# "Slut double standard"; is it a double standard?



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> Thus, if there are not "enough", you would consider it fair?
> 
> What is your subjective statistical assessment of "enough", in this context?


For this kind of thing, it depends on how many people are being helped versus how many people are being hurt, and to what degrees. Who is being helped by these ideas?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Eska said:


> A _double standard_ is defined as (by Oxford dictionary);
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK first off, most guys who call other guys a stud are envious of the guy who slept with 10 girls in a week.

As a guy why would I respect a woman for sleeping with 10 guys?

Secondly, now this is personal experience, Ive heard women call each other sluts more than I have heard men calling women sluts.

So why dont women give each other praise for sleeping around?

Like the last date I was on, some girl was telling me how most her friends were sluts and easy and slept around but she was different. So I just came to the conclusion that she was sexually frigid. Personally I think women possibly enjoy sex more than men due to multiple orgasms. So why arnt they high fiving each other?

That said if I hear a man calling a woman a slut, I take the assumption that he got rejected and is unable to handle rejection, so I find him funny.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> There is always some woman that casually responds to these threads with, "this kind of thing makes me want to become a lesbian." But I see it's reaching new levels of organization now. lol


i just think the whole "double standard" think is so 90's. I remember women arguing about that shit when I was a little kid playing with toys and being like "why I learning the concept of fair n' share while adults get to make loopholes? Poop on this."

personally guys who sleep around a lot are repugnant to me. 

and i never asked a guy to buy my dinner or my drink. i'd rather he saved that money for the morgatge downpayment we're going to have to inevitably split with our two-income earnings because we're broke ass fuck wage slaves working off our college debt for the state.

oh wait...i don't have college debt. and i own my own property. and i'm fucking loaded. maybe i should be buying the drinks. well, in that case i want a virgin.

who needs men these days anyways?


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

dp. sry.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> i just think the whole "double standard" think is so 90's. I remember women arguing about that shit when I was a little kid playing with toys and being like "why I learning the concept of fair n' share while adults get to make loopholes? Poop on this."
> 
> personally guys who sleep around a lot are repugnant to me.
> 
> ...


Exactly you is an independent woman.

Why I reject you types, Im doing you a favour I would hate to be taking away your independence.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> who needs men these days anyways?


I do. But like. We can keep him as a pet? An equal pet >.>

Who am I kidding? I want a cave man with a giant cock. With a harem of girls doing the other girls. He'll think he's on top. We think we're on top. Everyone wins.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Exactly you is an independent woman.
> 
> Why I reject you types, Im doing you a favour I would hate to be taking away your independence.


oh, but aren't we so much more satisfying to conquer when we finally cave in and submit to our femininity as we lie, writhing, wriggling underneath the staunch, hot weight of your body, our thin arms pinned back to the bed by the wrists as you breath excruciatingly slow groans into the softness of our hair while we pray to you... plead with you "yes, no yes, no, please don't, please please please? I need you!"


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> For this kind of thing, it depends on how many people are being helped versus how many people are being hurt, and to what degrees. Who is being helped by these ideas?


Thus, you do not utilize the parameters of the idea, to evaluate its "fairness"? (effort/method of acquisition)

What do you consider to be "enough"? Do you have specific statistical measurements/margins?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> oh, but aren't we so much more satisfying to conquer when we finally cave in and submit to our femininity as we lie, writhing, wriggling underneath the staunch, hot weight of your body, our thin arms pinned back to the bed by the wrists as you breath excruciatingly slow groans into the softness of our hair while we pray to you... plead with you "yes, no yes, no, please don't, please please please? I need you!"


Seriously please stop. You have given me a massive boner.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> OK first off, most guys who call other guys a stud are envious of the guy who slept with 10 girls in a week.
> 
> As a guy why would I respect a woman for sleeping with 10 guys?
> 
> ...


I've seen females praise other females for being promiscuous, the idea seem to have been founded on "sexual liberation"/feminist ideals.

_*Edit: The part below answers "*So why dont women give each other praise for sleeping around?*"._

Typically, I assume it is because they are aware of their stereotypical status, and their effort-to-accomplishment ratio/method of acquisition, not being "worthy" of being glorified.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Eska said:


> I've seen females praise other females for being promiscuous, the idea seem to have been founded on "sexual liberation"/feminist ideals.
> 
> Typically, I assume it is because they are aware of their stereotypical status, and their effort-to-accomplishment ratio/method of acquisition.


They seem to expect men to praise them though as well.

Like congragulations you sucked a dick. Why would I congratulate a woman on that?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> i just think the whole "double standard" think is so 90's. I remember women arguing about that shit when I was a little kid playing with toys and being like "why I learning the concept of fair n' share while adults get to make loopholes? Poop on this."
> 
> personally guys who sleep around a lot are repugnant to me.
> 
> ...


Ah--I don't really care very much about sexual history beyond the realistic affect it can have on health or the possible indications about attitude. But it's more about attitude to me, and I know that sexual history doesn't actually define attitude much of the time. I know there can be abstinent people who are very disrespectful to others, but at least you know the person isn't exploiting others for sex. People are a lot more than their gender or their sexuality to me. I also would rather be appreciated beyond that as well.

I don't know tbh, about how I would feel with a virgin because I am not, and depending on that person's values, I would prefer them to know what they want. I know some virgins might be ready to be in a long term relationship, but many people end up having various failed relationships (that can include sex) before they realize exactly what they are looking for, and I wouldn't want to deprive a partner of that if they felt they needed it. I am also not interested in "deflowering" a virgin for the sake of sexual satiation or exploration, but rather interested in a relationship.

I certainly don't find virgins unattractive, but practically I just a prospective partner to be happy. So again--it's important how different people can be. I know people who remained virgins and then went on to have a lot of sex. Some want to settle down--some do not. It's really a very personal decision and attitude and I don't think it can be decoded just by looking at a number. 

But yeah...I've known people who've had various amounts of sex, and I think society often projects certain values onto them when really there can be a lot of factors that go into that. Fortunately, sentiment like this doesn't really bother me because I know that not everyone thinks the same way, and it doesn't represent how many men think or feel. (Because I actually am heterosexual, despite the silly comments--and I certainly hope they weren't offensive or belittling to people with other sexualities.)

I don't really call girls sluts nor am I repulsed by men who've had more sex, nor virgins of either. But I do have some values that are important to me, which is what I prioritize more when considering a relationship.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> They seem to expect men to praise them though as well.
> 
> Like congragulations you sucked a dick. Why would I congratulate a woman on that?


 why do guys congradulate guys for getting some hot piece? Same shit. Stupid on either side.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> They seem to expect men to praise them though as well.
> 
> Like congragulations you sucked a dick. Why would I congratulate a woman on that?


I think that it's a tactic, that often seems to be used by feminists, to shift the standards, in order to favor a particular point of view, which would change the "perception", attributed to a trait/behavior/etc., they aim to change.

It can be seen in certain instances of "fat acceptance", where being "fat" seems to be glorified, to some extent, in order to promote a certain shift in attitude, towards that particular phenomenon.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> They seem to expect men to praise them though as well.
> 
> Like congragulations you sucked a dick. Why would I congratulate a woman on that?


...because it's your dick?

do you seriously not thank your women after they put you past their tonsils? RUDE!


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> dp. sry.


 dp. Nom nom nom. 

./Chosing to misinterpret the context. (Double strap ons ftw)


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> ...because it's your dick?
> 
> do you seriously not thank your women after they put you past their tonsils? RUDE!


