nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

[Deleted User]

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

<<Snip>>

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Eric Cartman

i dont care, either way I like sluts

Anywhoodle

Eh, I didn't get around to reading the whole blog post or the whole thread.. Sorry if this has been covered, but OP- how did you get from deeply engrained anti-cuckolding mechanisms etc. etc. etc. to:

"The different connotations of "slut and "stud" are justified."

Even if you have explained the 'deep-rooted' reasons for this phenomenon (open to debate obviously), you certainly haven't shown it to be justified in modern conditions. From what I've read of your post, you seem to be invoking all kinds of out-dated rationales for us women needing to keep our legs crossed.. The arguments based on economic-resources etc. really jumped out at me as being total relics... I mean what relevance do these stereotypical notions have nowadays?:

When a man (the competitive, resource-accruing sex) marries a woman (the choosy sex), he invests his resources heavily in her. Working hard to accrue these resources, he diverts much of them into feeding, protecting, teaching and raising his kids, and he trusts that these kids aren't a product of another man's load spurted into his wife.

Shockingly enough, women are not totally reliant on the support of hunter-gatherer mates anymore.. Women can actually accrue resources themselves now, support themselves, support their kids.. In fact, women are known to marry guys who earn less than them or who earn nothing at all and actually take a lot of supporting (welcome to recession-land where lots of young guys are dole-marooned..) This paternalistic idea that men invest resources in their care-giving wife and dependent kids is no longer an automatic societal state-of-affairs. Marriage isn't even viewed as a pre-requisite for reproduction anymore.. You're trying to extrapolate past social customs into the present and it's a bad fit..

Plus, the risk of men being duped into providing for someone else's kid are negligible nowadays.. Obviously, paternity tests will protect their interests. Equally importantly, women don't have the same incentive to string along a cuckolded guy nowadays.. Firstly, they can avoid pregnancy more easily through contraception or obviously they can abort the extra-marital pregnancy.. If they decide to have the child, they're not under the same pressure to hang onto their unwitting partner. The reasons are pretty obvious- a) women can accrue resources nowadays, b) they're entitled to child support from the bio-father which eases the burden, and c) there's always lone parent allowance etc. In the past, losing the guy you've cuckolded presented major economic problems.. Not today. In modern terms, cuckolding isn't a convincing justification for what you're trying to legitimate. It's 2011- where's the cultural necessity?

Now flip it around: imagine a stud cheats on his wife by having a quick, thoughtless five-minute romp with a random girl he met at a bar. He cannot come back with a child and foist it off as his wife's. He cannot destroy her genetic raison d'être.

Again, you've failed to take into account modern realities.. To follow your theory, the woman chooses this guy because he seems like he'll be a great provider for her precious sprog-to-be.. On the sly, he goes off and reproduces with a bunch of randomers.. Suddenly, he's getting caught for major maintenance for his 5 love-kids and crucially, there are less resources for the marital kid. Worse still, these love-kids might even have a good chance of taking a fair chunk out of his estate (after his wife murders him for being a super-rat).. Your notion that there's a comparative lack of consequences for male infidelity doesn't stack up in present times. In terms of the resources available to the marital kid, it can have a huge impact. By your logic, that's a major betrayal of the woman who selected this bloke in order to ensure that her child was well-provided for..

The studies reveal (along with the experiences of people who interact with humans) that, in sharp contrast to "studs", sluts tend to have low self-esteem and to be emotional wrecks. And women with high self-esteem tend to pursue long-term committed relationships.

This is not a coincidence.

It might not be a coincidence (if true... it sounds like a terribly essentialist argument to me), but there's no reason to believe that this 'emotional wreckage' stems from the 'biological realities' that you're pinning your argument on. Maybe some women feel like this because of the imprinted cultural and social pressures that you write off as 'symptoms' in your intro? A sense of guilt that takes hold because of social expectations?

Oh yeah, one other point I picked out... You say guys are admired as studs for screwing around? Maybe by other men they are. IMO most women don't look favourably on bed-hopping guys. Why would we? According to your theory, we like to feel highly valued.. A philandering guy isn't likely to fulfil that need as he lacks the necessary capacity for commitment. You say men consciously or unconsciously expect a previously promiscuous woman to cheat on them? Surely, women would have the same internal concerns about guys with a highly promiscuous track record? After all, according to your cultural theory, women wouldn't want the guy who's likely to abandon them and their child? Bad providers and all that? They'll just hit and run..

