khele2k Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was talking with a girlfriend about the double standard that a woman who sleeps around is a slut and the man is given credit for it. She argues its because its a lot harder for a guy to get sex than a woman and we (guys) actually have to work for it. I argued that its because girls know sex is better with guys that have had it a lot. Girls hit on guys that have sex a lot more than guys that don't have that reputation. On the other hand if we know a girl has slept with a ton of guys we usually stay away (unless she looks like a supermodel). Any other theories? Anyone agree with either of us? Link to post Share on other sites
stillafool Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I personally don't think a man who has worn his penis out with everyone else is that attractive; no matter how he looks. I agree it's a double standard that society puts such a high judgment on women who have biological needs just like a man. Life is unfair. Link to post Share on other sites
Author khele2k Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 I personally don't think a man who has worn his penis out with everyone else is that attractive; no matter how he looks. There is definitely some women that won't go near a guy if he's the male equivalent of a slut. But there's also a ton of women who will get in line for a guy who they perceive as good in bed. Just like there's guys who will sleep with literally everybody, but most guys won't sleep with a girl who's a "slut". Link to post Share on other sites
norajane Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Some say the definition of a slut is a woman who sleeps with other guys, but will not have sex with you. Sour grapes, in other words. Link to post Share on other sites
Author khele2k Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 I agree it's a double standard that society puts such a high judgment on women who have biological needs just like a man. Life is unfair. Right. So should women be more like men when it comes to sex or should men be more like women? From this statement you seem to feel its the former if that was the social norm. Not only that, but as men we take far more risk of rejection when it comes to approaching and initiating sex (usually). I can tell you I've hit on a lot more girls than have hit on me. What would it be like if all women were as sexually hungry as we are? Link to post Share on other sites
norajane Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 What would it be like if all women were as sexually hungry as we are? Here's a thought - find ONE person to have sex with, and have sex like crazy all the time with that person. Sex hungry does not have to mean sex with lots of people. It can mean lots of sex with one person over a lifetime. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 It's because men and women for the most part are not attracted to the same things in each other. Women look at a man who can attract a ton of women as a more attractive person but men don't look at women the same way. Link to post Share on other sites
Author khele2k Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Women look at a man who can attract a ton of women as a more attractive person but men don't look at women the same way. Right, that's what I was getting at. Women are attracted to men that other women seem to be very attracted to. With guys that's also a factor to an extent, but a heck of a lot less of one. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Right, that's what I was getting at. Women are attracted to men that other women seem to be very attracted to. With guys that's also a factor to an extent, but a heck of a lot less of one. It is to a point but a woman who is desired but hard to get is considered to be the top prize. If she uses self control and a man manages to get with her it will be considered very impressive but on the other hand if any guy can hit it what is the big deal. Men also know that women get a whole lot more offers than men so a woman who can control herself and won't give in to temptation when it presents itself is considered a more trustworthy partner. I wish women would apply to these same standards to the players many of them seem to lust after. Link to post Share on other sites
Author khele2k Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 It is to a point but a woman who is desired but hard to get is considered to be the top prize. If she uses self control and a man manages to get with her it will be considered very impressive. I was at a bar the other night and the bartender was an absolute knockout, but you know she's getting hit on like crazy ALL THE TIME and it seems like dealing with that would be a pain in the ass if you were in a relationship with her. On the other hand my girlfriend works at a bank full of middle aged married people. I don't even have to think about some drunk ******* groping or stalking her. So even though it would be sweet to be the guy dating the unbelievably hot bartender at the local bar even for bragging rights alone, I'd rather not deal with the drama that comes with her job either, personally. Link to post Share on other sites
Negative Nancy Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 On the other hand if we know a girl has slept with a ton of guys we usually stay away (unless she looks like a supermodel). elaborate why it's a turn-off in normal women but with a supermodel you would reconsider (i can already imagine the answer, but i wanna hear it from you). Link to post Share on other sites
Author khele2k Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 elaborate why it's a turn-off in normal women but with a supermodel you would reconsider (i can already imagine the answer, but i wanna hear it from you). You know why... for the same reason your avatar has a guy in it that looks like the only thing he'll ever be good for is picking up trash. That's just what we're attracted to. I've served tables with girls I absolutely couldn't stand being around for more than an hour. The one I'm thinking of in particular was mean, manipulative, a thief, and just a terrible person in every way that almost everyone hated. But I still would've slept with her. She was mind-blowingly gorgeous. Whether I would've been able to put up with her long enough to date her for longer than a month, I doubt it, but it would've only been for the sex. That's just the honest truth. You may not like to hear it, but when it comes to most guys, if you're single (and for some *******s that doesn't even matter) and meet a girl that hit the genetic lottery jackpot you're attracted no matter what. Link to post Share on other sites
KR10N Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I think it's funny how khele2k assumes that tattooed people are trash, then goes on to say he'd bang a chick just because she's hot. I'm sorry, but a lot of people would consider you trash. Link to post Share on other sites
Author khele2k Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 I think it's funny how khele2k assumes that tattooed people are trash, then goes on to say he'd bang a chick just because she's hot. I'm sorry, but a lot of people would consider you trash. You came exponentially closer to calling me trash than I ever did to the random person in that avatar. And tattoos? Yeah, never mentioned anything about tattoos once. But hey, thanks for the input out of nowhere. Link to post Share on other sites
KR10N Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 You came exponentially closer to calling me trash than I ever did to the random person in that avatar. And tattoos? Yeah, never mentioned anything about tattoos once. But hey, thanks for the input out of nowhere.Perhaps I jumped the gun. But it seemed like that's what you were getting at. Hey, no problem. This is a forum intended for registered users & I happen to be one. Link to post Share on other sites