No I tell her to stop go mmmmm and really enjoy it. The BJ seems to get better then as she gets more into it.

And if she is a good girl I let her have another suck. If she is a bad girl, she aint allowed to ride my magic stick.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Gilly said:


> why do guys congradulate guys for getting some hot piece? Same shit. Stupid on either side.


Because they have gotten with a hot girl, I obviously havnt as they are with her and not me. SO high five. Respect brother.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

@cybersloth81

I realized that one of my points, in post #30, was not accurately contextualized.

Here's the edited version,



Eska said:


> I've seen females praise other females for being promiscuous, the idea seem to have been founded on "sexual liberation"/feminist ideals.
> 
> _*Edit: The part below answers "*So why dont women give each other praise for sleeping around?*"._
> 
> Typically, I assume it is because they are aware of their stereotypical status, and their effort-to-accomplishment ratio/method of acquisition, not being "worthy" of being glorified.


The second paragraph referred to the second question, it was not related to the first one.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Eska said:


> I've seen females praise other females for being promiscuous, the idea seem to have been founded on "sexual liberation"/feminist ideals.
> 
> Typically, I assume it is because they are aware of their stereotypical status, and their effort-to-accomplishment ratio/method of acquisition.


yes. and...I remember all too well being the virgin and finding out that my peers were laying bets on who would corner me and "take it." And then I was raped and while he did it he called me a "dirty slut ****."

I guess even being a virgin isn't good enough for some guys. You're a slut either way. Oh well, I guess you just can't make everyone happy. 











Moral of the story:

women can be gross.

men can be gross.

human beings can be vile. 

it's wrong to objectify a human, neshama soul, vampire or not.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Because they have gotten with a hot girl, I obviously havnt as they are with her and not me. SO high five. Respect brother.


 But a girl doing the same this is...?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Eska said:


> I think that it's a tactic, that often seems to be used by feminists, to shift the standards, in order to favor a particular point of view, which would change the "perception", attributed to a trait/behavior/etc., they aim to change.
> 
> It can be seen in certain instances of "fat acceptance", where being "fat" seems to be glorified, to some extent, in order to promote a certain shift in attitude, towards that particular phenomenon.


Fat accpetence. Hahaha.

I bet the national average for obesity has risen since fat promotion.

If you look at what average wight is now and what it was 20 years ago. You will notice a difference.

Technically just about everyone is obese in reality. Its just been sugar coated so people can hide from the reality of the matter.

Obviously our fast food culture does not help with its multi million pound/dollar advertising campaigns.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Gilly said:


> But a girl doing the same this is...?


Well if women respect women for getting laid, that is up to them.

I dont relate to getting with guys so why would I give praise?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> yes. and...I remember all too well being the virgin and finding out that my peers were laying bets on who would corner me and "take it." And then I was raped and while he did it he called me a "dirty slut ****."
> 
> I guess even being a virgin isn't good enough for some guys. You're a slut either way. Oh well, I guess you just can't make everyone happy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> yes. and...I remember all too well being the virgin and finding out that my peers were laying bets on who would corner me and "take it." And then I was raped and while he did it he called me a "dirty slut ****."
> 
> I guess even being a virgin isn't good enough for some guys. You're a slut either way. Oh well, I guess you just can't make everyone happy.
> 
> ...


People everywhere are shitheads. Especially groups of people. 
What's the rape statistic in places of peace? 1 in 4 or more. 
Been there. Done that. 
Dont let the assholes get you down, am I right?

fucking sheeple. ./twitch. 


I do like to be objectified. But by a decent human being who actually respects me. 
Respect is what it's all about. You don't feel that for other people? Please go crawl back under your God damned rock.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

Eska said:


> What part of my post are you referring/answering to?


 She quoted it for you.


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> Thus, you do not utilize the parameters of the idea, to evaluate its "fairness"? (effort/method of acquisition)
> 
> What do you consider to be "enough"? Do you have specific statistical measurements/margins?


It's a fuzzy concept because nobody could accurately measure (or agree on) the average degree of positive and negative effect of an idea. But it might be proportional to the value of that idea.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Gilly said:


> She quoted it for you.


She quoted the post.
I questioned which part of my post (comprised of two main points) is her reply referring to, as I failed to see the relevance of her response, in regards to either of my points.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> It's a fuzzy concept because nobody could accurately measure (or agree on) the average degree of positive and negative effect of an idea. But it might be proportional to the value of that idea.


Assuming you utilize the parameters proposed by the idea, and utilizing your original argument;


Diminuendo said:


> My argument is that there are enough outliers to make it unfair.


What is the statistical data required for it to be "enough outliers"?


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Eska said:


> What part of my post are you referring/answering to?


INFP logic: I'll try to explain.

To me, being a slut and pegging people and thinking you're cool because of it is similar to the heart of what lies behind the evil of rape. Though the actions are not equivocal by miles, though the actors of those actions may have different motives and degrees of morality that range from ignorant to base, the same nugget of ugliness ties the slut with the rapist in a common, tragic theme.

Both of the rapist and the slut objectify their partners (witting or otherwise). Both of them have disrespected the human soul through the act of sexuality. Both of them have trampled on something precious, which is the heart. Both of them are using a human being to feed their own sense of power. The feminist slut who congratulates herself for her conquests is as repugnant to me as the rapist who laid on top of me and took. The man who slays through a series of girls in order to get a high five is just as mortally compromised as the man who takes it from a woman by force. Who can say what kind of damage these people do? Only the victims of their sprees, who were chalked up as nothing more than points by which their heels were bloodied. 

I care not the gender, the way it was enacted or the amount of conquests which were garnered. To see a human as nothing more than something to wipe oneself on or off debases the user and the used alike.

Using people is like a virus. It starts and then the pain doesn't stop. Let's talk about what sluts do in real, human terms: what they cause is pain. This is nothing less than a conversation about human suffering at its core.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> INFP logic: I'll try to explain.
> 
> To me, being a slut and pegging people and thinking you're cool because of it is similar to the heart of what lies behind the evil of rape. Though the actions are not equivocal by miles, though the actors of those actions may have different motives and degrees of morality that range from ignorant to base, the same nugget of ugliness ties the slut with the rapist in a common, tragic theme.
> 
> ...


I actually disagree here.

High Fiving is one thing.

But the 3 occasions were rape has occurred (actual forceful rape not just some girl regretting it the next day):

The guy who was known by myself and a few others ended up in hospital and is now handicapped.
The girl who was his victim was trustworthy and we saw the state she was in.

The guy who tried it on with someones GF whilst she slept after a party recieved a broken leg and arm.

The guy who attempted to rape my GF at the time, whilst I was abroad got a way scot free, but I persuaded her to goto the cops as she saw that I was going to physically attack every taxi driver until I found the one who tried to rape her.


If a girl is willing to have one night stand, that is one thing.

But I dont view that the same as rape.

Just my two cents.

I do see what your getting at. But say I went out tonite (work tomorrow so not feasible) and ended up having some girl invite me back to hers, to me that is totally different to someone forcing themselves on a girl.


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> Assuming you utilize the parameters proposed by the idea, and utilizing your original argument;
> 
> 
> What is the statistical data required for it to be "enough outliers"?


If the negative (average degree of negative affect multiplied by the number of negatively effected people) is greater than the positive, then it is unfair. :05.18-flustered: I don't know.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> INFP logic: I'll try to explain.
> 
> To me, being a slut and pegging people and thinking you're cool because of it is similar to the heart of what lies behind the evil of rape. Though the actions are not equivocal by miles, though the actors of those actions may have different motives and degrees of morality that range from ignorant to base, the same nugget of ugliness ties the slut with the rapist in a common, tragic theme.
> 
> ...


Thus, you were referring to the point about promiscuity being glorified by feminist ideals, by saying that it is morally reprehensible to utilize sexual activities as a means to further a specific 'agenda', by your criteria?


----------



## Flamme et Citron (Aug 26, 2015)

Women have an easier time getting sex than you. Guess what buddy, sex isn't a competition. There's no referee keeping tally. How many times someone has had sex isn't anybody's business. Comparing amount of sex with academic and athletic achievements displays an immature and unhealthy perspective on intimacy. "I worked hard for the 20 chicks I banged, I'm so alpha!" Nobody cares. There's nothing more unsexy than a guy that's butthurt because he can't control what women do with their lives, insecure as fuck.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> I actually disagree here.
> 
> High Fiving is one thing.
> 
> ...


you didn't read my post. i said they were NOT equivocal actions by miles and that the motives were totally different.

Where I equate the two is in a realm far more idealistic:
I said the UGLINESS lies in the fact that the impetus of a slut is that of using someone for a conquest objectifies a human being (in the case of a feminist congratulating another for a conquest or a guys laying bets over a piece of ass). Similarly a rapist uses a human as an object.

A rapist using a victim for his/her own purposes is objectification.
A slut using a series of humans for his/her own purposes is also objectification.

Objectification without reciprocity is wrong, regardless of the user or the degree of violence, pleasure or non-violence used while it was exacted.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Eska said:


> Thus, you were referring to the point about promiscuity being glorified by feminist ideals, by saying that it is morally reprehensible to utilize sexual activities as a means to further a specific 'agenda', by your criteria?


oh god Eska, is this how you normally speak or are you trying to confuse my INFP pea brain?

I am saying that human objectification as used by a slut, regardless of gender or 'ism' is wrong, destructive and yes, morally reprehensible.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> you didn't read my post. i said they were NOT equivocal actions by miles and that the motives were totally different.
> 
> Where I equate the two is in a realm far more idealistic:
> I said the UGLINESS lies in the fact that the impetus of a slut is that of using someone for a conquest objectifies a human being (in the case of a feminist congratulating another for a conquest or a guys laying bets over a piece of ass). Similarly a rapist uses a human as an object.
> ...


Ok thanks, I misread.

I understand what you mean.

I will penly admit I used to have that mindset, then something in my neurology shifted and the world changed.

No on a serious note, I read a book and it mentioned something about PUA's and it caused me to re evaluate a lot of the intentions behind my behaviour.

Dont get me wrong I still enjoy sex and I love flirting with women. But I do it for that reason now and that reason only.

If John is getting laid more than me, and david is getting laid less than me, so f**king what, if I enjoy my time iwth Sarah, those other 2 facts have no bearing what so ever. They do not change the fact that I enjoy my time with Sarah.

That was hypothetical ppl by the way.

I spent a long time with the mindset where it was a competition on who was the best. But once I realised it actually didnt matter who was the best, I found I actually started enjoying female company for the sake of female company.

Where as some of my friends at the time, if I was chatting to a girl, I could see them running around chatting to multiple girls trying to outdo me. At the time it was annoying, then I thought it was funny, now I just think that behaviour is pathetic. I evolved beyond it.

I think some guys get stuck there and never move on though.

The male ego is a complicated topic in itself.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> If the negative (average degree of negative affect multiplied by the number of negatively effected people) is greater than the positive, then it is unfair. :05.18-flustered: I don't know.


This seems to be a utilitarian perspective, although, if we assume that you use the parameters of effort/method of acquisition; why is it currently unfair? 

You seem to have hinted to statistical data, saying that there were "enough" 'outliers', for the idea to be dismissed.

Now, I ask, what do you consider to be "enough"? How much is this "enough", you are speaking of?



Flamme et Citron said:


> Women have an easier time getting sex than you. Guess what buddy, sex isn't a competition. There's no referee keeping tally. How many times someone has had sex isn't anybody's business. Comparing amount of sex with academic and athletic achievements displays an immature and unhealthy perspective on intimacy. "I worked hard for the 20 chicks I banged, I'm so alpha!" Nobody cares. There's nothing more unsexy than a guy that's butthurt because he can't control what women do with their lives, insecure as fuck.


I aim to explain the reasoning as to why, based on the general perception, the "slut double standard" can be reasoned to not be a "double standard", and be considered "fair".

Whether you "care", or find it to be repulsive, is irrelevant to the point being made, if you meant it as a refutation.



sweetraglansweater said:


> oh god Eska, is this how you normally speak or are you trying to confuse my INFP pea brain?
> 
> I am saying that human objectification as used by a slut, regardless of gender or 'ism' is wrong, destructive and yes, morally reprehensible.


I import some of my syntax from French, I assume some of it may appear odd, to those more 'fluent' in English, or those who have different dialects, etc.

I see.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> dp. sry.


No, it's fine. You do you.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Ok thanks, I misread.
> 
> I understand what you mean.
> 
> ...


there was a period two years after I was raped when the anger of what had happened to me caught up with my subconscious and I used my sexuality as a weapon against men. I didn't sleep around but I might as well have. My behavior was slutty, it was cruel and mean. It went beyond the fun banter of teasing down the path of seduction and destruction. It was repugnant and wrong. But I think even if I had been acting out of careless selfishness it would have been the same as if I did it with intent: I was objectifying my 'conquests' and not treasuring their humanity, which was just as tenuous and precious as my own.

That being said, I won't equivocate someone's actions as similar to mine based on my own, twisted past. When some of my girlfriends talk about getting laid I want to see their individual reasons. Are they acting out of hurt? Are they being selfish? Did they just get seduced and caught up in a moment of passion? And the same applies for a man. 

When a child steals a cookie you want to know why. Did they do it out of defiance? Did they do it because they were hungry and impatient? Did they give into their craving? Were they operating on the idea of scarcity or selfishness? You discipline the child according to the actions of his heart. 

I want to understand why a slut does what he or she does before I write them off as simply being motivated by an 'ism'. The danger of feminism, like any 'ism' is that it gives an excuse for the cookie takers as opposed to asking why the cookie takers are taking cookies to begin with and then addressing those issues. At the same time I think we can objectively say that using people like a pair of shoes, regardless of the motive, ranges from petty selfishness to outright cruelty.


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> This seems to be a utilitarian perspective, although, if we assume that you use the parameters of effort/method of acquisition; why is it currently unfair?
> 
> You seem to have hinted to statistical data, saying that there were "enough" 'outliers', for the idea to be dismissed.
> 
> Now, I ask, what do you consider to be "enough"? How much is this "enough", you are speaking of?


I should have said more than enough. I can't give an exact figure for at what size a group becomes significant. It's completely arbitrary.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Seriously please stop. You have given me a massive boner.


this whole thread summed up:


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

So what's the point here? That we should continue shaming females who have sex more often than some people think they should, just because it's easier for them get sex?

So what if it's then determined not to be a double standard, I don't understand what point you're trying to achieve (actually I think I do if I remember other posts of yours correctly and I think I do so yeah...)