One more thing.. You saying that sluts and studs will "never" be the same thing is a ridiculously presentist claim. You're taking past cultural norms and setting them in stone without considering the huge changes that have already taken place. Roll back the centuries- there was a time when women who weren't virgins didn't have a hope in hell of getting married! What even qualifies as 'promiscuity' in women nowadays is a far cry from what it was a few decades back. Women are becoming more sexually outgoing as time goes on and what's culturally 'normal' has certainly undergone a seismic shift. Choosiness based on past sexual experience might even be a luxury that guys and girls won't really have in the future.. The whole concept of 'promiscuity' is losing its meaning. The stigma obviously isn't what it used to be..

Raekwon

Poor Craythur wrote: »

Do you feel women are more honest in relationships?

That is an impressive size can of worms that you just opened there Poor Craythur

In my experience, I'd agree with Wibbs and say that gender has absolutely nothing to do with honestly within a relationship. In saying that men are usually terrible liars and are usually very sloppy when it comes to remembering the key components of their lies such as times and dates hence they usually get caught out eventually, even though at the time they think they are giving James Bond a run for his money

*Women on the other hand are masterful at hiding their deceit, they have memories that would make Elephants jealous and even if they get caught out lying, they have an uncanny knack of getting themselves off the hook and reversing the doubt that their partners had in them.

For the record I don't condone dishonestly within relationships as it can undermined the total foundation on which relationships are built on, but I can't help but admire the way some women can turn situations around in their favour without even breaking sweat, even if it's to my distinct disadvantage (been there and have that t-shirt!).

*I'm not saying all women are deceitful because that would be completely untrue, I'm just using that example as a comparison

Dudess

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

There are some excellent posters in here, such as Outlaw Pete, Wibbs (when not joking around), Procrastinator, et al

If they posted in the exact same style but completely disagreed with you, you wouldn't be saying they were excellent posters. I don't see how Wibbs is joking around either - unless the bits where he disagrees with you constitute "joking around"?

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).

Whatever you say is one thing - and you've obviously done some work, but explain the purpose of the language you used, which does have a misogynistic flavour? Could you not have presented your argument without it?

some of you are flinging around screeching ad homs because I dared to suggest that profligate sexual wandoness is not always a good thing.

Could you clarify those ad homs and the projecting you referred to previously? Posts merely disagreeing with you and being able to back up why don't count. It's like you were anticipating an enraged response from women and you didn't get it so you're trying to engineer it. Lots of people argued back in a perfectly reasonable way so you're gonna have to be specific about these instances of you being harangued. There was one from a poster who most certainly doesn't speak for all women - who else?

Some of you need to grow up

Like whom? Not being able to handle a woman having multiple partners is hardly grown up.

You don't have to be a fuddy duddy to point out that the lifestyle choice of sluttiness comes with costs

No you don't - but you can do so without resorting to the language you used, and without resorting to being a hypocrite who still has sex with them and doesn't think there's anything wrong with that sh1tty, horrible attitude.

People these days want to have their cake and eat it.

A lot like guys who look down on promiscuous women yet still have sex with them.

It's difficult for many to accept, but a lot of women really like sex with lots of different men - I'd agree they should be discreet about it (but then again I think anyone should be discreet about their sexual conquests, as it's boring to listen to people blab on about it) but I don't agree they should deprive themselves.

WindSock

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

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.

Of course sexual jealousy is dangerous. It is very dangerous. It is the cause of many problems today and in the past. So much so that societies are organised around it to keep people in their places.

If you look at the Islamic model for example, it is based on the biological assumption you have in your blog. According to the Koran, men can marry up to 4 women if he can share his wealth equally among them. This is to ensure the children he has are his. Any woman caught deviating outside the marriage and her partner will get stoned to death.

The problem is, you can't keep a tight hold on people because of biological assumptions. People like sex. The tighter the constrains, the worse the consequences. Respect and honesty cannot be forced from people. It is something they have be aware of themselves, and there will always be cheaters if people expect their partner have those values out of fear of being labelled, instead of understanding why they feel they need to cheat in the first place.

Anyway, that is in regards to a 'slut' in a relationship. However you said you believe one is a woman who has had on average 2 sexual encounters per year in her mid 20's, regardless of being in one at all.

SirenX

Interesting read

Tbh I have absolutely no respect for man-whor.es and wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole no matter how good looking or good in bed.

PK2008

Great read, thanks for further diminishing my faith in human kind

Poor Craythur

Raekwon wrote: »

That is an impressive size can of worms that you just opened there Poor Craythur

In my experience, I'd agree with Wibbs and say that gender has absolutely nothing to do with honestly within a relationship. In saying that men are usually terrible liars and are usually very sloppy when it comes to remembering the key components of their lies such as times and dates hence they usually get caught out eventually, even though at the time they think they are giving James Bond a run for his money

*Women on the other hand are masterful at hiding their deceit, they have memories that would make Elephants jealous and even if they get caught out lying, they have an uncanny knack of getting themselves off the hook and reversing the doubt that their partners had in them.

