Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[meerkat stew]

Anyone calling it a double standard has a pretty firm basis to do so,

 

Disagree, relying on an outmoded, outdated usage example in a single, likely abridged, dictionary is not a firm basis for anything.

 

BUT I think you're the one grasping at straws at this point. It's in there. . . part of the zeitgeist. Just because YOU don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's a valid distinction to make.

 

Here you are completely changing the tenor of your argument. Prior, thebigquestion says "a double standard cannot exist between two differently situated groups." You respond (non sequitur btw) "It's in the dictionary, so it -is- a double standard, AND further, because the "identically situated" distinction is -not- in the dictionary or wiki, you are making it up."

 

I provide examples and evidence that 1. the usage is archaic as it was included in a different time culturally where gender roles are concerned, 2. dictionaries are not definitive or authoritative, 3. the true meanings of words are found in more comprehensive sources, 4. the wiki, another non-authoritative source, mentions the exact counter to the double standard I have been posting (apples to oranges, which means exactly "not identically situated"), so at the very least it isn't "made up." 5. there are many words (gave you three examples) that aren't in a standard abridged dictionary, doesn't mean they are "made up," and 6. offered an example of a word "apartheid" where cultural changes antiquate the definition and suggest the same is the case with the gender sex "double standard" referenced in that definition.

 

Now, instead of dealing with the above telling points, you say "You are just grasping at straws because it's 'in there, in the zeitgeist'." A very poor argument to make. "Sasquatch" "leprechaun," "buggy whip," "imperialism," are all both "in the dictionary," and also "in the zeitgeist," does that make arguments against the existence of such or claiming that definitions of such have changed drastically or are archaic grasping at straws? Of course not.

 

By continuing the "dictionary" argument, you are also taking the position that little has changed in gender relations since the 1950s. That you are apparently comfortable with that is telling.

 

Which was the whole point of quoting the dictionary. I'm not saying "The dictionary is God and will never change." I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest someone using a dictionary definition of something is somehow wrong for saying it because you disagree with the definition, the circumstances from which it evolved, or whatnot.

 

I have never disagreed that the dictionary is not a useful reference that can support the existence of facts, and never said you were wrong in mentioning it. But you didn't just mention it, you grounded your entire argument on the archaic inclusion of one single usage in one single dictionary. You have very obviously placed heavy weight on the line of reasoning "it's in the dictionary!!" and are now trying to back out of that inch by inch without actually admitting it was a flimsy stance to take in the first place.

 

Consider that I'm not in your generation and that it was a known double standard long before I was born. Why does it even matter to me which era it came from? Most people in my generation agree this attitude is a "double standard", whether they agree with it or dismiss it as bunk.

 

"Double standard" was added to the dictionary in 1912, the gender sex distinction was added as an example in the 1950s. The term itself has become quite a hot button in the left's consolidation of women as a voting bloc, which travels under the catchall term "feminism" in the years since 1950. There have been massive social changes since that inclusion, but even so, it's not exactly "ancient history."

 

This is not directed at you personally, but it is always amazing to me the tendency of your generation (or anyone indoctrinated by Big Brother in our "stellar" universities) to discount history (usually because it's inconvenient to received doctrine), and emphasize your tiny lifespan when evaluating the human condition.

 

There is quite a lot that happened "long before you were born," that should be important to you regardless of what "era" it occured in. When history can be reduced to a few politically charged, summary platitudes (thousands of years of men oppressing women) and the actions of individuals as opposed to the broader and less biased historical forces that actually do shape where we are today, we become much more politically malleable.

 

A few outliers exist, but ask a handful of twenty-somethings if they think it's a double standard. A true cross-section. They'll likely be fine with the dictionary definition.

 

Can't stress enough how little that matters to me or to the discussion at hand. The state of affairs on "Jersey Shore," or where to get tickets to the Maroon 5 show, sure, anything more substantive or heady though? ...:lmao: Not just picking on that age, but any cross section of the general public. Half the people in this country believe in faith healing and the other half can't name their congressional rep. Frankly, I could care less what the "person on the street" thinks as pertains to anything, double standards or anything else.

 

It is a commonly referred to double standard. Common enough to be put into the dictionary.

 

Mhmm...

 

You are the one being obtuse.

 

I have many flaws, being even a tiny bit obtuse...ever... is not one.

 

Here's what I consider an apt analogy with your same setting and consequences.

 

Now you want to switch horses to the "horny seed spreader v gatekeeper to sex" line of discussion. It's different from what we have been talking about in that it is more biology/anthropology centered and less socio-cultural centered than the "different process for obtaining sex" discussion. It's a great topic for discussion also, I'm not going down that path with you because you don't appear to see the distinction, and I feel like I'd be wasting my words and have to spend ridiculous amounts of time typing out things I shouldn't have to.

 

I am not stuck in my ways. For example, until just a few years ago, I bought the propagandized version of gender relations that had been spoonfed to me my entire life, and would accept that there is a double standard in the way men and women are sexually judged without batting an eyelash. Once I woke up to how thoroughly ingrained a warped sense of gender equity has become in our political culture, it became apparent just how deep the rabbit hole goes in the campaign of special interests to manipulate women, and what a powerful tool the degradation and marginalization of men has become in that process. The world makes a lot more sense now, but if it turns out, after another 30 years of study and experience, that I was wrong, I will gladly admit it and change my point of view.

