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

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..

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.

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.