Sluts/slappers/whores/homewreckers

If a single woman sleeps with a man she knows is married or in a relationship with someone else she is wrong.
If a man who is married or in a relationship sleeps with a single woman he is wrong.
If a single man sleeps with a woman he knows is married or in a relationship with someone else he is wrong.
If a woman who is married or in a relationship sleeps with a single man she is wrong.
If two people who are in a committed relationship/ marriage sleep with someone else then they are wrong.


Its all wrong, as the single person you should respect that fact that they are off limits. As a married person/ person in committed relationship if you want to sleep around end the relationship, othewise its cheating and that makes you a scumbag whether you are male or female.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I find the idea that a man can not pass up sex on a plate even when he is in a committed relationship to be insulting.

I agree. This idea that "ah sure he's only a man" is a joke. In fact it irritates the bejesus out of me that people assume I can't control myself when in a relationship.

Moonbaby wrote: »

I don't think we have historically had that double standard in Ireland.
I think we have imported it via pop-culture.

And yet all those times young girls were raped by uncles, cousins etc and were found to be pregnant they were seen as the wrong doer, they were sent off the lovely Laundries to live out their lives in hell while the men got away scott free.
The double standard for women and men knows no cultural boundry and is to be found the world ove. It is wrong and the more women blame other women for affairs etc (as happened with Victoria Beckham and the "alleged" Loos affair) the longer this standard will be perpetutated.
Cheating is cheating and it is wrong no matter your gender.

FX Meister wrote: »

It's quite simple, why can't you see it? She's a celebrity, he's a nobody. If the editor has a choice of putting either him or her on the cover and demonising them which do you think will sell more copies?

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that when David Beckham got his rocks off with Rebecca Loos, she was the whore of Babylon, he didn't get a fraction of the abuse. And yet she was a nobody, he was one of the most famous people in the world. Even Balthazar Getty is a lot more high profile than Rebecca Loos was before she was revealed to be Beckham's other woman.

GinnyJo wrote: »

Well Loos did go to the tabloid papers about it, and built a so called career on the affair.
Thats why I'd call her scum.

I think very little of anyone who does a "kiss and tell". Clearly they are doing it for the money and 15 seconds of fame and nothing else no matter what they say.
However, while Loos told her story and got her "career" (fondling a pig must be so rewarding a career path), it was both women involved i.e. Loos and Victoria Beckham who came in for most of the flak. VB was criticised for trying to pursue her career and so stayed in the UK and Loos was branded a scarlet woman. David Beckham, the one who was married, the one who took vows to his wife, the one who promised to foresake all others, the one who had children and an entire family at risk from his desire to get his leg over, got away with everything.

Dudess wrote: »

Nobody's disputing that. When was that level of vitriol directed at Beckham though?[/QUOTE]

Never, because oddly enough even though he sounds like a 12 year old boy whose voice has yet to break and acts like a dog in heat, people seem to think he is best thing ever and above criticism. They also seem to be of the opinion that his wife (and I am by no means a fan of either Beckham) should have never considered her own career and desires in the way but simply been happy to be Mrs David Beckham and followed him wherever he went. Given that she was so so selfish and tried to do something she wanted, what else could she expect but a little dalliance, after all David is a man (reportedly) and men have their needs..........

That Sienna Miller bird is a total fox, though.

It's only right and proper that yer man gets a bit of kudos for nailing her. If it was me, I'd expect some serious backslapping from me mates and the media

kizzyr wrote: »

If a single woman sleeps with a man she knows is married or in a relationship with someone else she is wrong.
If a man who is married or in a relationship sleeps with a single woman he is wrong.
If a single man sleeps with a woman he knows is married or in a relationship with someone else he is wrong.
If a woman who is married or in a relationship sleeps with a single man she is wrong.
If two people who are in a committed relationship/ marriage sleep with someone else then they are wrong.

What about people who are both married(ie individual marriages) who have an affair together??? That is also quite bizarre!!!...and wrong of course.....

It looks like Panda's point is being reinforced at various points on this thread. The focus is still moreso on Sienna Miller than the married father-of-four who cheated on his wife. It takes two to tango and all that...

kizzyr wrote: »

And yet all those times young girls were raped by uncles, cousins etc and were found to be pregnant they were seen as the wrong doer, they were sent off the lovely Laundries to live out their lives in hell while the men got away scott free.
The double standard for women and men knows no cultural boundry and is to be found the world ove. It is wrong and the more women blame other women for affairs etc (as happened with Victoria Beckham and the "alleged" Loos affair) the longer this standard will be perpetutated.
Cheating is cheating and it is wrong no matter your gender.

Rape is a lot different than a woman choosing to sleep with and seducing whomever she likes. I see your point though about the witch-hunting.

But we have to ask ourselves why do women persecute other women when it comes to sex. Is it because we know how easy it is to get it without barely even trying?

We have only one empowerment over men. That is our sex. If we abuse this power then should we be scorned?

Most of the really bad press I've read related to Sienna's affair was in response to these set of photos, which were taken and published a week or so after the original set:

http://yeeeah.com/2008/07/21/sienna-stabs-balthazars-wife-in-the-heart-metaphorically-speaking/

I think the medias take on it is that you'd expect any woman who'd been photographed fcuking around with another woman’s husband to keep the affair on the down-low after that, but apparently that's not Sienna's style. Rather than keeping the affair out of the limelight the pair of them stripped off and gave the photographers another eye-full, and this was all after it had been widely reported in the media that Mr Getty's wife had fled to Italy with her four children to protect them from the media storm! :eek:

Obviously there are two people in those photos and personally I feel they're each as big a cnut as the other. I think the reason the woman in a situation like this gets the brunt of the abuse is because there is an expectation (however unrealistic) that a woman would have some sense of compassion or sympathy for the hurt she was causing, and I think it's jarring for a lot of people to see photos of a woman who so blatantly couldn’t give a fuk.