If anything, I actually have less respect for men who sleep around a lot and more respect for women who do....maybe a double standard on my own end there but I respect those who defy "social norms" (in certain cases obviously I don't condone harming others just because it defies the social norm of not doing so; just the typically petty bullshit that society always seems to get it's underwear twisted over...like sex/gender roles).



A) It's a double standard; we should stop shaming women just for having sex when men get praised for the same thing.

B) It isn't a double standard; we should still stop shaming women just for having sex, simply because it's easier for them doesn't make it at all shameful.


Would call this a sexist inquiry in and of itself actually....as if somehow trying to justify shaming women for having sex and to keep up with this "double standard".


Maybe I missed something though, didn't read through 7 pages of what I can only assume to be a bunch of what one would expect from such a thread.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Diff people, diff concepts, not a double standard
sure it sounds like it is but... it's not
because we don't behave as the same
and we don't have the same expectations

and most of all: culture itself makes it impossible to be different



Khrakhan said:


> So what's the point here? That we should continue *shaming *females


Shame, exactly. I know it's not the OP intention, he is discussing concepts, but *shame and guilt *is what ends up ruing everything.

Instead of comparing how a concept is applied in our society
we should look INSTEAD (my suggestion) to how we behave in the same society
then, if we don't act as the same, we can't expect "the same" concept to be applied...
equally, to both genders, even without gender: as human beings.


*Why?*
What does it takes for a man to be a man/slut?
and what does it takes for a woman? do you see it?

*Example:*
A very close friend of mine, female, straight told me once: we should go out like... with 10 diff people per month to get to know new prospects, new people. And perhaps have sex with them, or not, it depends, the thing is going out, dating. Well, in our case (guys) in our region (latinamerica) going out with 10 diff women the same month will leave us dry, it's draining, expensive, time consuming, we have to be there on time, and wait (because 90% of times she is not ready yet), then go out, entertain, faults and mistakes will not be looked at the same as hers, we can't afford to lower the standard set by first dates, etc. For her? I asked her... we laughed, it usually meant free meals. It varies from culture to culture.

But again, in some culture more than others, to be a man/slut you have to show and prove at least some of traits... positive, from a list, it's expected, no woman goes to bed just because, while the opposite? she just have to be there. So we can't compare it.

It's easy, but tricky to understand (for some).


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> I should have said more than enough. I can't give an exact figure for at what size a group becomes significant. It's completely arbitrary.


What made you think that there was enough 'outliers'? The experience in your entourage? etc.



Khrakhan said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've presented a reasoning that justifies the idea, that it is not a double standard.

I have not actively encouraged, or discouraged, any practice(s).


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> What made you think that there was enough 'outliers'? The experience in your entourage? etc.


Yes, and my experience in the world at large. But I don't think there's an in-group and out-group. If you have a group of people of all ages, but that are mostly around 30 years old, a standard based on the general age of 30 and applied to everyone wouldn't be fair, especially to the far outliers (e.g. 2 years old, 90 years old)


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> Yes, and my experience in the world at large. But I don't think there's an in-group and out-group. If you have a group of people of all ages, but that are mostly around 30 years old, a standard based on the general age of 30 and applied to everyone wouldn't be fair, especially to the far outliers (e.g. 2 years old, 90 years old)


What is the "outlying" quality, of these 'outliers', usually?

What role/norm is usually defied/not met, by which sex, etc.?


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> What is the "outlying" quality, of these 'outliers', usually?
> 
> What role/norm is usually defied/not met, by which sex, etc.?


The effort and ability of men and women to obtain sex partners. It can be very easy for some men and very difficult for some women.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Khrakhan said:


> So what's the point here? That we should continue shaming females who have sex more often than some people think they should, just because it's easier for them get sex?
> 
> So what if it's then determined not to be a double standard, I don't understand what point you're trying to achieve (actually I think I do if I remember other posts of yours correctly and I think I do so yeah...)
> 
> ...


On the male side of things, it is caused by guys sometimes nice guys who dont get laid. So basically it is insecurity and male ego. I dont think there is any solution to that except self improvement and growth. However the books, the courses, the hypnosis have been around for years (Tony Robbins, Serge King, Eckart Tolle, etc) so it comes down to personal choice and if a guy is confident in himself (maybe misplaced confidence) and truly believes that he is right he is going to have no reason to seek this path out. 

As for women, what causes women to call each other sluts, I have no idea as I am not a woman. 

But the most times I have seen it from guys, it is normally caused by rejection. When a guy gets rejectd and wont look at himself, he decided it is the womans fault as how could he be in need of personal growth (sarcasm).

But then on the other hand what causes guys to think that they are OK just the way they are?



> “There are certain bad habits we've groomed our whole life -- from personality flaws to fashion faux pas. And it has been the role of parents and friends, outside of some minor tweaking, to reinforce the belief that we're okay just as we are. But it's not enough to just be yourself. You have to be your best self. And that's a tall order if you haven't found your best self yet.”


 - Neil Strauss

But blaming others and not taking action is the Status Quo now a days, as it is the easy solution.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> The effort and ability of men and women to obtain sex partners. It can be very easy for some men and very difficult for some women.


Generally, the female is expected to be "harder" to obtain, and the male is expected to be "easier" to obtain, due to the qualities being sought out, and the resources/skills required.

Although, that does not mean that their attractiveness' disparity is not taken into count.

Ex;









Out of these 2 females, which do you think is more likely to obtain, as a sex partner, the male below, with the least amount of effort?










The effort/ability to obtain sex partners, consensually, is based on the approval of both parties, thus, generally, it is based on a criteria of attractiveness, from both sides.

The idea I've presented, is based on the general phenomenon, although I have not explicitly pointed it out, I implicitly counted in a factor of proportions, which is also generally the norm (people of 'fairly' equal attractiveness).


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Eska said:


> Generally, the female is expected to be "harder" to obtain, and the male is expected to be "easier" to obtain, due to the qualities being sought out, and the resources/skills required.
> 
> Although, that does not mean that their attractiveness' disparity is not taken into count.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately men have conditioned women into this mindset by throwing themselves at women. The reason that men are generally easier for a woman to obtain than a woman for a man to obtain is this very reason. Men throw themselves, women get to pick.

We as men have only ourselves to blame for this.

Unfortunately there will always be orbiters and beta males around carrying out this very behaviour so a woman will never really have to put in the same work.

However men have to compete with these other men.

Also due to Fat Acceptence, women like the one on the left in your picture are now becoming more common, and women like the one on the right are becoming less common.

This means a smaller pool of datable women for a larger pool of men. I think in a few generations society will be fully back to cave men era and men really will be killing each other over attractive women as they will be rarer and rarer.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Diminuendo said:


> The effort and ability of men and women to obtain sex partners. It can be very easy for some men and very difficult for some women.


I disagree, even the most hideous woman, if she were to go out would have a very good chance with lonely desperate guys at the end of a night. 

Sex is easy to obtain I believe, I think it is a partner that sticks around that is the hard part.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Meltedsorbet said:


> So basically, if women want to elevate their status in society they should just stop sleeping with men and just sleep with other women.


Coming back to this point, 

What is the process of thought/reasoning, that brought you to this conclusion? (assuming it was not a joke/reference/etc.)


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Eska said:


> Coming back to this point,
> 
> What is the process of thought/reasoning, that brought you to this conclusion? (assuming it was not a joke/reference/etc.)


Oh--it was a joke.

It's simple. It seems that sleeping with women raises one's status for men, and sleeping with men lowers it for women. So I just put two and two together and assumed that women who just abstain from sleeping with men will not lower their status, and if they sleep with other women they will just increase it.