For the record I don't condone dishonestly within relationships as it can undermined the total foundation on which relationships are built on, but I can't help but admire the way some women can turn situations around in their favour without even breaking sweat, even if it's to my distinct disadvantage (been there and have that t-shirt!).

*I'm not saying all women are deceitful because that would be completely untrue, I'm just using that example as a comparison

It was a genuine question!

I've never been in a long-term relationship, they drive me nuts, so I really haven't a clue. It wasn't supposed to be accusatory, I was genuinely interested!

I agree though, you can't have a relationship without trust. It's a cliché but sometimes clichés exist for a good reason.

OutlawPete

WindSock wrote: »

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.

Did you even read the OP?

'White Kinighting' is IN the article being discussed (Sluts versus Studs: The Definitive Guide):

As mentioned, there are men who rail against slut shaming; these are usually suck-up orbiter white knights, or, worse, crypto-misogynists (after some probing: "all women are sluts and merely masturbation aids"). And beggars can't be choosers; men of poor mate value who will take what they can and settle with a slut will rationalise it away through a loud and sanctimonious show of nonjudgementalism.

WindSock

OutlawPete wrote: »

Did you even read the OP?

'White Kinighting' is IN the article being discussed (Sluts versus Studs: The Definitive Guide):

I did yeah, pained. But that is a seperate discussion all by itself, not much to do with the one in this thread.

K-9

White knight is like calling somebody a misogynist.

It's the internet and I find balanced posters tend not to throw the terms around. Both are slurs, white knight is a relatively new one on me, akin to racist, feminist or misogynist slurs.

I think society has moved on a hell of a lot in the last 30/40 years, so much that a hell of a lot of people are finding it hard to adapt, of many political, social, religious and gender views and this piece, though well intentioned, is a good example of it.

Poor Craythur

K-9 wrote: »

White knight is like calling somebody a misogynist.

It's the internet and I find balanced posters tend not to throw the terms around. Both are slurs, white knight is a relatively new one on me, akin to racist, feminist or misogynist slurs.

I think society has moved on a hell of a lot in the last 30/40 years, so much that a hell of a lot of people are finding it hard to adapt, of many political, social, religious and gender views and this piece, though well intentioned, is a good example of it.

+1, especially the bolded bit.

Earthhorse

WindSock wrote: »

People like sex. The tighter the constrains, the worse the consequences.

You're doing it wrong.

Dr Bolouswki

I'm wondering - does all this quasi-rationale, cod-sociology apply if say, for instance, you're not a cúnt?

K-9

I hate equality for the sake of equality, I find extremists of both genders have over taken that principle to the extent that it has to be equality, at all costs.

On the other side, men and women are just different, it has been proven down through ancient histories (all hail the Incas etc. etc.) and said that's just the way it is.

Both aren't right IMO and both make good points and society has shown that yes, things can change for the better reversing traditional stereotypes and rolls. The world doesn't end.

The article makes good points but it's from a bias and yes, who isn't? Wibbs made the point that it seems very PUA and it seems to come from that school of thought.

There's a few categories in the equality debates. Men who want sexual equality so long as it benefits their particular brand of equality and sexual desires, women the same.

Some men like ONS's and Nuts magazines, some don't. Some women love the sexualisation of men and use it.

I think the majority of men and women don't fit in those categories and are wondering, wtf is this all about?

Scanlas The 2nd

I'd agree with about 70% of the article. I don't believe women deserve to be looked down upon because they enjoy numerous sexual partners. I just don't believe there is such a high correlation with low self esteem and promiscuity in women. I think some people would like to believe that though to justify being condemning of promiscuous women, when the reality is they don't like it because it makes them feel insecure. There is evidence to suggest that women have evolved to sleep with numerous dominant men during estrus to allow for sperm competition inside them.

This may be a tad off the wall and way off, but I've heard the theory that men orgasm faster and fall asleep and get tired afterwards, which allows women to go have sex with numerous men to bring on sperm competition inside her. It generally takes women longer to orgasm which would mean she could have sex with numerous men until she orgasms.

Earthhorse

I've acquired the movie rights to this thread. Working title: "Citation Needed".

[Deleted User]

Dr Bolouswki wrote: »

I'm wondering - does all this quasi-rationale, cod-sociology apply if say, for instance, you're not a cúnt?

Oh this guy just Cut. Me. Dowwwnnn.

Christ, the internet is full of effete little twats.