 

I don't think you are stuck in your ways, but rather, just like most U.S. women today, clinging to the conventions of the past that benefit you, while simultaneously shirking off any accountability for a present state of gender relations that is getting nastier and nastier by the year.

 

Arguments, by the way, are always won or lost, just very slowly and over a very long period of time. Mammals won their argument with reptiles, just took awhile. Communism lost its argument, as will centralized quasi-socialist bureaucracies in time, as will the political propaganda tool "feminism," that has accompanied the rise of the socialist bureaucracy. After women have been truly in the workforce for another 20-30 years, they will begin to realize the depth of the lies and manipulation they have been subject to. Political interests polarized the genders, not history, and it has happened only in the last 40 years.

 

Women I know are already moving to libertarian causes, even throwing "Tea Parties," now. This would -never- have happened in the 70s and 80s. Arguments are won, and this one will be, just maybe not in our lifetimes, and maybe not without bloodshed.

 

Men constantly throw themselves at women. That's the whole crux of your argument.

 

No, it's not the crux of my argument, and you know it, tired of retyping my position for you to try to twist it some more, so won't.

 

But if it were my position, thank goodness for that state of affairs, or would you prefer extinction? To go "biological" for a second, one sex produces billions of gametes, one sex produces one a month. Which do you think was designed to, and should, proactively seek to spread genetic material?

[meerkat stew]

Is she a whore for having lots of sex? Not at all. But, in MY.EYES., I would not date her Have fun no strings attached sex with her? Sure, why not. But GF? She doesn't make the cut...

 

Women have criteria for boyfriends. Penis size, money, the way he dresses, muscles, skin color, hair, past..etc..So why can't men have criteria? To sit here and tell me that I'm immature for my standards and preferences is pretty ignorant, because even though you don't agree with them, at least respect them. To come on my thread and throw slander @ me is wild and beyond me.

 

Here's a great story. I went on a date with this lovely girl from Bangladesh. She was a facebook friend, so she's seen my pictures and my body. Ok, cool. 1st date, we had a good time..at the end of the date we walk out into the parking lot, and things got pretty heated real quick. She ended up in my car with her shirt and bra off. Looking back on it, I could've nailed her pretty good because that's what she wanted, but I didn't because I was looking for a GF at the time. Turns out, she friendzoned me because, I, "moved too fast". Completely ignoring the fact that I did not coerce her into what happened, and that she consented to all of that, she labeled me not boyfriend material. Was she wrong for that? Not at all. What she was wrong for is putting all the blame on me, saying it was my fault all of that happened that night.

 

This leads me to believe that everyone, men and women, have people that they would sleep with but not date due to certain values, expectations and standards.

 

If a guy wants to bang a woman, but turn her down as serious dating material, that's completely fine. He has his reasons, as he is allowed to. Does this mean the guy is judging the girl? Looking down on her, marking and labeling her a whore and a terrible person? Not at all. He just doesn't see the girlfriend qualities HE WANTS in the said woman.

 

I've kind of derailed this into political land with my posts to this thread, leaving it for real this time, and wanted to just requote the above because it makes lots of good points. The supposed double standard in judging women is a drop in the bucket to the many ways women judge men. In fact, the double sex standard, if it even exists, is one of the -only- ways men judge women. Such is not the case with women in selecting men. Everyone has a right to their own criteria because dating people who don't meet our standards doesn't work anyway.

[bac]

I can answer the question only from female's perspective.

 

First, a mature woman, even with a half of the brain, does understand that she should not tell a guy, who she is serious about, anything about her past males including BFs, FWBs, ONSs. If he asks, she answers the white lies which he is capable to accept.

 

Second, most girls have different sexual hormonal dynamics than males do.

I do not talk here about the rare girls who are high on testosterone and have high sex drive like males do.

When the typical girls are very young they have their instincts which are somehow different from male simplistic physical sexual drive. At that point in their, many males tell them the same thing which is that sex is great and they should do it because it is the best thing ever. So, girls want to try the best thing ever.

That is the reason why young girls experimenting, testing reality, behave as 'sluts'. They try to have ONSs, FWBs, and other stuff, and from what I know they do not experience anything as pleasant as it was promised by males and media. Especially, they are confused that they can not have an orgasm, and they believe that there is smth wrong with them sexually.

It takes time to figure out things. At the begining, when they have ONSs/FWBs and they feel nothing good, they think that it is because they should try it more times, or with a different male who knows what he is doing, or that there is something wrong with them sexually. So, they try sex more and more to figure out things. From what I know, a normal (not hypersexual) girl might figure out that she hates ONSs/FWBs after about 5-10 sexual encounters. The sexual encounters make her feel terrible, wrong, and finally she knows that she wants to have a relationship with a man, emotional connection, respect and sex only with the right man.

Edited August 12, 2010 by bac

[a_woman]

interesting bac but I don't agree. A lot of women, such as myself, don't go through a 'victim' stage that you described. I started experimenting sexually later in life (was in LTRs til I was about 30) and I still like it. I'm far from hypersexual but I enjoy getting to know new partners still. No cheating or anything like that though.

[Mad Max]

First, a mature woman, even with a half of the brain, does understand that she should not tell a guy, who she is serious about, anything about her past males including BFs, FWBs, ONSs. If he asks, she answers the white lies which he is capable to accept.

