Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[MrNate]

Where? What about all these men having relationship drama?

 

Check out Msarle85's post above. Mine was worded a bit differently, but I agree with everything she said. Men get caught up in the negatives so much, that they don't see the positives.

 

I mean, even if women have easier access to sex, so what? I just don't get what this means aside from the fact that women just have easier access to sex. That doesn't make them better than us, nor do they go waving it around and bragging about it.

 

I would say a lot of women want something more meaningful, but that doesn't happen unless the male they want obliges. This is his power. But why we worry about who has what easier, I don't know.

[meerkat stew]

you're saying, "Hey, this is wrong, but men shouldn't have to own it because they're at such a disadvantage."

 

No I'm not, didn't, never said nor implied anything of the kind. All people should be held accountable for their behavior.

 

My analogy and subsequent paraphrases, is specifically targetted at a particular argument that always comes up in these "would you date a s__t?" threads. "Well if she's a s__t, so is the guy doing her in the back of the car!" In essence this tries to make an apples to apples comparison out of a very obvious apples to oranges reality. End of story.

 

Have stated my position clearly, agree or disagree as you like, any further attempts to contort and twist my simple, clear, words will be ignored just as I'm ignoring the poster who accused me of dating children.

 

To the rest of your rambling blahblahblah. . . I'm writing my opinions ON YOUR IDEAS, not ad hominem arguments. Let me make this clear: I think your ideas are lousy and I've said why. I don't know you as a person and wouldn't pretend to. I'm characterizing you as a poster, at times, sure, but it relies entirely on things you've actually said. Your ideas.

 

I understand the defensiveness expressed in your words, you are caught in a corner. Grow up and just drop it though. You brought in slanted, out-of-context positions of mine from other threads and then spun them to your use in an attempt to "explain away" my position and to make claims about "my worldview" which you know almost nothing of. You know as well as I do that's not kosher, and you know I was right in calling you on it as I did, yet you continue rationalizing it above. Just stop while you are behind. Part of discussion is graciously conceding points when you make an error. I do it all the time.

 

You actually completely missed my point about scarcity (and I was referring to several other threads, not just one), which was related to the notions thrown out in this thread. You're the one who brought up the availability of sex as the crux of the issue. I see the availability of something as unrelated to a person's character or values.

 

Two people like peanuts. One has to go out daily and pick them from a single plant five miles away, and comes home with half a cup some days, and none on others. He eats all the peanuts he collects.

 

The other person has three bushels of peanuts delivered to their door every morning. He eats all three bushels every day.

 

Both of these people eat every peanut they can get, yet only one of them is a gluttion.

 

Simple, apt, end of story.

[meerkat stew]

I don't think the idea of what gender gets sex easier is something to get worked up over.

 

I agree, it's not something to get worked up over. The only time that particular fact of life becomes an issue is when compulsive sexual behavior in women is defended with the irrational argument that "men do it too" so there is a "double standard" at play in calling women s__ts, but not men.

 

-Some- few men do it too. Most average men, though, are simply taking advantage of a diceroll that turned up in their favor, and may not again for some time, they simply don't know when their attempts to get sex will pan out and when they won't. Women don't have this issue, so are subject to more social stigma when they show compulsiveness and lack of self-control where sex is concerned.

[marsle85]

Check out Msarle85's post above. Mine was worded a bit differently, but I agree with everything she said. Men get caught up in the negatives so much, that they don't see the positives.

 

I mean, even if women have easier access to sex, so what? I just don't get what this means aside from the fact that women just have easier access to sex. That doesn't make them better than us, nor do they go waving it around and bragging about it.

 

I would say a lot of women want something more meaningful, but that doesn't happen unless the male they want obliges. This is his power. But why we worry about who has what easier, I don't know.

 

Precisely, it's common knowledge that in the average relationship, women are considered (whether it's wrong or right) the "gatekeeper" of the couple's sex lives. Ironically, in the early stages of the relationship- the woman is likely to resist advancing sex because she hasn't received a call, hasn't been asked out, hasn't heard "I love you." Yadayadayada. Men are encouraged to pace the relationship, and if the woman does- she's considered pushy or desperate.