It's a silly joke.

And as I said--I often find these kinds of threads inspire that kind of sentiment "wow...I never want to date/sleep with one if they really think of women as such objects. I would never want to allow myself to be objectified in such a way...I wish I was a lesbian." 

But I know that "men" don't all share the mindset of viewing women as some status symbol that raises their status when they "obtain" one. I also know that not all men objectify women and value based on their reproductive qualities of sexual purity, above other qualities that women possess, and disparage women if they aren't "palatable" to their selfish tastes.

Being desirable in that kind of system of value can only remind me of like, a cow wishing they had the proper build to be slaughtered, and wishing to be desirable for someone's dinner table. It makes people sound like cannibals and justifies hurtful behavior. So I dislike it.

So anyway...that's the most thorough answer I can give.

Edit: I think maybe it's just a difference in values. So...the reasoning you provided suggests that for men, women can be a means to raise their status. So for some men who value that--they could seek out women who are especially likely to raise their status. There are women who also could seek out men to raise their status (like perhaps through money or power) and so those two people could be a good fit, as they are both valuing status and material values (status, beauty, wealth). 

So it's not like it has to be as bad as I depict it, but it's just that I tend to find that offensive to my values, so I find it kind of nightmarish to assume that all people share those values.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Oh--it was a joke.
> 
> It's simple. It seems that sleeping with women raises one's status for men, and sleeping with men lowers it for women. So I just put two and two together and assumed that women who just abstain from sleeping with men will not lower their status, and if they sleep with other women they will just increase it.


Well I have known several Lesbian PUA's and they actually get 10 X more respect and following than a male PUA.

They actually become like icons.

Which is kind of strange in the PUA community given the general view on women.

You may have a point there tbh.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Well I have known several Lesbian PUA's and they actually get 10 X more respect and following than a male PUA.
> 
> They actually become like icons.
> 
> ...


It's probably just that we tend to frame these conversations as if men and women have different views. All men value status more than women. All women value romance more than men etc. 

But really there are women who value obtaining status through sex or whatever it is that PUA people value. There are also men who do not. There are men who objectify other men, and women who objectify other women. People can have very different values from whatever category we put them into (whether it's gender, class, ethnicity.) There might be some kind of observable trends for various groups having similar values around their group idenity, but individuals still differ.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> It's probably just that we tend to frame these conversations as if men and women have different views. All men value status more than women. All women value romance more than men etc.


Status or the appearence of just seems to attract women more easily.

I figure this goes back to caveman times, when the tribal leader would be the one with the women. The higher the mans status in a tribe the more chance he would have of succeeding.

This also explains why men have anxiety around women. 



> Fear siezes hold in your chest first. It clamps to the top of your heart like a vice made out of rubber. Then you really feel it. Your stomach churns, your throat closes. And you swallow, desperately trying to avoid the dryness and hoping that when you open your mouth, a confident, clear voice will emerge. You are terrified.
> Women by large, are much more perceptive than men. They can instantly spot insincerity and bulls***. Anyone talking to a woman while simulataneously worrying what she thinks of him is going to fail. Anyone caught thinking about getting into a womans pants before she starts thinking about whats in his pants is going to fail. And most men fall into this category. We cant help it: its our nature. We are constantly buffeted by, on one hand, our over whelming desire to have sex with a girl and on the other the need to protect ourselves when approaching. The reason this fear exists, is because we are wired evolutionarily for a tribal existence, where everyone in the community knows when a man is rejected by a woman. He is then ostracized and his genes are unapolligetically weeded out of existence.


In caveman times approaching or talking to the wrong woman, could result in the tribal leader bashing your brain in with a club or a rock. Although technology has evolved our brain is still hardwired same as always. We just think we are superior due to our reliance on technology and our vast vocabulay of words.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Status or the appearence of just seems to attract women more easily.
> 
> I figure this goes back to caveman times, when the tribal leader would be the one with the women. The higher the mans status in a tribe the more chance he would have of succeeding.
> 
> ...


Well...I don't think we are absolutely sure about what social structure was like for early humans. Certainly it's true that anywhere where their is a very violent kind of hierarchy where one small minority in power violently controls the majority of the resources (including other people if they are put well enough below) then there could be a lot of brain bashing for whatever reason.

Looking at some of the smaller tribes though, I don't think that it's typical for humans to have such a brutal social system. Many tribes are actually much more egalitarian and communal, and can have various types of marriage arrangement. Like even the Tibetans had a form of polygamy in which a woman could be married to several husbands, often brothers, and this helped ensure sustenance for the children as well as not much competition as far as genes go (since the two brothers would share many of the same genes already). It doesn't seem that romantic (at all) to my sensibilities, but it's an example of how diverse human sexual and bonding behavior can be. 

So while I often do think about how cave men might act--I also don't really know about what the more complicated social structures would be like since there's a lot of diversity in human culture.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Well...I don't think we are absolutely sure about what social structure was like for early humans. Certainly it's true that anywhere where their is a very violent kind of hierarchy where one small minority in power violently controls the majority of the resources (including other people if they are put well enough below) then there could be a lot of brain bashing for whatever reason.
> 
> Looking at some of the smaller tribes though, I don't think that it's typical for humans to have such a brutal social system. Many tribes are actually much more egalitarian and communal, and can have various types of marriage arrangement. Like even the Tibetans had a form of polygamy in which a woman could be married to several husbands, often brothers, and this helped ensure sustenance for the children as well as not much competition as far as genes go (since the two brothers would share many of the same genes already). It doesn't seem that romantic (at all) to my sensibilities, but it's an example of how diverse human sexual and bonding behavior can be.
> 
> So while I often do think about how cave men might act--I also don't really know about what the more complicated social structures would be like since there's a lot of diversity in human culture.


True. Well me and like minded people are just one element of this diverse culture we live in.

But we all descended from Cavemen.

Shame some f**ker had to invent that wheel.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> True. Well me and like minded people are just one element of this diverse culture we live in.
> 
> But we all descended from Cavemen.
> 
> Shame some f**ker had to invent that wheel.


We did...but humans have pretty big brains and we seemed to be geared towards living in huge societies. Like our civilizations have populations that are way bigger, with more complicated social structures than pretty much any other primate. We descended from cave men and we are still biologically not that different than them...but I still don't think that means we know how early human societies worked. Compared to other animals, humans are very adaptable and gregarious. It's interesting to speculate on how cave men lived--I used to like a lot of the Jane Auel fiction books, but they are somewhat outdated, especially in how she depicts neanderthals in the first book.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> We did...but humans have pretty big brains and we seemed to be geared towards living in huge societies. Like our civilizations have populations that are way bigger, with more complicated social structures than pretty much any other primate. We descended from cave men and we are still biologically not that different than them...but I still don't think that means we know how early human societies worked. Compared to other animals, humans are very adaptable and gregarious. It's interesting to speculate on how cave men lived--I used to like a lot of the Jane Auel fiction books, but they are somewhat outdated, especially in how she depicts neanderthals in the first book.


Ive mainly read Evo Psych

Sperm Wars
Selfish Gene
The Red Queen

In bars and nightclubs and any social gatherings, I have noticed that behaviours are generally the same.

And it gives me an explaination for why I exist in the first place.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

It's usually the weak and feeble men who propagate this double standard.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

OK just thought I would post a BBC documentry episode as sexism is a big topic.