 

 

The truth always comes out at some point. If the relationship ends, it's because of the lies, not because of the partners itself. If my girlfriend slept with 20 guys, I'd rather hear it from her than find out from someone. If the truth is 20 and she tells me 5, I'm dumping her. There's no worse feeling than being lied to by the one you love.

[a_woman]

The truth always comes out at some point. If the relationship ends, it's because of the lies, not because of the partners itself. If my girlfriend slept with 20 guys, I'd rather hear it from her than find out from someone. If the truth is 20 and she tells me 5, I'm dumping her. There's no worse feeling than being lied to by the one you love.

 

Is 20 a big number? I thought maybe 50 was

[Mad Max]

Is 20 a big number? I thought maybe 50 was

 

 

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 22. At my age, anyone in double digits is out of the question. There's no reason to be sleeping with that many people at that age. I don't have casual sex and have random hookups, and I expect the same from my partner.

[bac]

The truth always comes out at some point. If the relationship ends, it's because of the lies, not because of the partners itself. If my girlfriend slept with 20 guys, I'd rather hear it from her than find out from someone. If the truth is 20 and she tells me 5, I'm dumping her. There's no worse feeling than being lied to by the one you love.

 

Why would a girl even know the numbers if they are higher than 10-15?

IMO girl would remember numbers only if they are small enough.

If she is really into being 'slut' and her numbers are more than 15, I can not even imagine a girl is keeping records of all her ONSs.

What is the point for a girl? Do you think a girl feels great about herself if she can prove herself with numbers that she is the worst whore/slut ever?

I understand that men would keep records of all their ONSs because the higher numbers, the better a man feels about his manhood.

[Mad Max]

Why would a girl even know the numbers if they are higher than 10-15?

IMO girl would remember numbers only if they are small enough.

If she is really into being 'slut' and her numbers are more than 15, I can not even imagine a girl is keeping records of all her ONSs.

What is the point for a girl? Do you think a girl feels great about herself if she can prove herself with numbers that she is the worst whore/slut ever?

I understand that men would keep records of all their ONSs because the higher numbers, the better a man feels about his manhood.

 

 

It's not difficult to remember that many people. Women are often just as promiscuous as guys, just they feel shame(usually) with the high number. But, it gets right back to my point of if you don't want to be seen as a slut, don't act like one.

[a_woman]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 22. At my age, anyone in double digits is out of the question. There's no reason to be sleeping with that many people at that age. I don't have casual sex and have random hookups, and I expect the same from my partner.

 

Oh I'm ahead of you somewhat, I'm 38.

[kdark]

I think men who feel this way just want to punish women because women have an easier time getting sex, and men are just jealous they can't get sex as easily as a woman can.

[Mad Max]

I think men who feel this way just want to punish women because women have an easier time getting sex, and men are just jealous they can't get sex as easily as a woman can.

 

 

Nothing to do with it. People that sleep around have no self-control and lack it in other areas as well. They don't make good partners either.

[kdark]

Nothing to do with it. People that sleep around have no self-control and lack it in other areas as well. They don't make good partners either.

 

Or they just really enjoy sex.

 

Cheating and "sleeping around" are two very different things.

 

And I personally enjoy dating girls who have had lots of sex. It's less of a headache, and a lot more enjoyable. You guys who refuse to date them can send them all my way if you like...

[zengirl]

Disagree, relying on an outmoded, outdated usage example in a single, likely abridged, dictionary is not a firm basis for anything.

 

There is no basis for your idea that it is outdated except your own random opinion of the time it was formed. It's not like I'm referring to something that goes back to a usage in Tudor times that has since been changed. There's no reason to harp on the 1950s thing that is logical at all.

 

Here you are completely changing the tenor of your argument. Prior, thebigquestion says "a double standard cannot exist between two differently situated groups." You respond (non sequitur btw) "It's in the dictionary, so it -is- a double standard, AND further, because the "identically situated" distinction is -not- in the dictionary or wiki, you are making it up."

Right. You can't quote a single place that SAYS what you say. I can quote places that SAY what I say. Therefore, I have sources on my side, and to say that something CAN'T exist when I've said it has and I've sourced points to show you why your view isn't the typical definition of repeatable truth is ridiculous. I am not changing my argument. My argument is that there is no reason or basis for the assertion that double standards have anything to do with identical situations, or that being identical factors in at all. For that matter, no two people are identically situated. Ever.

 

I provide examples and evidence that 1. the usage is archaic as it was included in a different time culturally where gender roles are concerned,

Most words were. We don't re-create words and definitions every year. Dictionaries, even electronic ones, are amended consistently though. So, if the usage had become truly archaic, the dictionary would not. This happens with many words. Your opinion that it is archaic is not evidence.

 

2. dictionaries are not definitive or authoritative,

They are for this purpose. Someone said, "That's not a double standard." I thought, "Well, I always thought it was," and then looked it up to be sure I was using the word the right way. The dictionary confirmed my usage. Thus, I used a dictionary exactly as one is supposed to use a dictionary.

 

3. the true meanings of words are found in more comprehensive sources

A dictionary is for looking up words. Period. This is a foolish argument. That's not to say one cannot expand upon the knowledge of the definition of the word to understand connotations and such, but you can't disregard definitions because you don't like them and be credible.

 

4. the wiki, another non-authoritative source, mentions the exact counter to the double standard I have been posting (apples to oranges, which means exactly "not identically situated"), so at the very least it isn't "made up."