[TheBigQuestion]

I agree, it's not something to get worked up over. The only time that particular fact of life becomes an issue is when compulsive sexual behavior in women is defended with the irrational argument that "men do it too" so there is a "double standard" at play in calling women s__ts, but not men.

 

-Some- few men do it too. Most average men, though, are simply taking advantage of a diceroll that turned up in their favor, and may not again for some time, they simply don't know when their attempts to get sex will pan out and when they won't. Women don't have this issue, so are subject to more social stigma when they show compulsiveness and lack of self-control where sex is concerned.

 

Here lies a problem. I do believe that you very aptly described what the reality of being an average man is like in the above paragraph. Women do not understand this simply because of the sex/gender difference. And I find incredibly appalling the posts of zengirl and especially sally4sara. For whatever reasons, these types of discussions always bring out the worst in women. They become completely unable to accept that in order for something to be a double standard and/or hypocritical, the circumstances under which the opposing parties operate must be identical. The ways in which a man acquires sexual partners, the ease of this as well, is far different than the circumstances under which women do the same.

 

In this thread, I've read people complain that meerkat's posts are "convoluted," which to me just means "I don't have the patience/attention span/intelligence to read something written in a well-worded and semi-academic manner." I've read people extrapolating from his very simple points things that he did not say or imply at all. I've read tons of worthless ad-hominem attacks and an endless barrage of other logical fallacies. Pretty obvious that these people never took a class in logic or at least on how to argue without making yourself look foolish by committing every fallacy in the book in the course of a few paragraphs.

[sally4sara]

Here lies a problem. I do believe that you very aptly described what the reality of being an average man is like in the above paragraph. Women do not understand this simply because of the sex/gender difference. And I find incredibly appalling the posts of zengirl and especially sally4sara. For whatever reasons, these types of discussions always bring out the worst in women. They become completely unable to accept that in order for something to be a double standard and/or hypocritical, the circumstances under which the opposing parties operate must be identical. The ways in which a man acquires sexual partners, the ease of this as well, is far different than the circumstances under which women do the same.

 

In this thread, I've read people complain that meerkat's posts are "convoluted," which to me just means "I don't have the patience/attention span/intelligence to read something written in a well-worded and semi-academic manner." I've read people extrapolating from his very simple points things that he did not say or imply at all. I've read tons of worthless ad-hominem attacks and an endless barrage of other logical fallacies. Pretty obvious that these people never took a class in logic or at least on how to argue without making yourself look foolish by committing every fallacy in the book in the course of a few paragraphs.

 

Meekat's view is that the double standard applies because men have a harder time finding sex. The OP does not have a hard time finding sex, yet the reasoning is not applied to him.

 

There is no argument that stands in the face of that bias. It lacks logic.

[marsle85]

-Some- few men do it too. Most average men, though, are simply taking advantage of a diceroll that turned up in their favor, and may not again for some time, they simply don't know when their attempts to get sex will pan out and when they won't. Women don't have this issue, so are subject to more social stigma when they show compulsiveness and lack of self-control where sex is concerned.

 

Let's take a look at your argument:

 

No one NEEDS to have sex, so *any* sexual act (outside of the marital bedroom) is one of "compulsiveness and lack of self-control." You're talking about sex as if it is partions you save for survival. That's just not the case. Just because a woman may have more access to sex, doesn't mean that the motivation for MEN to have sex (hey, when I can get it- let's get it) should not apply to women. There isn't anything proud, or righteous about the theory applying to men, why should women have to be so honest?

 

-Men sleeping with women (because they don't know when they will get it again) are encouraged to take advantage of their lucky diceroll, but women who (also seem to have it pretty good...) are supposed to resist *their* advantageous dice roll, because they've got it "too" good? Either it makes sense to grab it when it's good, or not. Morality has nothing to do with your theory.

[MrNate]

I agree, it's not something to get worked up over. The only time that particular fact of life becomes an issue is when compulsive sexual behavior in women is defended with the irrational argument that "men do it too" so there is a "double standard" at play in calling women s__ts, but not men.

-Some- few men do it too. Most average men, though, are simply taking advantage of a diceroll that turned up in their favor, and may not again for some time, they simply don't know when their attempts to get sex will pan out and when they won't. Women don't have this issue, so are subject to more social stigma when they show compulsiveness and lack of self-control where sex is concerned.

 

You sure? I see this more as a case of men being lazy when it comes to going after the things they want. I mean, so a man has to work harder to get sex..so what? I just don't see a need to ostracize women because they have an advantage in this field. They simply aren't showboating/bragging about it. It seems more like an unfounded jealously, wouldn't you agree? Besides, I think instead of worrying about how men have been given the perceived short stick in the sex department..we should work on becoming the strongest, most mature, masculine male possible. (And yes, this includes altering any negative views about female sexuality).

Because I know with 100% certainty, when we concentrate our energies on positive things like this, all worries we have concerning relationships/sex will cease. And frankly, I think it's something worth striving for.

[TheBigQuestion]

You sure? I see this more as a case of men being lazy when it comes to going after the things they want. I mean, so a man has to work harder to get sex..so what? I just don't see a need to ostracize women because they have an advantage in this field. They simply aren't showboating/bragging about it. It seems more like an unfounded jealously, wouldn't you agree? Besides, I think instead of worrying about how men have been given the perceived short stick in the sex department..we should work on becoming the strongest, most mature, masculine male possible. (And yes, this includes altering any negative views about female sexuality).

Because I know with 100% certainty, when we concentrate our energies on positive things like this, all worries we have concerning relationships/sex will cease. And frankly, I think it's something worth striving for.

 

The truth is that a lot of "average men" have a hard time attracting women, much less getting them to have sex, regardless of how hard they work at it. This isn't really an issue for me or the OP, but average implies a certain range towards the middle of the bell curve. I agree with the rest of your post. I don't think women need to be ostracized for capitalizing on their inherent advantages, even if I still agree with meerkat's analogy of a buffet/blind man hunting. Having sex with a lot of people is, in my opinion, hardly the worst thing in the world for either a man or a woman to do, but I recognize that this arises from me being an atheist and politically liberal. Others may disagree.

 

That doesn't mean that promiscuity isn't correlated with being "bad relationship material," however. Promiscuous people are always more likely to cheat, just by the definition of the word. That doesn't mean that you should write a person off though. A holistic approach is always best when evaluating the appropriateness of a potential relationship partner. For most sensible people, however, promiscuity is and should be a red flag.

[brainygirl]

A holistic approach is always best when evaluating the appropriateness of a potential relationship partner. For most sensible people, however, promiscuity is and should be a red flag.

 

I agree with the first sentence, and I guess my problem with the second is that, how are you defining promiscuity?

 

Lots and lots of partners?

 

Sleeps with men soon after meeting them?

 

Sleeps with men she doesn't really like?

[meerkat stew]

Meekat's view is that the double standard applies because men have a harder time finding sex. The OP does not have a hard time finding sex, yet the reasoning is not applied to him.

 

There is no argument that stands in the face of that bias. It lacks logic.

 

1. The OP asked "would you?" with the presumed "would you as an average guy," not "should I?"

 

2. OP may well be one of those few men who have the same control over obtaining sex as women do. I have accounted for that possibility over and over by setting out exceptions very clearly.

 

3. But that's neither here nor there, the ease with which OP gets sex is not at issue in the thread. If you want to make it one, take it up with him directly.

 

Men may or may not have a harder time finding sex than women. This is a case by case matter of fact.

 

The average woman has infinitely more control over obtaining sex than the average man. That is a generalization, a true one, but a generalization nonetheless.

 

When a woman is called out on her promiscuity this usually stems from some flagrant behavior on her part. Today, in the year 2010, women can generally have as many partners as they want without getting a bad reputation as a s__t provided they aren't doing several guys at once in the same car, bar or pool in plain view. Women having sex with whomever they like behind closed doors is just not a big deal any more for most men or society generally. Most men accept that the women they date have a sexual past that may include more sex partners than he has had. Some men don't like this, most don't care, as long as she has conducted herself responsibly and discreetly.

 

When a woman burns through a whole circle of socially connected men in a month though, when she dances on a table at a bar with her top pulled off, then hops behind the bar, blows the bartender, then follows three guys out to a van in the parking lot, she gets talked about, is subject to social stigma, and though OP didn't specify, I imagine -that- type of behavior is what is being referenced by the term "retired jump off," not a woman who has a different BF every month, but a woman whom it becomes broadly known is "community property."

 

When threads like this come up, someone always comes in with the "but the men were doing her too! so they are no better than she is!" which sounds perfectly sensible on the surface as a legitimate apples to apples comparison.

 

And for reasons I've typed and retyped (and won't type again), that apples to apples argument fails because it is really an apples to oranges comparison.

[TheBigQuestion]

I agree with the first sentence, and I guess my problem with the second is that, how are you defining promiscuity?

 

Lots and lots of partners?

 

Sleeps with men soon after meeting them?

 

Sleeps with men she doesn't really like?

 

1 and 2 nearly always go hand in hand. Question 3 is not promiscuity.

[brainygirl]

1 and 2 nearly always go hand in hand. Question 3 is not promiscuity.

 

What about not a lot of partners but sleeps with men she fancies relatively soon after meeting them?

[InceptorsRule]

Did I consent to the sex? yes.

 

 

The rest is surplusage.

[InceptorsRule]

I pretty much reserve the right to do whatever I want with my body

 

Do what you want, don't do what you don't want.

[meerkat stew]

How on earth does this:

 

*any* sexual act (outside of the marital bedroom) is one of "compulsiveness and lack of self-control."

 

follow from this?

 

No one NEEDS to have sex

 

No one "needs" to read a book, watch a movie, tell a joke, pet an animal, play with a child. Are all those then necessarily compulsive exhibits of lacking self-control? Sex is no different. People have sex for a variety of reasons. Some do it as part of marriage or a relationship, others not. Most people have sex as a healthy expression of love or merely just for mutual pleasure or fun. Some do it because they couldn't get to the gym that day and want to get some aerobics in.

 

Others, however, are driven to do it over and over like people who wash their hands 50 times a day. They do it to feel alive, to self-medicate pain, to bolster their self-esteem, to tear down their self-esteem, to lash out at someone who hurt them, to hurt someone, etc. Those are compulsive reasons.

 

Others jump into it with strangers on a whim and don't use protection, do it in illegal or dangerous places, with people they normally wouldn't under the influence of drugs or booze, on a dare, generally without thinking of the consequences. That is a lack of self-control.

 

The drives to act compulsively and without self-control generally don't stop at sex, but extend into every facet of life, susceptibility to addiction, massive bankrupting debt, cheating, lying, developing personality disorders, on and on.

 

 

Just because a woman may have more access to sex, doesn't mean that the motivation for MEN to have sex (hey, when I can get it- let's get it) should not apply to women. There isn't anything proud, or righteous about the theory applying to men, why should women have to be so honest?

 

Sorry, I have no idea what you are getting at here.

 

-Men sleeping with women (because they don't know when they will get it again) are encouraged to take advantage of their lucky diceroll, but women who (also seem to have it pretty good...) are supposed to resist *their* advantageous dice roll, because they've got it "too" good? Either it makes sense to grab it when it's good, or not. Morality has nothing to do with your theory.

 

With women, there are NO DICE, no relative uncertainty. I am not trying to make a "women have it better" deal of this I swear, just explaining that the reasons women are subject to more social stigma from their sexual behavior is that they have more control of the entire process, and that because men do not have this same degree of control, trying to paint average men who take advantage of sexual opportunities when they present with the same brush as women who always have opportunities available is not an apt comparision.

 

I'm sorry, I can't respond to any further posts from folks who aren't carefully reading mine before replying, this thread has become needlessly tiresome. Sometimes I think women "act stupid" when faced with realities they don't like rather than just admit even a scintilla of the other guy's position may have some merit. That's not any more a legitimate discussion tactic than fallacies are.

[InceptorsRule]

What about not a lot of partners but sleeps with men she fancies relatively soon after meeting them?

 

"Desperate" would be a better adjective than "promiscuous" for that type of behavior.

[sally4sara]

1. The OP asked "would you?" with the presumed "would you as an average guy," not "should I?"

 

2. OP may well be one of those few men who have the same control over obtaining sex as women do. I have accounted for that possibility over and over by setting out exceptions very clearly.

 

3. But that's neither here nor there, the ease with which OP gets sex is not at issue in the thread. If you want to make it one, take it up with him directly.

 

Men may or may not have a harder time finding sex than women. This is a case by case matter of fact.

 

The average woman has infinitely more control over obtaining sex than the average man. That is a generalization, a true one, but a generalization nonetheless.

 

When a woman is called out on her promiscuity this usually stems from some flagrant behavior on her part. Today, in the year 2010, women can generally have as many partners as they want without getting a bad reputation as a s__t provided they aren't doing several guys at once in the same car, bar or pool in plain view. Women having sex with whomever they like behind closed doors is just not a big deal any more for most men or society generally. Most men accept that the women they date have a sexual past that may include more sex partners than he has had. Some men don't like this, most don't care, as long as she has conducted herself responsibly and discreetly.

 

When a woman burns through a whole circle of socially connected men in a month though, when she dances on a table at a bar with her top pulled off, then hops behind the bar, blows the bartender, then follows three guys out to a van in the parking lot, she gets talked about, is subject to social stigma, and though OP didn't specify, I imagine -that- type of behavior is what is being referenced by the term "retired jump off," not a woman who has a different BF every month, but a woman whom it becomes broadly known is "community property."

 

When threads like this come up, someone always comes in with the "but the men were doing her too! so they are no better than she is!" which sounds perfectly sensible on the surface as a legitimate apples to apples comparison.

 

And for reasons I've typed and retyped (and won't type again), that apples to apples argument fails because it is really an apples to oranges comparison.

 

Look, I get that some of the examples you've used here are obvious indications of poor judgment. Really bad outcomes that have nothing to do with the statements the OP employed are possibilities.

Since he was the one that posed the question and listed reasons why he feels that way, I have no idea why you would choose to agree with his views and back it up with your own.

He has referred to promiscuous women as "tarnished", "used up", "easy" regardless of if those women were exhibiting the obvious poor judgment of the extreme examples you've listed here as the experienced result. Anyone can be responsible and use discretion in their pursuit of sex and still achieve a high number of partners. This is not one of his qualifiers though.

 

It is all about simply how many partners the woman has had and how quickly he got his goal. Completely ignoring that perhaps a woman can know him through others and already like him for a relationship before he makes an advance and inevitably, tests her out for promiscuity. Its not as though he is telling them "hey, I'm going to try to have sex with you but if you comply before a certain amount of effort and time, any chances of being treated with basic human respect is gone". So not only is he a hypocrite, he is a con artist as well. Yet the double standard being applied means he is LAUDED for this rather than ostracized. Some accept his behavior, some even approve! Some go beyond that to also think awful things about the girl - HE LIED TO AND DISCARDED while thinking he is made cooler for it. How is the way he goes about it NOT flagrant behavior of the likes that can burn through an entire social circle?

 

So the bias still stands as far a I can see. Folks that can gain sex easily should be expected to refrain from employing their advantage as often? We can qualify that further if you'd like by saying it can be balanced off by the manner in which they act on their advantage if they go about it responsibly. I can't see this working out because the labeling women get for behaving this way is typically an unexamined, knee jerk reaction to the number of partners they have and rarely about the way they went about it.

 

So I ask you, should the OP be viewed poorly for his promiscuity AND the manner in which he goes about it? IMO, he wants what he does not deserve. So I struggle to find merit in people who support his view as they too are either not examining the way he goes about it or don't give a crap how he goes about it. It is THIS that makes the whole thing ugly. The fact that people who hold to the double standard rarely care about the shabby way promiscuous men go about attaining willing sex partners, but they often scrutinize every part of how women go about it.

 

Me speaking about his views negatively is not due to me thinking women *should* be as promiscuous as some men or that men *should* be accepting of a partner with different life standards than their own. It is that I just read an entire thread where the OP talks about how awful he treats people and hardly anyone batted an eye. Many male posters jumped to his defense. None of those posters took one second to examine how he treats people or question why he sees no problem in contributing to the accumulation of folks he looks down on in his actions.

 

WHY?

[that girl]

With women, there are NO DICE, no relative uncertainty.

This assumes all women are sexually attracted.

 

But not all women fit into socially acceptable beauty standards. They aren't going to have the same ease at getting laid that a 22 year old Laker girl has.

 

I think if a person avoids casual sex themselves for moral, religious, cultural or health reasons they have every right to limit their possible dates to people who hold the same standards. That doesn't mean they get to be jerks to people who hold different sexual standards, as long as no one is being hurt or deceived, it is none of their business.

 

But a man who is fine with casual sex for himself but is unwilling to seriously date a woman with the same casual sex standards is a hypocrite. Dress it up however you want, it is still hypocracy.

[You Go Girl]

With women, there are NO DICE, no relative uncertainty. I am not trying to make a "women have it better" deal of this I swear, just explaining that the reasons women are subject to more social stigma from their sexual behavior is that they have more control of the entire process, and that because men do not have this same degree of control, trying to paint average men who take advantage of sexual opportunities when they present with the same brush as women who always have opportunities available is not an apt comparision.

 

.

 

Maybe it's time for men to have the same degree of control then. The world might end up being a better place, along with you men gaining a fairer playing field.

[Woggle]

It is hypocrisy but it works for a man and produces good results for him. That is what it all boils down to in the end. Women have their double standards as well so it evens out.

[that girl]

When a woman burns through a whole circle of socially connected men in a month though, when she dances on a table at a bar with her top pulled off, then hops behind the bar, blows the bartender, then follows three guys out to a van in the parking lot, she gets talked about, is subject to social stigma, and though OP didn't specify, I imagine -that- type of behavior is what is being referenced by the term "retired jump off," not a woman who has a different BF every month, but a woman whom it becomes broadly known is "community property."

 

When threads like this come up, someone always comes in with the "but the men were doing her too! so they are no better than she is!" which sounds perfectly sensible on the surface as a legitimate apples to apples comparison.

 

And for reasons I've typed and retyped (and won't type again), that apples to apples argument fails because it is really an apples to oranges comparison.

I think you are being very optimistic in thinking that women wouldn't judge a man who went behind the dumpsters with a woman he didn't respect. Sure, some women share your double standard, but a lot of them don't, particularly younger women.

 

Again, I think that judgement is only legitimate if the woman in question wouldn't blow a guy behind a dumpster thus she chooses not to date that kind of guy, but you are holding on to an outdated standard. Manwhore is a word for a reason and even John Mayer has said in interviews that women have specifically turned him down because of his well known sexual behavior.

[Woggle]

Some women might turn down John Mayer but even more women would throw themselves at him. The Manwhores as you call them do ten times better with women than your average nerd that respects women for their minds.

[InceptorsRule]

Look, I get that some of the examples you've used here are obvious indications of poor judgment. Really bad outcomes that have nothing to do with the statements the OP employed are possibilities.

Since he was the one that posed the question and listed reasons why he feels that way, I have no idea why you would choose to agree with his views and back it up with your own.

 

Maybe because he agrees with OP?

