"The" double standard

[betamanlet]

There is pretty much only one double standard that currently favors men over women. That is, that a guy who has lots of sex is a stud, and a woman who does, is a slut. But even that is changing. There are plenty of TV shows glorifying female promusicuity, and many women emulating that behavior. But ask, why did that double standard exist in the first place?

 

My theory, is that because for a man, to have sex, is an accomplishment. it's not easy, so if you get something that's difficult for the average person to get, you get praise. For women, sex is incredibly easy to get. It only requires having a pulse (some men don't even require that, google necrophelia) and leaving home. Any woman can get laid any time, any place, so it's not an accomplishment if a woman has sex. it's almost for of an accomplishment if she holds out for a long period of time without sex.

[torranceshipman]

Biology shows us that men have more testosterone which ramps up a sex drive, so thus are more likely theoretically to want to go and find someone to have sex with, and their chemical make up makes them less needy of emotional commitment to actually have sex. Women are made differently in biological terms with less testosterone so theoretically a lower sex drive and more biological need for emotional bonds. This relates directly back to hunter-gatherer perpetuation of the theory (men) and protection of offspring / establishmnt of family unit for protection (female) that was so important in caveman times but isnt so relevant now.

 

That lackof relevance to todays society might be a big part in the balance shift in gender behavior, but also might play a large part in people holding double standards: in some biological way it is still more 'natural' for a man to want to be promiscuous. However this shouldnt be used to crassly generalize, beat girls or guys down for their life choices, and so forth.

 

People should just do whatever they like IMO as long as they stay safe and always respect themselves and others.

[Sam Spade]

My theory, is that because for a man, to have sex, is an accomplishment. it's not easy, so if you get something that's difficult for the average person to get, you get praise. For women, sex is incredibly easy to get. It only requires having a pulse (some men don't even require that, google necrophelia) and leaving home. Any woman can get laid any time, any place, so it's not an accomplishment if a woman has sex. it's almost for of an accomplishment if she holds out for a long period of time without sex.

 

yep, and thus this double standard is perfectly fine in my eyes. Moreover, with the above qualification it is not, in fact, a double standard (since a double standard means differential treatment of the same phenomenon, which it is clearly not)

[betamanlet]

yep, and thus this double standard is perfectly fine in my eyes. Moreover, with the above qualification it is not, in fact, a double standard (since a double standard means differential treatment of the same phenomenon, which it is clearly not)

 

No. The phenomenon is the same, having sex with lots of people. However accomplishing that is much more difficult for men than for women.

[D-Jam]

I think the standard more existed because of the idea of men being hunters and women being gatherers.

 

Men also judge each other on the ability to "conquer", so getting another person (especially a hot female) to consent to sex is an achievement compared to being shot down.

 

For women, they're still being held to the "purity" standard. That we men are supposed to find a "pure" and "good" woman to marry in life. Hence why the more a woman has had sex, the less "pure" many see her. Women more judge one another on how many men desire them, but even moreso on how hot/wealthy/intelligent/successful the man they marry is.

 

So while a man is praised for getting let's say 2 hot models into bed for a night, a woman is praised if she got the handsome/wealthy/powerful man to give up sleeping around with possibly hotter women and settle down with her...like she's more "valuable" because he gave up other women for him.

 

Is the standard vanishing? Yes and no. Depends on what social circles you roll in.

 

I also want to say it's not all rosey for men. I've seen many women who will always look up more to the guy who's nailed 100 women over the guy who maybe only had sex 2 times. Like the guy who got more sex is more a "man".

[angie2443]

I also want to say it's not all rosey for men. I've seen many women who will always look up more to the guy who's nailed 100 women over the guy who maybe only had sex 2 times. Like the guy who got more sex is more a "man".

 

Most women I know and who I have known do not find this an attractive quality in a man.

[betamanlet]

Most women I know and who I have known do not find this an attractive quality in a man.