BBC iPlayer - Tyger Takes On... - Series 2: 2. Am I Sexist?

For the record one of my friends is in it.

I nearly appeared on it but had D&V


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

SevSevens said:


> It's usually the weak and feeble men who propagate this double standard.


The point that it is not a double standard, is valid.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Eska said:


> The point that it is not a double standard, is valid.


fine, only weak women and men hold others to a standard of irrational celibacy. It should be expected that for every year of unmarriage there are at least 10-12 sexual encounters with random strangers.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

SevSevens said:


> fine, only weak women and men hold others to a standard of irrational celibacy. It should be expected that for every year of unmarriage there are at least 10-12 sexual encounters with random strangers.


The opposite could be argued, although, what do you mean by "irrational celibacy"?


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> I disagree, even the most hideous woman, if she were to go out would have a very good chance with lonely desperate guys at the end of a night.


this is a funny phenomena i've never understood. 

going back to this:



> Unfortunately men have conditioned women into this mindset by throwing themselves at women. The reason that men are generally easier for a woman to obtain than a woman for a man to obtain is this very reason. Men throw themselves, women get to pick.
> 
> We as men have only ourselves to blame for this.
> 
> Unfortunately there will always be orbiters and beta males around carrying out this very behaviour so a woman will never really have to put in the same work.


i've seen men not hit on attractive or average women but then, at the closing of the night, "go home" with the fat women at the bar. i've personally experienced it. i've posted this elsewhere on the forum but at one point i wanted to try to have a one night stand so i went to a bar repeatedly and sat there trying to get picked up. (i'm not a wounderously beautiful woman but i'm not ugly either) but no one, i mean no one hit on me. but i watched as guys moseyed around and at the close of the night picked up fat chicks. i went home alone. maybe i was doing something wrong but i think it had to do with these two truths about men:

a) men dislike attractive women making themselves available because they like "the chase" (for various psychological reasons, also symbolically an average to attractive woman making herself sexually available signals something in them that they want to avoid?)... 
b) but men will casually sleep with unattractive women that they don't have to put forth "effort" to attain. 

i'd like to understand the male psychology of "sleeping around" because i have literally seen so many guys pick the fat, ugly chick over pursuing the good girl or the attractive girl. i've seen guys straight up ignore girls, especially the more conservative they are.

it seems to me men just like it cheap and easy. there are some men who pride themselves in "scoring" on attractive "hard to get" women but these guys are dogs.

in my experience:
guys who will take anything easy, in fact, the easier the better...even if she's disgusting (majority)
guys who like to score on women or "play the field," the harder the better (small percentile of assholes, or men going through short "phase")
guys who pursue women they genuinely like (minority) 

^at any point a man may transition in and out of any of these modes. 

but women don't really have to try for sex or partners, only for the quality of partner.

just observations. not making a point. just wondering how this all factors in.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> this is a funny phenomena i've never understood.
> 
> going back to this:
> 
> ...


It's cause the easy girl will do what ever they say so they never have to think. The mildly attractive to above average girl is a mental challenge and at night after a few beers no one wants to think.

Plus it's easier to FALL for the attractive girl. So going home with her will have emotional baggage. The other girl will please just fine and it will be especially easy to bounce the next morning without so much as a name.

Pursueing women you like generally leaves a bad after taste in the guys mouth. Here is why.

most of the time when a guy likes the girl the girl does not like the guy for this very reason so he ends up spinning his wheels, and worse, if he does get her, he is usually in line for sloppy seconds...

guys don't like this because who wants to end up with a person who chose the tatood body builder over you? Could you imagine looking at your kids in 20 years and being like, yup their mother used to get slamed by the bouncer at the dive bar.

It's just not the sort of genes people want to propagate.

That's why girls that men thought were attractive when they were younger tend to be considered uglier later in life. Because they have these model faces that look plastic, empty and cold.

Real men like real women....not the fake, anorexic looking kind.

Now my personal experience: Girls that are conventionally considered attractive are actually really bad in bed and girls who are uniquely attractive tend to be the best...so If I'm looking to hook up I'm not going for the girl that looks like a model because she pukes all her food up because she fucks like a dude and has a man ass...I'm going for the girl with the just as beautiful face but the booty and the sex appeal.

This is why I always say people who are obsessed with Victoria secret models are either bi or women themselves or they have really small dicks. No real dude with a big dick is going to want to put it in a little boy-looking-ass butt...


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

SevSevens said:


> It's cause the easy girl will do what ever they say so they never have to think. The mildly attractive to above average girl is a mental challenge and at night after a few beers no one wants to think.
> 
> Plus it's easier to FALL for the attractive girl. So going home with her will have emotional baggage. The other girl will please just fine and it will be especially easy to bounce the next morning without so much as a name.


okay, so what defines a slut, male or female? 

because if a guy or a girl is trying to sleep with someone in order to get into a relationship that isn't quite the same as a guy or girl picking an easy sex partner and then bouncing the next morning?

i guess i don't really understand what slutty behavior is anymore. looking through the thread and i'm not sure anyone's really defined it.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> okay, so what defines a slut, male or female?
> 
> because if a guy or a girl is trying to sleep with someone in order to get into a relationship that isn't quite the same as a guy or girl picking an easy sex partner and then bouncing the next morning?
> 
> i guess i don't really understand what slutty behavior is anymore. looking through the thread and i'm not sure anyone's really defined it.


I'm generally not the type of guy who will hook up with the bottom of the barrel for easy sex but I had several girlfriends and have had a lot of sex in my life...so sex isn't what I want as much as human connection. I'm just mapping the collective psyche for you.

As for what I would define as a slut...well I wouldn't know....but I guess if you're sleeping with more than 10-15 people a year you're a pretty big idiot, at least, regardless of sex, because statistically speaking you've increased your chances of acquiring an std to a level of 99%.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

as for slutty behavior...there is an inner slut in all of us...we must learn to integrate it by being super kinky with our chosen partners.

Or we can channel it through art or something.

I guess a true slut is someone possessed by the slut archetype because they are unconscious of how slutty they are.

The more we integrate our inner slut, the less The Slut (should be a tarot card) controls us.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Oh my god...I know this is so random but what I wouldn't do for a girlfriend that would dress up like some bad ass elf goddess and role play lord of the rings for me right before wild animal elf sex.

Nothing like a slutty looking elf princess.


----------



## Flamme et Citron (Aug 26, 2015)

Eska said:


> The point that it is not a double standard, is valid.


You’re trying to find intellectual justifications for your preconceived notions, who certainly don’t come from a place of logic. Guys slut shame because they can’t get laid and they’re bitter about it.

Since you like judging other people on how much sex they have, free feel to tell us about your sexual conquests, let’s hear it, tell everyone your partner number. Assuming you have the backbone not to lie of course.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Flamme et Citron said:


> You’re trying to find intellectual justifications for your preconceived notions, who certainly don’t come from a place of logic. Guys slut shame because they can’t get laid and they’re bitter about it.
> 
> Since you like judging other people on how much sex they have, free feel to tell us about your sexual conquests, let’s hear it, tell everyone your partner number. Assuming you have the backbone not to lie of course.


I have presented a possible "intellectual justification", for the phenomenon, based on a logical reasoning.

Are you seeking to refute its logical coherence, or are you imposing a value judgement on the idea?


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

oy, just ran into a perfect example of this not 10 minutes ago.