wheream_i Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Some say the definition of a slut is a woman who sleeps with other guys, but will not have sex with you. Sour grapes, in other words. No, it's a whore is someone who sleeps with everyone. A slut sleeps with everyone but you. Link to post Share on other sites
spiderowl Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I've read quite a few postings on the same topic and read the debates. One or two things have stood out: - the guy thinks if she sleeps with me that quickly, she will do it with anyone (yes, judgemental and double standard) - the guy thinks, if she sleeps with me that quickly, she'll sleep with another guy just as quickly and therefore SHE CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO BE FAITHFUL TO ME. I suspect that it comes down to a guy not trusting the girl. If he can't trust her to be faithful, then he certainly can't trust her with his heart. She's automatically a non-starter for him and therefore he loses interest and can't respect her as an equal. It isn't easy to pick up on this because guys seem interested in fun girls who are a bit unpredictable. However, although he wants his girl to be fun and unpredictable, he doesn't want her being unpredictable by being unfaithful. It comes down to insecurity and maybe ultimately the 'selfish gene'. Whatever, it's very unfair, as he wouldn't make the same judgement about himself, I'm sure. Edited January 4, 2012 by spiderowl Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I am willing to make the same judgement about myself. I have no problem being faithful while in a relationship so what it is so wrong with expecting the same from a woman? Link to post Share on other sites
spiderowl Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Nothing wrong with expecting the same from a woman but the point is a guy could sleep around and then tell himself he would be faithful with the right girl. He wouldn't assume a girl who sleeps around would be thinking the same way. That's the double standard. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Nothing wrong with expecting the same from a woman but the point is a guy could sleep around and then tell himself he would be faithful with the right girl. He wouldn't assume a girl who sleeps around would be thinking the same way. That's the double standard. I agree but I think it has something to do with how some people consider cheating to be an act of female sexual defiance these days. When my ex cheated on me I got told that she was just expressing her sexuality and I shouldn't try to control so it tends to get placed under the same umbrella. Not saying it is right but it is a way men weed out those who might be untrustworthy. Link to post Share on other sites
spiderowl Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Sorry about the cheating. I don't condone lying in the least and it has nothing to do with expressing sexuality. Cheating is cheating. As for the trust thing, well that's what I said, it's a way that guys filter out women they think would be untrustworthy. Thing is, why would a guy who sleeps with more than one women and is open about having fun not also considered himself to be an untrustworthy cheat? Sleeping around doesn't make you a cheat unless you are lying to someone about it. Link to post Share on other sites
susanfollows Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 This entire post is rather ridiculious because no one will ever agree. The ho's will still defend their sluttiness by using the "double standards" line while the guys will continue to say around women "you're right it's a double standard" all in the hopes they meet an actual SLUT that thinks this way and will **** them. Sorry ladies but if you sleep around it's being easy and slutty just decide whether that's a bad thing or good thing too you, others will never agree. Personally as a woman I think being a slut has it's advantages, ie money, fun but I wouldn't want to do it forever Link to post Share on other sites
NoMagicBullet Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It comes out of the historical and cultural attitudes toward women in patriarchal cultures: inheritances passed down through the male line, but the only way a man could be assured his children were really his was to marry and procreate with a virgin. Hence, a woman who had "gotten around" -- even once -- was "spoiled". And that's putting it nicely. It didn't matter for men, and in various places and times, having multiple wives and/or concubines was a good thing. Plenty of heirs could be had that way, especially considering childhood mortality rates before modern medicine. It was only in the last 100-150 years that women gained rights as independent individuals in Western countries, and in some countries, women are still considered property, or at least dependents of their husbands or male relatives. The basis for the attitude may not be relevant in some places nowadays, but the attitude itself remains; in other places, it's not just a double standard, it's legally codified. Link to post Share on other sites
NSDNQ Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It comes out of the historical and cultural attitudes toward women in patriarchal cultures: inheritances passed down through the male line, but the only way a man could be assured his children were really his was to marry and procreate with a virgin. Hence, a woman who had "gotten around" -- even once -- was "spoiled". And that's putting it nicely. It didn't matter for men, and in various places and times, having multiple wives and/or concubines was a good thing. Plenty of heirs could be had that way, especially considering childhood mortality rates before modern medicine. It was only in the last 100-150 years that women gained rights as independent individuals in Western countries, and in some countries, women are still considered property, or at least dependents of their husbands or male relatives. The basis for the attitude may not be relevant in some places nowadays, but the attitude itself remains; in other places, it's not just a double standard, it's legally codified. its more than just social behavior. its genetic instinct. with the rarest of exceptions the males of every species will attempt to screw the largest number of females (thus spreading the genes around the pool) and the females will attempt to get nasty only with the most fit and attractive mates (thus making sure that ONLY the RIGHT genes get spread around the pool) not saying this would be right in society, just saying that from an evolutionary standpoint its in our nature, because it makes the species last longer. Link to post Share on other sites
ScreamingTrees Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 not saying this would be right in society, just saying that from an evolutionary standpoint its in our nature, because it makes the species last longer. Actually, wouldn't genetic diversity be better? The fact that you and I exist and are likely very different from one another would go against this idea, anyway. Even if one of us is genetically superior, the other is still alive somehow, no? Gotta wonder why mother nature would allow it. Just as diseases and parasites adapt, our offspring are the ever-changing "environments" that they try and generally fail to keep up with. It's what stops us from getting wiped out from a single bug. That's just one thought. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts