usually keep something back(naturally). This goes more in very long termers going on for years, kids, mortgage etc. A lot more to lose on both sides by being "honest". There can be very different pressures in such relationships. Hence I would take little relationship advice from someone whose never gone beyond 3 years in one.

Do you feel women are more honest in relationships?

Never been a long-term one and am crap at them so haven't a clue myself!

gargleblaster · 06-04-2011 06:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh these are the same men who are all publicly "cum by ya sensitive to their female side guys" coming out with this. IE white knights.

Trust me when you hear a guy in full flight about how his long term partner is never satisfied and always has some bloody thing to whine about, that's a fairly heavy duty hidden thing. Unless you don't think being a nag is that serious? Or having to deal with regular emotional outbursts like an adult child in your life? It's something I'd like to know about. Or another one I've heard more than once or twice, where a man complains that his wife has knowingly and on purpose gotten pregnant without his input. That's not too nice a hidden thing either. Either way there's a low level resentment going on. Not too healthy. I've heard similar from a good third of the guys I've known in long termers.

Of course other men will the odd time moan about the "other half" but it's pressure release and they do love them. Just as some of my women mates will moan about their blokes. And again they love them.

Yes, I was getting the impression you were talking about venting. If the nagging and emotional outbursts are a serious thing and not something they could deal with by venting sessions then that's something to take up with the other half or a marriage counselor.

Still though, those things don't seem to imply that he's hiding part of who he is as a person from her. That's what I found so alarming about your post that I replied to, because I had thought it was more closely related to the topic of this thread.

Wibbs · 06-04-2011 06:28PM

They're hiding a fair bit I'd say. As well as thinking to myself "glad I'm not with yer wan" I'm also thinking "jesus she has no idea he resents her that much".

Poor Craythur wrote:

Do you feel women are more honest in relationships?

IMHO it's not a gender thing. They're more expressive about them within them though. I would say when they do go astray and have affairs they are way better at covering that kinda thing up than men.

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

Comments