Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[meerkat stew]

On a serious note, a friend drew something to my attention that I want to clarify. My use of "Sally" in an earlier hypothetical in this thread is not a reference to the poster Sally4Sara, but just the first female name I picked out of the Dick/Jane/Sally trio we all (or all us oldsters) know from learning to read books. The use of that name is not meant as a dig on Sally4Sara or to compare her to the "ho" Sally in my hypo. Wanted to make that clear.

[Mad Max]

Honestly, I wouldn't look past her prior slutty behavior. Women that have no self-control in that area, generally lack it in others as well. Lack of self-control is not attractive at all.

 

 

And let's be honest here for a second. You're basically paying for dates to get sex, correct? Why should you pay for dates and spend money on a woman to get sex, when other guys got it for free? Sorry, but I'm not going to be a sucker for that.

[zengirl]

 

1. Included in the definition of both versions of "double standard" that contain a gender reference is the timeframe of the etymology of that usage. One says "Origin 1950-55." The other says, "Mid 1900s."

 

Why didn't she include those qualifiers in her argument? something like "admittedly the reference to such usage stems from the 1950s, but I argue that the definition still has validity today." (60 years and a whole lot of social upheaval later)

 

I copied the entire passage from the dictionary in question. The origin of neither of those is modern. I don't see your point. Any origin of a word that predates the birth of anyone 18 years old is generally where I go for "new" uses of words. This one happens to pre-date my birth. How would an older origin be more relevant today, nor does the older origin of the word contradict the second. The second simply expands upon it. I don't speak that way about any words. . . the usage of most words stems from different times other than this one. We can and do amend the dictionary if meanings become obsolete. Petition Webster if you think it is! I didn't include too much etymology with any of my definitions, so as not to be terribly tedious.

 

I know why. She knows that including the timeframe origin of the usage would weaken her "argument" tremendously. We no longer live in the 1950s, and women's discreet sexual behavior is no longer an issue any more than men's is. Other than for flagrant female behavior, the double standard no longer exists, and arguably, flagrant, promiscuous sexual behavior is just as likely to result in bad consequences for a man these days as for a woman.

Honestly, I really didn't think about the time frame. My point isn't that promiscuous, sexual behavior is more likely to result in bad consequences for a woman. . . except that the people in this thread have said that it should. Honestly, let's just call them both promiscuous and be done with it is more my attitude.

 

In your newest analogy:

You're saying men are blind and they literally can't see the objects or avoid the result of their actions, so they shouldn't be viewed poorly for screwing around. But the woman, the kid, is just playing around, and so she should.

 

I disagree that this analogy works with human sexuality.

 

Does this prevent zengirl from declaring "I'm right because it's in the dictionary and you are just making up your own definition"? Of course not, she's a woman with a woman's prerogative to make unreasonable claims and not be held accountable. She has become so conditioned to this "double standard" in the way men and women are treated, that she can't even see the distinction. There's nothing wrong with her mind, just the false way in which she has been coddled socially.

I'm right that it's part of the definition. You accuse others of making ad hominen arguments, but you sure do make a lot of them. You've no idea what my education or upbringing have been. You can say "but the definitions don't matter" all you want, but they do. That said, if TheBigQuestion or anyone else is clear in what they mean, I don't have to resort to whipping out definitions. But the meanings of words are important.

 

4. Zengirl could have found -reference to the exact same argument I have been making all along in this thread- had she gone to the wikipedia entry for "double standard" instead of stopping at dictionary.com. Maybe she actually did so, but realizes that doesn't help her "dictionary rulez!" case. Wiki is also a woefully questionable source of information about anything at all, but I will take it over dictionary.com every time. Could I make the case that because my argument is referenced specifically on wiki that "It's true because it's on the wiki?" of course not.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The two have different uses. Encyclopedia are for broad information of a topic, and dictionaries are for defining words. I didn't go to the encyclopedia article for many reasons -- mostly because copying the whole thing in would be tedious, and my point wasn't to discuss the nuances of double standards but to get people to use the words they mean, so things could be discussed. I'm happy to discuss the nuances, but that wasn't the point at the time. While I understand an Atlas will give me more information on an area, there are times where I will consult a map.

 

Though actually, I just went to Wiki and all it says is this:

 

Double standard

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the monetary usage, see Bimetallism.

 

 

The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.

 

 

A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb "life is not fair" is often invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.