First of all, the wiki I see has no note of "Apples and oranges," and I posted it. Second of all, you seem to lack an understanding of what that phrase means and when it is used. That analogy, according to you friend Wiki suggests, "refers to the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges" (of course it's been criticized because you can compare apples and oranges, but the original story the idiom comes from was about a fellow who bit into an orange and blamed it for not being as sweet as a good apple). Again, it suggests things cannot be validly compared but never suggests they have to be identical. For instance, it never says 2 apples from different places or 2 apples of different colors cannot be compared. In fact, it suggests fruit of different species. Men and women are the same species. It's more akin to saying "People and gorillas can't be compared" if you're resting your argument on that.

 

5. there are many words (gave you three examples) that aren't in a standard abridged dictionary, doesn't mean they are "made up," and 6. offered an example of a word "apartheid" where cultural changes antiquate the definition and suggest the same is the case with the gender sex "double standard" referenced in that definition.

True, but you cannot criticize a definition that exists while making them up and claim the other person is being unfair. There is no reason to believe any people ever CAN be identically situated or that they have to be identically situated, or close enough for your purposes, to call anything hypocrisy or a double standard. Except your own opinion. This is my point about the zeitgeist. I have a basis. You have no basis.

 

By continuing the "dictionary" argument, you are also taking the position that little has changed in gender relations since the 1950s. That you are apparently comfortable with that is telling.

I am not taking that position. I find that whole line of argument to be a needless strawman that has little to do with what I've said above. Of course I know gender relations have changed since the 1950s, though some of the fellows who post here seem to want to drag us back in some ways.

 

I have never disagreed that the dictionary is not a useful reference that can support the existence of facts, and never said you were wrong in mentioning it. But you didn't just mention it, you grounded your entire argument on the archaic inclusion of one single usage in one single dictionary. You have very obviously placed heavy weight on the line of reasoning "it's in the dictionary!!" and are now trying to back out of that inch by inch without actually admitting it was a flimsy stance to take in the first place.

My argument is well grounded in the dictionary because my argument is it's a perfectly good word usage. The dictionary is where you go for such things. This is like saying, "Your argument that California is on the Pacific is grounded in one map!" Yes, I place a high line of reasoning on the fact that I am using a word correctly because it is in the dictionary . . . that's what the reference is for.

 

"Double standard" was added to the dictionary in 1912, the gender sex distinction was added as an example in the 1950s. The term itself has become quite a hot button in the left's consolidation of women as a voting bloc, which travels under the catchall term "feminism" in the years since 1950. There have been massive social changes since that inclusion, but even so, it's not exactly "ancient history."

Right. It's a fairly modern definition, but not so modern that it is a new addition. That makes it more likely to still be true, not less. I could see if I was quoting some archaic version of a word or some word that was added yesterday. This is a fairly comfortable time range. Even the original definition of "double standard" (1912) doesn't bear out your identical argument.

 

This is not directed at you personally, but it is always amazing to me the tendency of your generation (or anyone indoctrinated by Big Brother in our "stellar" universities) to discount history (usually because it's inconvenient to received doctrine), and emphasize your tiny lifespan when evaluating the human condition.

I don't discount history perse. I'm also not the one throwing out words because situations have changed. You just don't like the definition, so you want to throw it out. I am not fond of those who discount words that way and am always amazed at what makes people want to do so. Just admit I've the right to call this a "double standard" and move on.

 

There is quite a lot that happened "long before you were born," that should be important to you regardless of what "era" it occured in. When history can be reduced to a few politically charged, summary platitudes (thousands of years of men oppressing women) and the actions of individuals as opposed to the broader and less biased historical forces that actually do shape where we are today, we become much more politically malleable.

I understand that, and, as such, I don't look into the nuances of words and second-guess the definitions based on those politics. I understand that linguistics will evolve, has evolved, and that randomly hanging my objections to words on the date they were entered is needless. I do think there should be less weight given to "new" words (within a few years, maybe even a decade) until they are established or very old words that are no longer part of common usage. That is my point with the timeline.

 

Now you want to switch horses to the "horny seed spreader v gatekeeper to sex" line of discussion. It's different from what we have been talking about in that it is more biology/anthropology centered and less socio-cultural centered than the "different process for obtaining sex" discussion. It's a great topic for discussion also, I'm not going down that path with you because you don't appear to see the distinction, and I feel like I'd be wasting my words and have to spend ridiculous amounts of time typing out things I shouldn't have to.

It is not different from what I've been talking about. This thread isn't about the different process for obtaining sex. It's about differing sexual values. You're the one who made it about the process, and my whole point is that this is beside the point in terms of making moral or personal value judgments.

 

I don't think you are stuck in your ways, but rather, just like most U.S. women today, clinging to the conventions of the past that benefit you, while simultaneously shirking off any accountability for a present state of gender relations that is getting nastier and nastier by the year.

I don't think gender relations are doing anything but improving, especially as transgendered, bisexual, and homosexual people gain more and more rights. Not fast enough, but progress is being made. There are still issues in certain regions, of course. But, overall, culture has become more accepting of female sexuality and human sexuality in general.

 

I don't know what conventions of the past I'm clinging to. Will I let a fellow pay on a date? Sure. I've also paid for dates too. I can't think of anything else at all, that is outdated or such, that I cling to, and I don't cling to that. I'm perfectly happy to go register with the SS if the government would like to re-write the draft law, I think men should get paternity leave, and I've no issue with men crying in public (any more than women crying in public).