 

 

He has referred to promiscuous women as "tarnished", "used up", "easy" regardless of if those women were exhibiting the obvious poor judgment of the extreme examples you've listed here as the experienced result.

 

Maybe that's what OP's experience of promiscuous women has taught to him. Promiscuous women seem to get off emotionally on the high of being able to attract lots of male attention. Many of them have serious "daddy issues." The sexual promiscuity, for women who are promiscuous, is generally all tied up with some pretty unpleasant emotional baggage.

 

Men, on the other hand, are just in it for the sex.

 

Anyone can be responsible and use discretion in their pursuit of sex and still achieve a high number of partners. This is not one of his qualifiers though.

 

Maybe OP hasn't had the experience of having sex with promiscuous-but-discreet ladies. He can only go by his experience. IME promiscuous women are generally very indiscreet, because they get an emotional high from a public display of their sexual voracity. Many women feel that their primary source of "power" over men is their sexual power; a rather angry promiscuity is oftentimes the way these promiscuous women express their outrage over the fact that daddy didn't pay enough attention to them as children.

 

It is all about simply how many partners the woman has had and how quickly he got his goal. Completely ignoring that perhaps a woman can know him through others and already like him for a relationship before he makes an advance and inevitably, tests her out for promiscuity.

 

Actually it is the woman who always calls the shots, because the woman grants or denies the sexual access to the man. Promiscuous women seek their power over men in the granting rather than the denial of sex, but like their sisters, the sex-denying women, don't necessarily enjoy their compulsive sexual activity. It's really two sides of the same coin--one type of woman has a compulsion to deny sex to achieve an agenda; the other type has a compulsion to grant sex to achieve an agenda. The agenda being, sexual power over the man or men in question.

 

 

Its not as though he is telling them "hey, I'm going to try to have sex with you but if you comply before a certain amount of effort and time, any chances of being treated with basic human respect is gone".

 

You have an interesting internal narrative but I'm not sure it has much to do with the real world.

 

 

 

 

So not only is he a hypocrite, he is a con artist as well. Yet the double standard being applied means he is LAUDED for this rather than ostracized. Some accept his behavior, some even approve! Some go beyond that to also think awful things about the girl - HE LIED TO AND DISCARDED while thinking he is made cooler for it. How is the way he goes about it NOT flagrant behavior of the likes that can burn through an entire social circle?

 

You'll have to blame those notions on women, I'm afraid. A promiscuous woman is not a threat to men; she is a boon to men, sexually speaking. However she is a huge threat to other women. She is a man-tempter and a man-stealer.

 

 

 

 

So the bias still stands as far a I can see. Folks that can gain sex easily should be expected to refrain from employing their advantage as often?

 

Yes overt sexual promiscuity is extremely maladaptive behavior for a woman because it diminishes her chances for successful pair bonding due to the fact that no man that she pair-bonds with can be sure that the child she gives birth to is his. Obviously more subtle cuckolding occurs quite frequently but it's less open and blatant for the most part

 

"Tramp" or "slut" is just another way of saying a "woman who has a relatively high likelihood of giving birth to another man's child rather than mine" or alternatively a "woman who has a relatively high likelihood of leaving for another man or men after I have invested years of effort and resources into the relationship."

 

A women who pair-bonds with a "man slut" does NOT have the same concerns because the child she gives birth to will ALWAYS be hers, biologically speaking.

 

 

 

We can qualify that further if you'd like by saying it can be balanced off by the manner in which they act on their advantage if they go about it responsibly. I can't see this working out because the labeling women get for behaving this way is typically an unexamined, knee jerk reaction to the number of partners they have and rarely about the way they went about it.

 

No it's a rational evolutionary manner for males in the community to evaluate the respective merits of females for pair bonding/child birth purposes. It's a pretty big evolutionary crisis for a male if he pair bonds with a female only to later find out her belly is growing fat with the product of some other man's baby batter rather than his own.

 

So I ask you, should the OP be viewed poorly for his promiscuity AND the manner in which he goes about it?