 

 

There is a distinction to be made between double standards and hypocrisy, which implies the stated or presumed acceptance of a single standard a person claims to hold himself or herself accountable to, but which, in practice, may be disregarded.

No idea where you got your list.

 

1. My "peanut" analogy consisted of two men, no women.

One man was standing in for the woman in the sexual situation, though, or else it doesn't apply.

 

2. It merely illustrates Thebigquestion's point, that in order for there to be a double standard, the two parties in question must be identically situated. Someone who never knows where their next peanut is coming from is very obviously differently situated from someone who has an infinite supply of peanuts.

That is not true. Nowhere does it say identically situated. Double standards are created when there is "no good reason" (Wiki says!) for having said difference. There is no good reason for this particular double standard about human sexuality. That was my point with the definition. You are using the word wrong.

 

Zengirl further refuses to accept the simple fact that a double standard can't exist if two parties are differently situated.

Except both Wiki and the dictionary fail to say this. Y'all are just making it up.

 

The relative degree or amount of promiscuity has never been at issue, but rather the type of promiscuity displayed, discreet (no one knows or cares) versus flagrant and often public (accompanied by other serious relationship issues). The "type" of comparable male promiscuity has never been at issue because men get beat up or go to jail for doing the types of flagrant things that women do freely with no consequence in our culture. Don't believe me? Hop up on a bar, and start dancing with your shirt off. If you have a penis between your legs and do this, and aren't famous, something bad is going to happen to you sooner rather than later.

Men don't get thrown in jail for having loads of consensual sex. I know some who do have loads of it, indiscreetly. They're free. I agree that if you are comparing two types of promiscuity (someone who is discreet and someone who is indiscreet), it is the one who is indiscreet who I would personally judge. I disagree that promiscuous women are more likely to be indiscreet. I know women who've had lots of sex who are perfectly discreet and men who've had lots of sex who aren't. . . and vice versa.

 

But the point is that neither this thread nor my contentions have ever been about raw numbers alone, but the process. Stated for hopefully the final time as "men have no control over which of their efforts to obtain sex will produce sex, whereas women have near infinite control of same, so excusing (with an implied "flagrant" preceding) female behavior merely on the grounds that "a man was there doing it too," that there was a double-standard at play, is inapt.

Except this thread didn't start with "A man was there doing it too." It started with a fellow saying, "I'm going to whore around but judge any woman that does" ---he made no comments about discretion whatsoever.

 

Elaina, the main resentment I have with respect to arguing with women is that I end up having to type much more than I should because basic ground rules are so often ignored by women. I am a lazy man, and resent being made to overtype by women. I don't find myself having to type so much when discussing things with reasonable -men-.

It is the unreasonable person who thinks other people make them type things. Edited August 11, 2010 by zengirl

[refurb]

Nothing against promiscuity per se, but have found that women who are impulsive and lacking of self-control in sex choices tend to be impulsive and lacking of self-control in other areas.

 

BINGO!! This guy gets it. It's not the sleeping around part that is such a turn-off, it's all the qualities that usually go with it. RF

[tami-chan]

LOL..people who cannot defend their stance are just making obvious digs...pathetic.

[mr.dream merchant]

I don't understand it really. Women say I'm judging them but honestly I'm not, because I still find them pleasant and good people. I just prefer not to date them. Is that judging? Or playing it smart? I'm not gonna pie some chick who's loose and be like "Ewww bitch you're a slut!" Because even though she's loose, she may be a great person.

 

I actually know a few, lol, they're my cousins. One of them has 4 kids from 3 different guys. If I weren't family, I'd never in my life date her seriously. But she really is a great person. So to call it judging people, I don't quite agree.

 

Same deal with the 28 year old single mother I slept with a couple times. I'd never date her seriously, but we keep in touch. She's a great person. Just not dating material in my eyes. If you can't wrap your mind around that simple concept, and it is simple, because I'm giving it to you straight forward no BS, then I don't know, all I can say is get that chip off your shoulder.

[caramel c]

lol, this thread will never die.

[Mad Max]

Just want to add one more thing:

 

 

For the women that complain men call them sluts and what not. If you don't want to be seen as a slut, then don't act like one. I can't count how many times I see women dress like prostitues and have random hookups, then complain when people call them sluts and decent guys want nothing to do with them once they find out about their past.

[caramel c]

Just want to add one more thing:

 

 

For the women that complain men call them sluts and what not. If you don't want to be seen as a slut, then don't act like one. I can't count how many times I see women dress like prostitues and have random hookups, then complain when people call them sluts and decent guys want nothing to do with them once they find out about their past.