 

 

But who woul dyou prefer, a guy who has been with 25 women, or a virgin? I'll bet you would prefer the guy with 25 women because :

 

(1) he's experienced

 

(2) other women have been interested in him, so he has a seal of approval

[Kiowa]

A virgin doesn't come into sex thinking he has everything down pat. They are very trainable and eager to learn. They take direction much better than someone who thinks they know every move in the book. They accept their inexperience and want to learn.

[D-Jam]

Most women I know and who I have known do not find this an attractive quality in a man.

 

Maybe 100 was an exaggerated number, but I've seen women in person and even women on message boards speak of how lack of bedroom experience would be a bigger turnoff compared to a guy who's banged too many women.

[betamanlet]

A virgin doesn't come into sex thinking he has everything down pat. They are very trainable and eager to learn. They take direction much better than someone who thinks they know every move in the book. They accept their inexperience and want to learn.

 

 

How many women want to teach and how many women don't want a guy who has the seal of approval from other women? Perhaps if he were 18, but in his late 20s or 30s? Women desire men that other women desire.

[xpaperxcutx]

it's almost for of an accomplishment if she holds out for a long period of time without sex.

 

I have to say I agree with this completely. Being the freak that my friends often know me as, they were actually surprised when I had told them earlier on during the summer I was going celibate. Imagine the surprise on on my male friend's face when I told him so.

 

He's been coercing me to get some ever since. I still haven't budged.

[Rhythmic]

Maybe 100 was an exaggerated number, but I've seen women in person and even women on message boards speak of how lack of bedroom experience would be a bigger turnoff compared to a guy who's banged too many women.

 

 

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t213445/

[xpaperxcutx]

How many women want to teach and how many women don't want a guy who has the seal of approval from other women?

 

 

I think most older, more mature woman wouldn't mind playing with a virgin. The whole subculture of having a boy toy exemplifies that even a women in her mid-40s can get a hot young men to fall in love with her.

 

I also know that those into bdsm aren't worrying about inexperienced fresh meat. In fact they welcome the very idea.

 

It really all comes down to preferences.

[betamanlet]

I have to say I agree with this completely. Being the freak that my friends often know me as, they were actually surprised when I had told them earlier on during the summer I was going celibate. Imagine the surprise on on my male friend's face when I told him so.

 

He's been coercing me to get some ever since. I still haven't budged.

 

 

There's a saying, women have much sex as they want, men as much sex as they can get. For guys like me, we can't get any.. So if I were to get laid, it would be a serious accomplishment. A woman, no accomplishment at all. If I were female, and wanted to have sex tonight, I could go into any bar, and there would be at least one, probably more, that I could just directly ask for sex from, and they would say yes. If a guy tried that, it would never work unless he were rich and famous.

 

It's easy for women to get laid, it's difficult for guys to get laid.

[betamanlet]

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t213445/

 

 

I forwarded that thread to an 38 year old virgin guy, and he said that's one of the most depressing things he's ever read, making him feel even more hopeless. Women desire men that other women desire.

[meerkat stew]

With control comes responsibility. If you have complete control over the amount of something consumed, and consume it every chance you get, you are a glutton. If you never know where your next meal is coming from, and consume every meal you find, you are acting naturally.

[espec10001]

You see, back in the old days, a man would see a pretty female and think "Me want, me get". So he'd get a boner and go over and have his way with her. There was little she could do.

 

Now, modern men can't do that. It's called rape, and it is wrong. Plus, if it were still like that, there would be even MORE people on this planet.

 

You have to essentially 'club' the female and drag her back to your cave. She has to be willing. We can't become animals again or we will wind up in cages. Cages are bad.

[mem11363]

So let me get this right. You are thinking that way back when the fathers females were just sent her into the wilds by themselves for any random male to impregnate.

 

Don't think so.

 

Hunter gatherers were in clans. If you wanted sexual access you either had to have valuable goods (sounds like money) to trade or be willing to kill/murder enough males in that clan to gain access to the females.

 

There have always been three paths to sex/reproduction: being a provider, being a warrior or being a criminal. None of them were ever easy.

 

 

 

You see, back in the old days, a man would see a pretty female and think "Me want, me get". So he'd get a boner and go over and have his way with her. There was little she could do.