 

Arguments, by the way, are always won or lost, just very slowly and over a very long period of time. Mammals won their argument with reptiles, just took awhile.

Mammals survived. And dinosaurs were killed by a giant asteroid (or something else; theorized). They didn't argue.

 

Communism lost its argument, as will centralized quasi-socialist bureaucracies in time, as will the political propaganda tool "feminism," that has accompanied the rise of the socialist bureaucracy. After women have been truly in the workforce for another 20-30 years, they will begin to realize the depth of the lies and manipulation they have been subject to. Political interests polarized the genders, not history, and it has happened only in the last 40 years.

Things go in and out of fashion. I love working. I'd never want to be a housewife. So, I won't change my views about working. You have no basis, beyond your own opinion, for your argument here. My point about arguments had nothing to do with social trends anyway. It's well known that there's little point in arguing with someone. If I actually wanted to change anyone's mind, I'd never argue with them. This argument isn't an exercise in any kind of change; we're just asserting what we believe.

 

Women I know are already moving to libertarian causes, even throwing "Tea Parties," now. This would -never- have happened in the 70s and 80s. Arguments are won, and this one will be, just maybe not in our lifetimes, and maybe not without bloodshed.

Well, I find the tea parties pretty gross, as do most of the people in my social circles. All you are saying is that there are winners and losers in life. That's true, but they don't win the argument. They don't change the hearts and minds. The North didn't win the argument with the South in the Civil War. They won the war. I doubt archaic gender relations are coming back, but anyone can have any fantasy they wish, I suppose. Certain social ideas are about changing hearts and minds. For instance, some of the racial equality we have was earned through such wars, but the important racial equality it what is won in hearts and minds. That's been generational. You are making a strange argument, though, in saying what you agree with isn't trending well NOW (i.e. gender relations) but you are sure it will turn around. . . despite trending evidence to the contrary with more women becoming educated, employed, and empowered than ever before, as well as these sexual mores trending in a more open direction for all people. It's telling that the current fight in America is over homosexuality and, to a lesser degree, religion; once that is accepted, and religion is broadened to include nonbelievers, social mores will be even more relaxed in sexual matters. That's the current trend.

 

But if it were my position, thank goodness for that state of affairs, or would you prefer extinction? To go "biological" for a second, one sex produces billions of gametes, one sex produces one a month. Which do you think was designed to, and should, proactively seek to spread genetic material?

We don't need to spread our genetic material around to ensure we don't become extinct. Our population worries are in the OTHER direction when they arise. We are over-populated, if anything. This is another outdated argument. Also, most casual sex is not intended to lead to procreation. And, no, I don't think men should seek to procreate with multiple women. (Nor should women.) I can say that pretty firmly.

 

I think men who feel this way just want to punish women because women have an easier time getting sex, and men are just jealous they can't get sex as easily as a woman can.

 

This is the conclusion I've come to.

 

Nothing to do with it. People that sleep around have no self-control and lack it in other areas as well. They don't make good partners either.

 

That's an okay thing to say. Not sure it applies in all cases, but I'd give it to anyone that promiscuity is generally not an attractive quality---in PEOPLE. The problem I have is when promiscuous men say the promiscuous women they sleep with "have no self control."

 

This got me thinking. How can someone sleep with a person they don't respect and claim to have self-respect? The only way you can is if you have a rather mean, nasty view of the world and the way we treat other people. That's where promiscuity gets ugly to me.

Edited August 12, 2010 by zengirl

[Mad Max]

Or they just really enjoy sex.

 

Cheating and "sleeping around" are two very different things.

 

And I personally enjoy dating girls who have had lots of sex. It's less of a headache, and a lot more enjoyable. You guys who refuse to date them can send them all my way if you like...

 

 

And neither one is a good thing. If you want them, please keep them. I want nothing to do with women that have casual sex.

[A O]

That said, I don't know any women who call less physically strong males "wimps" "half a man" or any sort of derogatory name.

It’s a fairly common occurrence. Not as common as the paying for dates situation where derogatory comments are almost par for the course though.

 

There are other factors that make this different from the sexual hypocrisy here. This is being considered a character flaw, not just a quality that is less than attractive. I think that is the main issue I have with it

The issue is still the same. A person has been deemed unsuitable because of a certain trait of theirs. What is different though, is how we never ask women to look at themselves when they make certain choices. We never, ever do. Only men are asked to account for their choices and actions.

 

If the fellow had said, "I prefer women who've slept with fewer men than I have women," I wouldn't have jumped all over it. That's a preference. But stating all the judgments and risks and slurs is something I find hypocritical and appalling.

Agreed about there being a right way, so to speak, about doing things. But your example is otherwise slightly different to what’s really been discussed here – man does ‘a’, therefore he has no right to judge or dismiss even, a woman who does ‘a’ also. That’s the general consensus of many around here. This fails to take into account the different drivers or circumstances behind ‘a’ and the fact that when the boot is on the other foot – we don’t hold to account the actions or choices than women make in certain circumstances as well. But accuracy and understanding is not the name of the game when issues like these arise. It’s all about voicing ones’ disapproval towards certain actions, beliefs or choices (which is basically a conscious or sub-conscious attempt to modify this behavior), whether it be via a few highly judgmental terms or the misappropriation of certain terms. It’s all the same.