I stopped by neighboor-friend's house to say hi. This chick is a confirmed INFJ whose smart, witty and pretty nice. Unfortunately in the last year she's picked up alot of weight. And by alot I mean she literally looks like a meatball with a head and appendages. I hate to be mean, but she does and I cringe sometimes though I love her to death. 

We get to talking: get this! Since her boyfriend broke up with her a year ago (when the weight began to pile on) she's had a steady stream of dudes in her bed! Like literally she got laid this friday night, she was going out on another date with different guy tonight and going to get laid. She had four or five guys with whom she's hanging out hand hooking up/having sex with. It's insane. I mean, she looks awful but she's getting so much sexual attention from guys it's mind boggling. I asked her if she had plans to loose weight ('cause her ex bf broke up with her bc she gained it) and she said "why should I?" 

I realized as I walked home that I was subconciously mulling these two ideas: a) kind of repelled by what she'd told me but b) also kind of impressed. She's definitely more popular and having way more fun than I've ever had. 

But then I started thinking about the kind of guys she was sleeping with (I know three of them via a local game shop) and although all three of them are physically attractive and witty and of at least average to above-average intelligence with jobs and good backgrounds .....I would never ever ever ever in a million years consent to let one of them touch me, let alone buy me a drink or breathe on me. I consider those three men in particular to be spineless and of low character even before she was hooking up with them. But now that I know they are sleeping with her I really have a lower opinion of them than I do of her.

Is that a double standard? To think more lowly of the guys who are sleeping with my friend as opposed to my friend herself? I'm actually not sure how I feel about know about these friends of mine hooking up like this. To be honest I've never actually had friends//aquaitances who just hook up like that. I can honestly say that before walking to her house today I couldn't dredge up a single personal experience where I felt like someone I knew was 'sexually promiscuous' in a way that felt...made me feel awkward and even nauseated (but I don't want to feel that way because I don't think it's right to judge!!).........*But now that I feel awkward and grossed out I'm calling in to question everything I've ever come across in terms of adult sexuality. What is the actual difference between serial monogamy and hooking up besides a period of time and frequency? I don't feel I can judge my friend in my head, or her partners...but emotionally I feel repulsed. It's cognitive dissonance.*

I feel so confused about this whole slut issue. Halp!

/endINFPrambling


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

SevSevens said:


> I'm generally not the type of guy who will hook up with the bottom of the barrel for easy sex but I had several girlfriends and have had a lot of sex in my life...so sex isn't what I want as much as human connection. I'm just mapping the collective psyche for you.
> 
> As for what I would define as a slut...well I wouldn't know....but I guess if you're sleeping with more than 10-15 people a year you're a pretty big idiot, at least, regardless of sex, because statistically speaking you've increased your chances of acquiring an std to a level of 99%.


I would be happy with sleeping with 10-15 women in my entyre life.

So long as they were part of wonderful, fulfilling relationships <3


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> this is a funny phenomena i've never understood.
> 
> going back to this:
> 
> ...


Talking from personal experience.

Intimidation and self worth.

When I was 20-22, I went out 5 nights a week. I was intimidated by beauty and thought I was only worth the fat ugly girls.

Ive fixed that with a lot of hypnosis based on self worth and feeling attractive.

Even when I spoke to hot girls, I thought they were taking pity on me or there was something wrong with them for talking to me.

I only went for the fatties, but I didnt truly want to be with them, it was validation seeking.

50 one night stands in the space of 2 years with the fatties.

Then as soon as I got an emotional connection with a "hot" girl, I was in a 2 year relationship.

Its only recently the last couple of years I have realised that there is nothing wrong with me and I am just as entitled to try for a relationship with a hot girl, there is actually nothing about me that means I am destined to fatties.

The intimidation has vanished now. 

Funnily the fatties seem intimidated by me now and say Im just after an easy shag. But there is no going back, its carryu on with self improvement and become who I wan to be or be stuck in Limbo.

Or the fnot so attracti ve girls seem to fall in love with me and then go clingy stalker type. On that note I genuinely feel sorry for all the attractive girls out there who are persued by needy males, who do not comprehend rejection.

On anothe rnote, cutting out drinking has helped my confidence a hell of a lot.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Talking from personal experience.
> 
> Intimidation and self worth.
> 
> ...


woa, this gives me so much insight into behavior that's been utterly mystifying to me until this point. Thank you for being so transparent.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

SevSevens said:


> Oh my god...I know this is so random but what I wouldn't do for a girlfriend that would dress up like some bad ass elf goddess and role play lord of the rings for me right before wild animal elf sex.
> 
> Nothing like a slutty looking elf princess.


for some reason i get the feeling elf princesses don't do slutty....


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Flamme et Citron said:


> You’re trying to find intellectual justifications for your preconceived notions, who certainly don’t come from a place of logic. Guys slut shame because they can’t get laid and they’re bitter about it.
> 
> Since you like judging other people on how much sex they have, free feel to tell us about your sexual conquests, let’s hear it, tell everyone your partner number. Assuming you have the backbone not to lie of course.


Careful, you appear to be judging other people on how much sex they have.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Eska said:


> *1)* James has had sexual intercourse with 10 females, in one week; he's a "stud".
> *2)* Stephanie has had sexual intercourse with 10 males, in one week; she's a "slut".
> *3)* Bob has had sexual intercourse with 10 escort females, in one week; he's a "loser".


To make it a bit more 'culture appropriate' perhaps, let's substitute (2) --> re: _Stephanie has had sexual intercourse with 10 males, in one week; she's a "slut".
_

To

_Stephanie has had sexual intercourse with 10 males, in one week; she's a "fast - wild - babygirl"._ (re: All synonymic to the slut - promiscious female).

Should be _easier_ on us ladies - eh?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> My two English lit professors were obese...but they were happily married, intelligent, and engaging people to be around. Conversely, I've known women who've been very conventionally attractive who've been in abusive relationships with complete assholes who hit them. So...I don't really buy this "low self worth equals sleeping with overweight people."
> 
> I just have to say that not everyone values the physical appearance of a person above personality, mutual interests, intellect, and many other qualities. Some sentiment in this thread seems to be suggesting that physical appearance of women is the most important denominator for whether or not anyone would sleep with them, and even suggesting that it should be the measure of that. And I just want to say that I disagree with that notion.
> 
> It may be true for some who value the physical above all else (or status), and I would hope they would be open with their values so as to mutually attract women with similar values.


There was a reason I put "From Personal Experience". I was talking in relation to me and other like minded people that I have spoken to.


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

Eska said:


> *3)* Bob has had sexual intercourse with 10 escort females, in one week; he's a "loser" clearly doing very well for himself financially.


fixed :^)
That's probably why he applied to all those terrible universities, he's already getting paid as a motherfucker.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

sweetraglansweater said:


> oy, just ran into a perfect example of this not 10 minutes ago.
> 
> I stopped by neighboor-friend's house to say hi. This chick is a confirmed INFJ whose smart, witty and pretty nice. Unfortunately in the last year she's picked up alot of weight. And by alot I mean she literally looks like a meatball with a head and appendages. I hate to be mean, but she does and I cringe sometimes though I love her to death.
> 
> ...


Throw these elements into the mix...

1) About going home with fat girls as you mentioned in your earlier post?

You didn't give enough details. Did you regularly get approached for conversations by the guys? Yes or no.

If you had conversations, how did you respond? Open and chatty, or monosyllabic? Did any guys (if they were talking to you)
try to initiate physical contact (hand on arm, steering you with a hand on your back, etc.) ?