 

Now, modern men can't do that. It's called rape, and it is wrong. Plus, if it were still like that, there would be even MORE people on this planet.

 

You have to essentially 'club' the female and drag her back to your cave. She has to be willing. We can't become animals again or we will wind up in cages. Cages are bad.

[betamanlet]

So let me get this right. You are thinking that way back when the fathers females were just sent her into the wilds by themselves for any random male to impregnate.

 

Don't think so.

 

Hunter gatherers were in clans. If you wanted sexual access you either had to have valuable goods (sounds like money) to trade or be willing to kill/murder enough males in that clan to gain access to the females.

 

There have always been three paths to sex/reproduction: being a provider, being a warrior or being a criminal. None of them were ever easy.

 

True, they also had alpha males and competition for women. So men would fight over access to women. It's kinda still why like women like men who are willing to fight over them. it's still ingrained.

[Sam Spade]

You see, back in the old days, a man would see a pretty female and think "Me want, me get". So he'd get a boner and go over and have his way with her. There was little she could do.

 

Now, modern men can't do that. It's called rape, and it is wrong. Plus, if it were still like that, there would be even MORE people on this planet.

 

You have to essentially 'club' the female and drag her back to your cave. She has to be willing. We can't become animals again or we will wind up in cages. Cages are bad.

 

You must have been raised by wolves, or armchair amateur feminists, which is the same thing, really.

[Sam Spade]

With control comes responsibility. If you have complete control over the amount of something consumed, and consume it every chance you get, you are a glutton. If you never know where your next meal is coming from, and consume every meal you find, you are acting naturally.

 

True story. If you don't have to work for something, you can't expect to be respected for it coming to you on a silver platter .

[espec10001]

So let me get this right. You are thinking that way back when the fathers females were just sent her into the wilds by themselves for any random male to impregnate.

 

Don't think so.

 

Hunter gatherers were in clans. If you wanted sexual access you either had to have valuable goods (sounds like money) to trade or be willing to kill/murder enough males in that clan to gain access to the females.

 

There have always been three paths to sex/reproduction: being a provider, being a warrior or being a criminal. None of them were ever easy.

 

OH NO YOU DIDN'T! You just opened up a can o' worms boy! The fathers saw the DAUGHTERS, got a boner, and impregnated her. When the female was being raped over and over by the father, she told her little ones to run away and start their own tribe.

 

Nomads. Get it? They had to travel. And traveling sometimes females would stray. Or get lost. And we ALL know about the teenagers who sneak out at night to be with their lovers when their parents were sleeping.

[sally4sara]

Well I can agree with that statement but if you tell three fat women who can't get off the couch that. They would love to be in the slut position.

 

AHAHAAAA

 

So men are like big fat women when it comes to sex!

[tigressA]

A virgin doesn't come into sex thinking he has everything down pat. They are very trainable and eager to learn. They take direction much better than someone who thinks they know every move in the book. They accept their inexperience and want to learn.

 

This was the case with my most recent ex. He was a virgin at 23, when I met him, but I certainly didn't find him any less attractive for it. He was a fast and eager learner, too.

[harmfulsweetz]

This was the case with my most recent ex. He was a virgin at 23, when I met him, but I certainly didn't find him any less attractive for it. He was a fast and eager learner, too.

 

 

uHHmmm. I imagine virgins (sorry to use that term) are a lot more eager, and willing to please than someone who thinks they know all the tricks in the book (they normally don't.) Easier to train someone from scratch, than to retrain someone (sorry for word train.)

 

I think the double standard is ridiculous. For as long as men have been sleeping around, there had to have been women for them to do it with. I think nowadays (especially in high school I know, right? Young.) if a woman sleeps with a man she's a slut, if she doesn't, she's frigid. Maybe that's old school. But yeah. You catch my drift. I can't actually see the difference, men enjoy sex, and so do women. Is it that men want a lady on the street, and a freak in the sheets?

 

I don't know. It could be due to a purity thing, women are meant to be innocent and pure, in fact, not so long ago, and still existing in some cultures to date, that women marry virgins. The chastity belt. I read somewhere they used to check for the blood on the wedding night.