 

I also think it's a biology thing. To me, our choices and actions are not determined by our biology. I could only get so strong, even if I worked at it, and certainly not as strong as most men or even some women. My body is built how it is. Anyone can choose to say yay or nay to any sexual partner. I don't believe men have some deficiency that makes them NEED to be promiscuous, and I'm not sure how that could possibly be conveyed as me being unfair or unkind to men.

A biology thang is simply a gender issue by another name. The best way to answer your view here is to turn things around. Many, if not most women guard themselves against the ever-present and well-known male sex drive. Most women do not want to be thought of in sexual terms or be used in a sexual manner. Now, if we were all one in the same then women wouldn’t do this, and in fact, would embrace sex as readily as men. But this doesn’t happen and it doesn’t happen because we’re not the same – sex means different things to the genders (a physical release for men, an emotional moment for women for instance) and there are different consequences to boot (a possible pregnancy or child to the woman, possible child support to the man). Henceforth, the futility in trying to lump the sexes into the ‘we’re all the same’ basket and judging us on this inaccurate pretext thereafter.

 

This issue has never come up in my life.

Same here. It mainly makes for good message board fodder but rarely plays out like this in real life.

 

I do think it's just an excuse for men to give into poor impulses and hold themselves to different standards, which is hypocritical.

And I think that it’s an excuse for women (and some men) to attempt to equalize or standardize behavior between the sexes. I think that’s an ignorant and intolerant stance, and I say again – it’s funny how women are rarely, if ever, held to account for certain behaviors they exercise when associating with men.

 

All the numbers I've seen on beliefs like this tell me we're trending in the right direction and men of my generation are far less likely to expect differing sexual standards for women than for themselves than other generations.

We will not see differing standards from men (not that there really are anyway) until women change their view of male sexuality also. And that's unlikely to happen. This is not and has never ever been a men only judge (female) sexuality in a negative sense. Women do it as a matter of course. In fact, it is so ingrained that most people don’t even notice it or are aware that they’re even doing it. But in short, if your average man shows too much of a propensity towards wanting sex from a woman, especially in the early dating stage, the chances of him being dumped, therefore negatively judged for his sexuality are high. It’s an all too common occurrence – judging male sexuality in a negative manner, it’s just a part of everyday life. Some women on the other hand, they want a free pass when they essentially behave in a manner that men are renowned for - being overly sexual - to which, most men overall, spend a lot of time trying to play down or prove to women that this is not the case, especially in the early dating stages as well. But it rarely happens. Few men get a free pass for being overly sexual so same deal for women. So, until women change their tune towards (male) sexuality, then the status quo will still hold true.

 

 

 

 

.

[zengirl]

It’s a fairly common occurrence. Not as common as the paying for dates situation where derogatory comments are almost par for the course though.

 

The issue is still the same. A person has been deemed unsuitable because of a certain trait of theirs. What is different though, is how we never ask women to look at themselves when they make certain choices. We never, ever do. Only men are asked to account for their choices and actions.

 

My point was I would consider women who employ such names and derision equally ugly as this. Not that people never do it.

 

I think men AND women need to take account for their choices and actions. I cannot see how I have possibly been unclear on this.

 

Agreed about there being a right way, so to speak, about doing things. But your example is otherwise slightly different to what’s really been discussed here – man does ‘a’, therefore he has no right to judge or dismiss even, a woman who does ‘a’ also. That’s the general consensus of many around here. This fails to take into account the different drivers or circumstances behind ‘a’ and the fact that when the boot is on the other foot – we don’t hold to account the actions or choices than women make in certain circumstances as well. But accuracy and understanding is not the name of the game when issues like these arise. It’s all about voicing ones’ disapproval towards certain actions, beliefs or choices (which is basically a conscious or sub-conscious attempt to modify this behavior), whether it be via a few highly judgmental terms or the misappropriation of certain terms. It’s all the same.

Voicing personal disapproval doesn't bother me in general if it's done without mean spirited discourse or hypocrisy. These are actions the OP could himself, be equally responsible for.

 

A biology thang is simply a gender issue by another name. The best way to answer your view here is to turn things around. Many, if not most women guard themselves against the ever-present and well-known male sex drive. Most women do not want to be thought of in sexual terms or be used in a sexual manner. Now, if we were all one in the same then women wouldn’t do this, and in fact, would embrace sex as readily as men. But this doesn’t happen and it doesn’t happen because we’re not the same – sex means different things to the genders (a physical release for men, an emotional moment for women for instance) and there are different consequences to boot (a possible pregnancy or child to the woman, possible child support to the man). Henceforth, the futility in trying to lump the sexes into the ‘we’re all the same’ basket and judging us on this inaccurate pretext thereafter.

I know men who don't simply want to be "used for sex" either. The issue women have is mostly (what I can see) with dishonesty. Men who have purely sexual intentions but don't declare it, or weeding out men with only sexual intentions. Women worry about this in a way that men don't have to for various reasons, none of them related to biology and most of them related to socialization.

 

And I think that it’s an excuse for women (and some men) to attempt to equalize or standardize behavior between the sexes. I think that’s an ignorant and intolerant stance, and I say again – it’s funny how women are rarely, if ever, held to account for certain behaviors they exercise when associating with men.

How am I excusing women by saying that men and women should both be held accountable for the same behaviors in the same way?