 

No, because evolutionarily speaking the role of the "alpha male" is to attempt to impregnate as many females as possible for the betterment of the entire species. That's why the "alpha male" is so successful at screwing lots of women--it is the WOMEN who desire to screw the alpha male at a high frequency because he has the best DNA.

 

 

IMO, he wants what he does not deserve.

 

He deserves what he can get, sexually speaking. If many many women find him attractive enough to share fluids with him then of course he deserves to have sex with all of them. Or do you think women lack common sense?

 

 

 

So I struggle to find merit in people who support his view as they too are either not examining the way he goes about it or don't give a crap how he goes about it.

 

I suggest rather than complaining to men about this phenomenon you take it up with your own gender, since alpha male can't have sex with lots of women without their willing consent to it.

 

 

 

 

It is THIS that makes the whole thing ugly. The fact that people who hold to the double standard rarely care about the shabby way promiscuous men go about attaining willing sex partners, but they often scrutinize every part of how women go about it.

 

Promiscuous men are simply men with whom many women are willing to have sex. Promiscuous women are simply women who are willing to have sex with many men.

 

There's a biological reason that women generate approximately one egg per month and can only give birth once every year, approximately. Yet men can father hundreds of children in a single year. There's a double standard as you call it because women are different from men. If a woman screws hundreds of men willy nilly without regard to the quality of the man, she increases her chances of having a sub optimal DNA mixture to comprise the fetus she carries. If a man screws hundreds of women he loses virtually nothing in terms of lost opportunity cost. Promiscuity is biologically and evolutionarily rewarded from alpha males; it is penalized in females.

 

 

 

Me speaking about his views negatively is not due to me thinking women *should* be as promiscuous as some men or that men *should* be accepting of a partner with different life standards than their own. It is that I just read an entire thread where the OP talks about how awful he treats people and hardly anyone batted an eye. Many male posters jumped to his defense. None of those posters took one second to examine how he treats people or question why he sees no problem in contributing to the accumulation of folks he looks down on in his actions.

 

WHY?

 

You consider it "awful" when a man chooses to engage in consensual sex with a woman or women; but it is not "awful" that the same women choose to engage in the same consensual sex with the same man.

 

It is you who harbor a double standard.

 

If you are correct and the alpha male is such an a-hole then why are so many of your sisters all too ready to have hot monkey sex with him?

[meerkat stew]

Too tired of this thread to keep replying, some good counterpoints made to mine will go unanswered, as will some tripe.

 

Will leave the thread with one last, very pertinent statment of fact(s), that somehow never gets brought out in these "wouldjadataslut" threads:

 

For every man that takes issue with a woman's sexual habits, what her true number is, whether she is a skank, tramp or whatever, TEN women will take issue with that same woman's sexual habits, will judge her much more harshly than any man ever would, and will apply all those bad names to her at the drop of a hat with glee.

 

Women's sexual promiscuity is a bigger deal among other women than it ever has been or ever will be among men, and where judging women for what they do sexually is concerned, women, and not men, are actually the "grand inquisitors," the "reigning champs" of looking down their noses at other women for their behavior.

 

I have heard maybe 10 men in my fairly long life use the word "slut" in describing a woman, yet have heard maybe 200 women use the term. (same with the term "gold-digger" but that's for another thread).

 

And here's the corker that ties it all together, men are taught to judge women's sexual habits FROM WOMEN, from their mothers, aunts, GFs, sisters... but from women. Not from some patriarchy, their dads, or other guys, but from women. Fact is, many of the men who wouldn't date a woman perceived as a s__t were first taught not to by... a woman, and women will do most anything in their power to -encourage- their men to judge other women harshly as well.

 

Isn't... that... interesting?

 

Now I know the above doesn't make it right to judge people so, but what it does is change the dynamic quite a bit, from one where women can sit back and smugly take potshots at "intolerant, sexist, hypocritical" men who dont wannadataslut, to one that is a little more ... as someone said here... holistic, more of an equal playing field with less fingerpointing and accusations of hypocrisy possible.

 

That is all.