 

 

Well, this is pretty much what I said a few pages back. I tend to be ignored but thats alright.

[mr.dream merchant]

Okay what I want to know is' date=' what on earth were you smoking when you wrote this. :lmao:[/quote']

 

Well ****, don't quote it. It's a monster post that eats the whole screen up.

[Mad Max]

Well, this is pretty much what I said a few pages back. I tend to be ignored but thats alright.

 

 

17 pages, we're not going to read every single one. But at least we're on the same page.

[caramel c]

17 pages, we're not going to read every single one. But at least we're on the same page.

 

Bottom line: If you want to be treated like a classy lady, BE a classy lady.

 

Classy ladies do not worry about silly things like this.

[mr.dream merchant]

Most women wouldn't date a player seriously, but they'd probably romp him. It's the same concept. Most guys wouldn't take an easy girl seriously, but ****, they'll ride her for a couple hours.

[mr.dream merchant]

Oh sorry.... Do you mean like this?

 

 

 

 

 

Bully.

[Mad Max]

Bottom line: If you want to be treated like a classy lady, BE a classy lady.

 

Classy ladies do not worry about silly things like this.

 

 

Well said. I agree.

 

 

Most women wouldn't date a player seriously, but they'd probably romp him. It's the same concept. Most guys wouldn't take an easy girl seriously, but ****, they'll ride her for a couple hours.

 

 

Sad, but true. Personally, if I don't know where that pu$$y has been, I'm not touching it. But that's just me. STDs are an epidemic. I'm not putting myself at risk by sleeping with a slut.

[caramel c]

And if you're a retired jump off, congratulations on your retirement but don't kid yourself. There are consequences to your actions.

[mr.dream merchant]

Well said. I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

Sad, but true. Personally, if I don't know where that pu$$y has been, I'm not touching it. But that's just me. STDs are an epidemic. I'm not putting myself at risk by sleeping with a slut.

 

Lol, another reason why easy girls are a risk. You DON'T know where, who, or what she's been doing. I mean, I'm sexually active and single, but I wrap my **** up. I live in South Florida, party capital - easy girls ARE the epidemic out there, and along with that? Guess what? HIV/AIDS county capital. Who'da thought. I don't expect other women to know that - but that's the point. You don't know.

[K'aycie]

Bully.

 

Nah. Just trying to remove trashy threads.

 

[mr.dream merchant]

Nah. Just trying to remove trashy threads.

 

 

 

You're posting in it. Does that mean you're trashy? AHA!

[Mad Max]

Lol, another reason why easy girls are a risk. You DON'T know where, who, or what she's been doing. I mean, I'm sexually active and single, but I wrap my **** up. I live in South Florida, party capital - easy girls ARE the epidemic out there, and along with that? Guess what? HIV/AIDS county capital. Who'da thought. I don't expect other women to know that - but that's the point. You don't know.

 

 

Wrapping it up isn't always a safe bet. Herpes, HPV(especially the high risk strain), condom means jack sh*t. The herpes rate is 1 in 4 or 5 if I'm not mistaken. Even if it's 1 in 5, that's a 20% chance. If you sleep with one person, there's an 80% chance of not getting it, so it is in your favor. But, make it 20 partners and 4 probably have it. The more people you sleep with, the higher the chance of you getting an STD.

 

 

I never sleep with anyone without getting tested for STDs. Having sex without a clean bill of health is playing Russian roulette. I'd rather have sex with 2-3 people and stay clean than randomly bang 20 chicks and likely end up with something.

[A O]

Thebigquestion offers a reasonable qualifier with respect to double stanards, the parties in question must be identically situated for a double standard to exist. Of course this doesn't preclude moral culpability for one's actions, but DOES prevent the presence of what we call a "double standard." Thebigquestion is factually correct, no one with any sense would disagree. A blind person knocks over a display on aisle 12. At the same time a normal kid knocks over a display on aisle 13. The kid gets yelled at, the blind person does not. Double standard? Of course not, the two are differently situated.

Identically situated, interesting term – I can identify with the overall argument. It’s why I believe that the terms hypocrisy or double standard are often misplaced or misused because not every situation is the same and neither are the genders for that matter.