(And the thumbs up underneath that post reveal who's butthurt.)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading some of the responses, the intelligent input. I can be reached at my blog for citations, input, etc. I edited some of my post based on some insightful comments here. For example, I changed my advice to "not act like a whore" (if you don't want to be called a slut) to "don't pounce on every cock in sight", if you don't want to be called a slut. That's how life works. Tradeoffs, costs, consequences. Goodnight, you princes of Maine. You kings of New England

Dudess

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Christ, the internet is full of effete little twats.

Effete... how?

(And the thumbs up underneath that post reveal who's butthurt.)

Nah they just agree that there's no need to act the cunt.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading some of the responses, the intelligent input.

Meaning the stuff agreeing with you.
Any commentary on the other feedback? Or will you only pick what's easy to answer and that you can accompany with an insult?

For example, I changed my advice to "not act like a whore" (if you don't want to be called a slut) to "don't pounce on every cock in sight", if you don't want to be called a slut.

I don't think I've ever heard an intelligent person use obnoxious language like that about people, unless messing.

Poor Craythur

Smug OP is smug.

theofficepest2

clearly this article pre-dates artificial contraceptives, marriage and the somewhat rational human mind

All men are created equally, the sluts

:pac: ourp

AlmightyCushion

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Oh this guy just Cut. Me. Dowwwnnn.

Christ, the internet is full of effete little twats.

(And the thumbs up underneath that post reveal who's butthurt.)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading some of the responses, the intelligent input. I can be reached at my blog for citations, input, etc. I edited some of my post based on some insightful comments here. For example, I changed my advice to "not act like a whore" (if you don't want to be called a slut) to "don't pounce on every cock in sight", if you don't want to be called a slut. That's how life works. Tradeoffs, costs, consequences. Goodnight, you princes of Maine. You kings of New England

Banned for abuse.

Dudess wrote: »

Or will you only pick what's easy to answer and that you can accompany with an insult?

I don't think I've ever heard an intelligent person use obnoxious language like that about people, unless messing.

Irony if ever I heard it. I know you didn't technically call him an idiot but you're implying it. Do it again and I will ban you. This sneaky dig taking really pisses me off, I actually prefer people who just come out and abuse people, at least they have the balls to do it unlike people who hide behind carefully worded posts.

Dudess

Actually no... he was blathering on non stop about what constitutes "intelligent" posts (i.e. those that agree with him) yet at the same time using really unintelligent language. I was highlighting irony, not calling him an idiot.

Sharpshooter

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

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

<<Snip>>

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.

What you were doing was spamming your blog, OP.

Shame really as there was an interesting discussion going on here if we omit some of your replies.

Hookah wrote: »

That's your own blog?

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I explained that in the blog. In a nutshell: it matters when you're choosing a long term partner.
But I agree generally: who gives a damn what people do in their sexual lives. But that's an opinion you're never going to find among the majority of people.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Original Vagina pic has been removed ..

Apart from where I saved it in my hardrive of course

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Well, I did edit it out before you leaped in like a ninja because I knew someone would unthinkingly whinge.

But so what? If you want a meaningful relationship you should aim for someone with high self-esteem rather than low self-esteem. How controversial!

And yeah, I repeat, sluts are fantastic - and it's a pity most of them are not emotionally healthy.

[my interwebs is playing up, this is my third time to hit send]

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Do you sincerely believe that choosing not to pursue a slut will magically mean she won't get stuffed by other cocks as soon as you've chivalrously said goodnight?

eternal wrote: »

I wasnt going to waste valuable moments reading such inane rubbish ,You can shag who you want ,no ones business.Within reason of course.Did anyone else think that poster looked wrong?

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

eternal = screeching child

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Girls feel used if they don't get a phonecall the next day. It makes them feel trashy.

eternal wrote: »

Could you elaborate ? Im not the one spamming with my own blog which isnt allowed anyway

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

If you read it, you'd see that I explained why your reflexive comment is incorrect and hypocritical. If too lazy, instead ask yourself why "sluttiness" is so damaging to a girl's reputation and you'll find a hint of your answer.

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Oh this guy just Cut. Me. Dowwwnnn.

Christ, the internet is full of effete little twats.

(And the thumbs up underneath that post reveal who's butthurt.)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading some of the responses, the intelligent input. I can be reached at my blog for citations, input, etc. I edited some of my post based on some insightful comments here. For example, I changed my advice to "not act like a whore" (if you don't want to be called a slut) to "don't pounce on every cock in sight", if you don't want to be called a slut. That's how life works. Tradeoffs, costs, consequences. Goodnight, you princes of Maine. You kings of New England

Sharpshooter

OP banned.