Silverfish wrote: »

You're quite the catch.

Cheers doll. Drop me a PM later

:P

Dudess wrote: »

From the link seahorse posted up:

LOL
This is the other side of it - "used" and "abused"? She looks very much in control to me! And I hope my bod looks like that when I'm in my mid 40s!

Yeah Dudess, lol, people say some crazy things on the internet! Did you read this one:

"True, but guys can’t be sluts. Four ****ing kids? That dude’s wife is also a slut!"

Jaysus! LOL!! :eek:

Somebody mentioned why men are more likely to get iffy is someone is chatting up their girlfriend, when the common consensus seems to be that men are more likely to play away. First off, I hate dealing in generalities, some folk are very secure, male or female but I guess blokes do tend to get a bit more tetchy when they see their lass chatted up.

For me, it all goes back to hardwiring. People give themselves far too much credit for intelligent thought and modern social dynamics when the simple fact is it's been the blink of eye since we came down from the tree's in the grand scheme of things.

The simple fact is, back when it was cool for me to club you and drag you back to me cave ( and in those days you would most likely have loved it, strong dominant male, provider of food, protection, shelter and young ) I would also have been allowed to lamp the crap out of any other male who tried to interfere.

I have a female you want,
I have the best cave,
I catch the best food,
I am the dominant male………………

Back in the day these were all easily established and it was even easier to keep order. You want something I have? Then fight me for it? Can't win the fight? The get back to the bottom of the ladder you Beta.

These desires and instincts have not left us for all that long. I hate this idea that we are something else now because we walk and talk, wrap ourselves in shiney custom built environments and have figured out the 1 and 0's that we have advanced. We haven't, all the old traits are still there and will be for a very long time.

The soundest blokes I know, the most secure, the guys who REALLY get talked up by their girlfriends…..they have just learned to accept the voice that is there and to ignore it.

Not all people have.

And likewise it is the same for women. The hardwiring to get what you want can often override what is seen as socially acceptable.

panda100 wrote: »

The whole caveman thing just doesnt wash with me.How can humans have evolved so much that we have concordes,internet and cures for previously incurable diseases yet we havent been able to evolve past basic 'animal instincts'. How comes when it comes to everything else in life we have fully evolved past our caveman ancestors but when it comes to sex we are still in 600 bc?

Because for a very long time sex was the only goal. We are expecting ingrained wiring from hundreds of thousands of years to be overtaken by technological, social and economic advances from the last 100 years or so.

Go back 300 hundred years and where was mankind? Another 200? Getting pretty close to our tree dwelling ancestors i think.

Also, how have we fully evolved? This is an argument i don't hold with. Don't confuse evolution and complication. We haven't evolved, we have complicated and become more intelligent. We have yet to see if this change has been in line with our continued survival. At the moment it is too soon to tell.

Cavemen had a great system, housing was easy, food was sorted and social and political problems easily solved.:)

There is, but It is something that is discouraged in society because our capitalist society relys on male and institutional dominance. Society is designed artifically to pit generations of women against each other. Can you imagine what women could achieve if we were a united force? We would get paid and recognised for all the work we do in the home,proper parental leave,reproductive choice, fair compensation, an end to the beauty myth where profiteering companies make billions making us feel bad about how we look, proper child care programs,genuine penalties against sexual violence etc etc. Women achieveing this sort of liberation would turn society on its head so the divisivness of female kind is key to the smooth running of capitalism.

Why do women need to do what men have never done in order to succeed? I'm very sorry, but there is no combined force of males. It's dog eat dog and **** his wife.

Now i'm not being smart here Panda, i met you at the beers in D2. You're a smart girl, good looking. You were well dressed, had the make up on, nice shoes on and well spoken from our brief conversation ( please not i only mention the style of dress and make up because you seem to have issue with the idea of people feeling they should wear make up, or the image of the made up woman). I have a lot of time for your posting based off our brief chat and what i have seen you post in the past but the idea of female solidarity solving everything that is wrong with society is a myth, a phantom. Plain and simple.

And the reason is simple and something that makes me smile everytime. Hows about a bit of solidarity and getting together between all of us?

Or will i be excluded from this new and amazing society because i am a man? Will the sins of those who have gone before me be enough to brand me a danger?

Because that seems to be the way your post is going. It's not about fixing anything, it's about fixing the problems you SEE because you are female.

A put upon and troubled male will see a very different set of problems and you will fix nothing until you include him.

In short, you are WAY to clever to be reaming out all this conspiracy theory and "girls can fix the world" rubbish. You can't, you really can't.

Even with all our supposed advantages if every bloke in the world decided to be a decent chap in the morning we couldn't fix the world.

Not until we talk to you folk.

But as this thread shows its the tempting women that will get the brunt of the blame. This whole Idea that womens beauty and charm is an irrisistable force that turns even the most powerful men into putty in our hands is ridiculous. However this view of women as the temptress is deeply embedded into our culture and history.
Take for example the supposed history of creation in Genesis.Many believed,and still do,That God created man and then women(Eve) from Adams rib but then Eve,the wicked temptress, lured Adam,the sin-free man, to eat the apple of sin. While it may seem like a silly old story there is no doubt that the story of creation,something many of us were taught at a young age, has a stong cultural effect.

And many other religions place a strong emphasis and importance on the female role in life, living and creation.

Not everyone in the world goes through the doors of Catholic schools and yet these issues you speak of are world wide.

The whole idea that women are some how pure and innocent and uncorruptable is annoying to me. Women are people, and people are greedy and selfish and mean.

They can also be loving and caring and selfless.

I have discovered that someones gender has **** all to do with what they are like as a person myself.