 

For example, no one blinks an eye when a woman dismisses a potential male suitor because she sees him as being physically weak. And that is despite the fact that he’s, in all likelihood, physically stronger than her. No one negatively judges her, no one asks her to have a good look it herself when she’s judging him. No one does this because everyone fully understands that physical strength is a very, very real gender difference. Likewise, no one blinks an eye when a woman calls a man a ‘cheapskate’ or dismisses him as a potential suitor because he didn’t pay, or didn’t pay enough towards their date despite the fact that she didn’t cough up one red cent. No one is negatively judging her or asking her to have a good hard look at herself.

 

The first example is straight out gender difference. The second example is what I call situational difference. It materializing out of economic need (mostly only men doing paid work once upon a time), and now due to the fact that most men tend to pay regardless of whether women work or not, thus affording the average woman the ability to choose based on men’s ability to pay or not – if they so wish to take this route.

 

Now counter this with the ‘fact’ that thanks to testosterone, men are far hornier and far more inclined to want to engage in sex, or have sex on the mind, than women are. This is a very, very well known gender difference also. Add to this, the fact that women are far pickier than men in whom they’ll engage in sexual affairs with and now we have another situational difference, one which this time affords men the ability to choose based on women’s promiscuity levels (or lack thereof). Again, if they so choose to take this route.

 

However, while it is acceptable for women to both judge and choose men based on criteria that they’ll never in a month of Sundays, be asked to or ever use against themselves, the same isn’t true the other way around. If men decide to judge or choose women based on certain criteria, then they also have to hold themselves accountable to these very same standards they ask of others. Or be seen as hypocritical or enforcing some sort of double standard. Speaking of which!!!

 

As things stand, in the real world – nature rules. Your average guy or girl doesn’t give a monkey’s behind about certain gender or situational specific so-called double standards or hypocrisy. And as for those who need to use these terms, in these instances, they are ignorant of both the differences between the sexes and the environments we walk in. They are often used, either consciously or sub-consciously, as a means of modifying behavior that the user simply doesn’t agree with or has a problem with. Not too dissimilar to those who have a need to use negative labels towards people’s sexual behavior.

 

Speaking of which, the biggest problem I have here - the misuse of aforementioned terms aside - is the need to negatively label certain (legal) sexual behavior and or a specific gender involved. I don’t see any need for it myself.

 

 

.

[mr.dream merchant]

Beautiful post A O. Though I am not trying to label women who sleep around, I am trying to get the point across that they do not meet certain requirements that I hold my mate's of choice accountable for. Is that just or unjust, in your eyes A O? Furthermore, do you believe that standards between men and women should be not, and will not be equal?

[carhill]

OP, you likely covered this somewhere I didn't read...... why does it matter if this perspective is just or justified or healthy? No animals are being harmed here. Own your perspective and go forth. Think about that. You reject a woman for real or perceived promiscuous behavior. Cool. Hey, tell her that. Wow, is she going to be pissed (maybe).... what do you care? You don't want to breathe the same air as her anyway. Bye-bye, right?

 

I'm just sitting here think of all the possible reasons women rejected me over the years....do you think they gave one whit about whether those reasons were just, justified or healthy? Did they care about how I felt? Hell no. They could *care less*. Maybe you need to take that pill, eh? I know my medicine chest is stocked!

[mr.dream merchant]

You're right carhill. I just find it amazing to find those who share similar views as me on this board, I've grown accustomed to being crucified by the local feminists. Heh..

 

But yeah, that's usually how it goes. I don't tell them to get lost really. Like I said, there's promiscuous women out there who're awesome people. If that's the case, I'll still kick it with them. But the moment they bring up a relationship, I let them know it's not going to happen. Not like I want them shunned from society or some fanatic **** like that, I'd rather not be their boyfriend is all I'm saying. There's too much at stake. Mad Max reminded me of the health hazards lol..oh boy.

[A O]

OP, you likely covered this somewhere I didn't read...... why does it matter if this perspective is just or justified or healthy? No animals are being harmed here. Own your perspective and go forth.

Indeed

 

I am trying to get the point across that they do not meet certain requirements that I hold my mate's of choice accountable for. Is that just or unjust, in your eyes A O?

You have to do what's right by you - its that simple (lying and illegality aside).

 

Furthermore, do you believe that standards between men and women should be not, and will not be equal?

There are very real gender differences and gender specific situations which makes applying a one fits all standard or judgment unsuitable. But there are many more situations where both sexes can easily be held accountable to the same standard or judgment.

 

.