 

But in short, if your average man shows too much of a propensity towards wanting sex from a woman, especially in the early dating stage, the chances of him being dumped, therefore negatively judged for his sexuality are high. It’s an all too common occurrence – judging male sexuality in a negative manner, it’s just a part of everyday life.

Female sexuality is judged in this way too. A woman could sleep with a man too early and put him off, even if she isn't generally promiscuous. It's all silly. So long as people are honest and communicative about sex, I don't find it worth dumping anyone about, as long as both parties can wait till bot parties are ready. But that's just me. I'm not going to say the scenario you've mentioned above doesn't happen, but I don't endorse it any more than I endorse the attitude of the OP.

 

The assumption that because some women do something that I endorse it or it is a counter-point to my values and points is silly to me. There are many things many women and men do that I find awful.

 

Some women on the other hand, they want a free pass when they essentially behave in a manner that men are renowned for - being overly sexual - to which, most men overall, spend a lot of time trying to play down or prove to women that this is not the case, especially in the early dating stages as well. But it rarely happens. Few men get a free pass for being overly sexual so same deal for women. So, until women change their tune towards (male) sexuality, then the status quo will still hold true.

I don't really give men or women a "free pass" though I don't see promiscuity as some huge red flag, in either gender, if we're talking terms of sheer numbers. If we're talking behavior that is "acting out," I view it poorly in both genders. I am not saying "Give women a free pass." I'm saying "Don't give men a free pass while condemning women for the same thing."

 

My view is one of human sexuality. I hold everyone to the same standards: I think everyone should be safe and healthy. I think everyone should respect the people they sleep with, as people at least. I think it's better if you build actual relationships with the people you sleep with, but so long as there is mutual honesty, respect, and enjoyment, as well as discretion and no unhealthy scenes about it, I refuse to condemn the sexuality or sex of any two consenting adults (or 3 or 4 or whatever; not my cuppa but people can do what they want). I think people should respect the sexuality of others in all ways. I think no one should ever be overly aggressive or forceful about sex, but no one should ever be repressed or fear communicating about it. I think sex is a natural part of life that everyone should make their own choices about without demeaning others. End-stop.

Edited August 12, 2010 by zengirl

[kdark]

And neither one is a good thing. If you want them, please keep them. I want nothing to do with women that have casual sex.

 

As long as you can hold yourself to the same standard of "no casual sex", then I won't have any problem with that.

 

But I honestly can't see why so many guys are up in arms about a woman enjoying sex as much as men do. Sounds like a dream come true to me. And saying it's about self control is a bunch of hogwash. Nobody has a problem when a "player" settles down and meets a nice girl, but when a "promiscuous" girl tries to do this same thing, it's an outrage. Double standards up the ass.

 

If you live near Cincy, PM me the phone numbers of these women who don't meet your standard...

[MrNate]

I think men who feel this way just want to punish women because women have an easier time getting sex, and men are just jealous they can't get sex as easily as a woman can.

 

This. The more I see crappy threads like this, the more I understand just how much crap the modern woman has to deal with.

 

I'm sure most guys acknowledge that women have easier access to sex..but what's the big deal? All it means is that women have easier access to sex. It's not like they're all out there racking up all kinds of numbers and bragging about it. So I really find this jealousy be ill founded. Heck, I would say most of them LOVE the idea of a guy being attracted to them romantically and valuing her inner makings.. instead of someone to just bang. Why can't we just drop the double standards? If you don't like promiscuous women, then don't be promiscuous yourself.

[Mad Max]

As long as you can hold yourself to the same standard of "no casual sex", then I won't have any problem with that.

 

But I honestly can't see why so many guys are up in arms about a woman enjoying sex as much as men do. Sounds like a dream come true to me. And saying it's about self control is a bunch of hogwash. Nobody has a problem when a "player" settles down and meets a nice girl, but when a "promiscuous" girl tries to do this same thing, it's an outrage. Double standards up the ass.

 

If you live near Cincy, PM me the phone numbers of these women who don't meet your standard...

 

 

I absolutely hold myself to the same standard. It would be very hypocritical of me to expect such a thing and for me to sleep around at the same time. Enjoying sex is one thing, but randomly hooking up and casually sleeping around is a huge turn off, at least to me. In a time when STDs are rampant, it shows lack of knowledge and irresponsibility.

 

 

And sorry, but I live 400-500 miles away.

[ascendotum]

I think men who feel this way just want to punish women because women have an easier time getting sex, and men are just jealous they can't get sex as easily as a woman can.

 

There could easily be an element of jealousy with some men but I dont think it is because she has had more sex partners than the guy. I think it would be along the lines of...that it is way easier for a girl to sleep with guys that are above her league than it is for guys...and this is just ONE aspect of this topic, which is certainly a hot one at 20 pages.

 

The guys that I know that score big time with women, tend to think of most of them as sluts and I can tell you now these guys are definitely not jealous. I very much doubt jealousy is the reason why the OP is baulking at getting serious with an ex promiscuous woman.

 

As for the guys that dont get to sleep with many of these women there is probably more a theme of resentment. They dont want to be the guy an ex-promiscuous woman settles down with after they have had their fun, especially if they did not match up with the type of guy this women used to jump into bed with after only a couple of hours. Naturally they are going to feel less inclined to treat her as special and wine & dine her.

 

As has been said here by some of the women, promiscuous women dont just sleep with anybody. I know a few women who have slept with quite a number of guys and its strictly a case of show me the bad/party/good looking rouges, show me the height, show me the muscles.

 

Things have changed a LOT in western culture in the past 30 yrs when it comes to women and casual sex. 30yrs is a blink of an eye in relation to the past 5000 yrs of civilized history where promiscuity and women have been scorned across practically all cultures. Men's ideals of what they want in a wife take a bit longer to change.

[A O]

My point was I would consider women who employ such names and derision equally ugly as this. Not that people never do it.

People never have and that still holds true. No one’s applying a double standard or hypocritical label to their behavior as yet. And bring up any paying-for-dates thread (or mosey along to the next one) and you won’t see anyone hold the posters with negative views towards men who do not pay to their liking, you won’t see them being held to account.

 

Voicing personal disapproval doesn't bother me in general if it's done without mean spirited discourse or hypocrisy. These are actions the OP could himself, be equally responsible for.

OK. Let’s get to the core issue here. The real problem here is the use of derogatory labels and whatever reasoning lies behind them. That is the core issue. The side issue, to me, is in the use (sever misuse I believe) of the terms double standard or hypocrisy. In order to believe that these terms apply, one needs to believe that the genders are one in the same, that there is no difference between us. That is patently untrue and I’ve already given examples as to why. The sexes view and approach certain situations differently based on real gender differences and the situations that derive out of these. It is a total misnomer to use these terms when met with these specific circumstances and as I’ve mentioned earlier, they are used for the same reasoning that people choose to use derogatory language in the first place – it is because they disapprove of the behavior. Accuracy is a moot point in these situations.

 

I know men who don't simply want to be "used for sex" either.

Aha. But the minority, in which they clearly are does not negate the majority, that being, this is a far more female specific issue than male.

 

The issue women have is mostly (what I can see) with dishonesty. Men who have purely sexual intentions but don't declare it, or weeding out men with only sexual intentions.

The former is everyone’s issue, the latter, is an issue for any man who doesn’t play his cards right, sexually speaking. The bigger point being, it wouldn’t be an issue at all if women felt the same towards sex as men. But we all know they don’t

 

and I say again – it’s funny how women are rarely, if ever, held to account for certain behaviors they exercise when associating with men.

How am I excusing women by saying that men and women should both be held accountable for the same behaviors in the same way?

It’s a general sense in that no one has bothered, be it here and certainly within applicable threads, to hold women to account for their actions.

 

Female sexuality is judged in this way too. A woman could sleep with a man too early and put him off, even if she isn't generally promiscuous. It's all silly

Point is that we hear all about this. And the context it’s often used in is one of only women seem to ever get judged for their sexual behavior - that is so unfair they say. That’s what we’re all used to hearing. But most people totally overlook the fact that male sexuality is judged as harshly, if not moreso, and as often, if not moreso. We totally overlook this fact mainly because its so ingrained in us to do this that neither men or women give it a second thought. But when the boots on the other foot – we hear all about it.

 

So long as people are honest and communicative about sex, I don't find it worth dumping anyone about, as long as both parties can wait till bot parties are ready. But that's just me.

Indeed it is just you. Would love it if there were more like you, lots more like you in regards to this point. And I’m sure I speak for many men here. Unfortunately though, there’s as many, if not more that are the polar opposite to you. And boy, we are very mindful of that fact.

 

I don't really give men or women a "free pass" though I don't see promiscuity as some huge red flag, in either gender, if we're talking terms of sheer numbers. If we're talking behavior that is "acting out," I view it poorly in both genders. I am not saying "Give women a free pass." I'm saying "Don't give men a free pass while condemning women for the same thing."

Again, lots of women want to behave in a manner that men are renowned for but they don’t want to cop the same consequences that men face when they do this. Men do not get a free pass for their sexual nature as evidenced by the fact that many men have to prove themselves to be above this, to show that they want more from a woman than just their body. That’s hardly a free passage. In fact, that’s starting behind the sexual eight-ball in many instances.

 

My view is one of human sexuality. I hold everyone to the same standards

And here’s your problem – the belief that we’re all one in the same. Many issues on this message board are because of our failure to acknowledge or understand the very real differences between the sexes.

 

 

 

.

[Woggle]

Zengirl do you seriously think that gender relations are doing nothing but improving? Men and women pretty much hate each othet these days. Look at the links I posted in that other thread for proof.

[Chicago_Guy]

I think that some guys might date a promiscuous woman, but they certainly won't spend too much money on her and won't want a serious relationship or marriage with her. Few men truly respect a woman who has slept around and most men don't really want a woman who has slept with substantially more people than they have. Men assume that women who have slept around in the past (a) are likely to do it again in the future and (b) probably have self-esteem issues.

[Chicago_Guy]

As for the guys that dont get to sleep with many of these women there is probably more a theme of resentment. They dont want to be the guy an ex-promiscuous woman settles down with after they have had their fun, especially if they did not match up with the type of guy this women used to jump into bed with after only a couple of hours. Naturally they are going to feel less inclined to treat her as special and wine & dine her.

 

As has been said here by some of the women, promiscuous women dont just sleep with anybody. I know a few women who have slept with quite a number of guys and its strictly a case of show me the bad/party/good looking rouges, show me the height, show me the muscles.

 

I agree. Many men also think that a "former party girl" is only with them because she wants to get married or wants some security that the guys she has been with in the past could never give her. However, those men often assume that the women will get bored with them and then cheat on them.