Were you alone or with one or more female friends? If with friends, did guys come up and talk to them?

If guys did not come up to you, did you catch a fair number of them eyeing you from afar?

Where were you sitting? Were you buried in a book or iPhone or staring at the bartender, or were you facing outwards?


2) For the man's side, there are two or three elements which mix, depending on his goals and the circumstances.

a) Is he afraid of getting blown out? It's fairly difficult to on the fly, see someone attractive of the opposite sex, and gauge their interest; pick up subliminal indicators that say "approach me" (particularly if you have never been taught, or learned through forced trial-and-error); run the gamut of making your way across the room, risking *public* rejection if the girl shuts you down LOUDLY (there are entire essays which could be written about THAT); cold-call her, never knowing whether she wasn't really interested, or liked your looks and not your voice; or chose just the *wrong* topic to open with; or unaware of vibes of insecurity or nervousness which turned her off; or her misjudging your intentions, or a mismatch of the actual intentions...and so forth.

b) Guys are exquisitely sensitive to a woman's looks: the better looking she is, the more a man has likely been socialized to say "she wouldn't want *ME* -- she has the pick of any guy in the place!" (not realizing that if she is there, ALONE, she is likely not taken). There are exceptions, as women out-of-town or on business trips might tend to be open to action on the side; some women cheat; some women, though dating, are on a girls' night out and are doing it for the ego stroking and validation. And a man cannot tell which one of these is the case before initiating.

c) A lot of it is subliminal body language, especially at the earliest stages. Not just the legendary RBF, but deer in the headlights, nervousness on her part, stress or self-consciousness, may cause her to tighten up and inadvertently send out "I'm shutting you out" signals to the room in general, which each man observing her interprets as being aimed at him alone.

d) Some women enjoy shutting men down for the ego boost, or because they are insecure about the social signal to be sent, if a "not attractive enough man" is seen spending more than a couple of seconds in her company: "OMG! Everyone will think I'm desperate! Eject! Eject!" Complicating this is the overarching message of "You Go G'RRRL!" and such, coupled with the quirk that a women can secure sex -- but not commitment or a real relationship -- from a man up to say 2 points higher than her in looks; 
but a man can get a committed relationship -- but not quick sex -- from a woman up to 2 points higher than HIM in looks (the original "how in HELL did he land HER?" phenomenon); so many women, having regularly gotten sex from study dudes, begin to think that that level of guy is what they are entitled to altogether. But reality doesn't roll that way.

3) For the slut question. A couple of fairly decent but not exhaustive working definitions.

A slut is

a) a woman who yields sexual access far in advance of the corresponding level of emotional closeness OR commitment
b) a woman who has had sex with enough men that she has lost the capability of significant emotional bonding to a man THROUGH sex.

Now, that first definition might be illustrated best by looking a the conversation of two girls about a guy they both know, who has recently started dating one of them.

Sue: OMG, did you hear about Bob? Last night -- he told me he _loved_ me...! (hearts)
Michelle: Wait, what? What happened?
Sue: Oh, it was so romantic. After we had hooked up a couple of times, we went out, to that jazz club, and walking out to the parking lot, he stopped me, looked me in the eyes, and told me he loved me.
Michelle: I don't think that's so good.
Sue: Why not?
Michelle: You know, last month he was going out with Alison, and after two weeks, he said he loved her. And a few weeks before that, Alison said, he was dating another girl, Debra, and on the third time with her, said he was in love with her...
Sue (interrupting) : What a creep!

If a guy makes professions of love or commitment too soon -- when the people hardly know each other -- it will not be seen as special, rare, or precious, but will make him get looked on with suspicion at best, and a girls sexual desire for him will plummet: he's not valuing his most enticing element. Similarly, if a girl gets sexually intimate too soon, a man may take the free milk, as the saying goes, but in his inner self, he's going to *know* she's done this with other men, and his desire for her *as a long-term partner* will evaporate. She too has trashed her most enticing element.

Complicating this is the "nice guy" phenomenon... which has the curious upshot that if a man does not escalate sexually within a relatively short period (it need not come to fruition, but he has to make an overt move or statement), he _often_ ends up getting "friend zoned" and dismissed from serious consideration as a romantic interest.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

has anyone ever considered that slut shaming is precisely the mechanism which _gives_ (straight) women greater sexual power? by shaming women into thinking sex makes them dirty, it restricts the supply and makes men more desperate to get their sexual urges met. in turn, this gives the minority of women who don't care free reign to use sex as a bargaining chip. 
PS: that goes without saying, I don't think most women in the "don't care if peeps think I'm a slut" camp are sociopathic, latter-climbing gold diggers any more than being concerned about incentives related to rape would mean I thought most men were rapists.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

g_w said:


> Throw these elements into the mix...
> 
> 1) About going home with fat girls as you mentioned in your earlier post?
> 
> ...


Yeah in regards to the rejection. I saw this last night in bar. Some guy was chatting to some girl,her friends backed off, leaving them isolated. She was leaning in, putting her arm around his back to listen to him. I was thinking fair play mate. Then he said something, no idea what as they were on the dance floor. Her whole body language changed, she was backing off, eye coding her friends. Then pushed the guy away, gave him the finger, her mates started shouting at him. Every guy in the bar who had seen this was laughing at him, and any girl he went near just backed the hell away.

Then to make it worst he went up again and it looked like he was actually begging and apologising for his existence. Funny but pathetic.

In regards to body language, Ive read several books, watched 24 hours worth of youtube video's and spent days sat in parks and bars doing people watching. Even now I would say I only understand 50% of the social dynamics that are happening around me. 

But anyway thats the power of rejection, the guys social status went from high (he was chatting to one the most attractive girls in the venue, other girls were checking him out) to zero, he got rejected and reacted badly.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

sweetraglansweater said:


> at one point i wanted to try to have a one night stand so i went to a bar repeatedly and sat there trying to get picked up. (i'm not a wounderously beautiful woman but i'm not ugly either) but no one, i mean no one hit on me. but i watched as guys moseyed around and at the close of the night picked up fat chicks. i went home alone.


Were you telegraphing signs of interest? Smiling? Eye contact? Touching? If I see a woman all clammed up staring at her phone not giving me any eye contact or even noticing my existence I would not bother to approach her. But, I am a simple Japanese man with a simple life.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> has anyone ever considered that slut shaming is precisely the mechanism which _gives_ (straight) women greater sexual power? by shaming women into thinking sex makes them dirty, it restricts the supply and makes men more desperate to get their sexual urges met. in turn, this gives the minority of women who don't care free reign to use sex as a bargaining chip.
> PS: that goes without saying, I don't think most women in the "don't care if peeps think I'm a slut" camp are sociopathic, latter-climbing gold diggers any more than being concerned about incentives related to rape would mean I thought most men were rapists.


I wouldn't frame it as it gives women more power, but yeah--I think this is a big part of it. And I also think there's an unspoken socio-economical component, at least historically. 

Poor people are more often going to be labeled the "slut" even if they have less sex than richer counterparts. I think this fits in well about wanting to avoid the label...which I think is also often applied based on appearance rather than actual sexual history. 

It's a small study, but it supports what I've seen irl as well. 
Bustle

Slut is a stigma to be avoided, but it's likely it affects the lower classes more because it's associated with appearance moreso, despite the amount of sexual partners one's had. Plus the lower you go in social class, the more vulnerable someone is to sexual assault, so the more important it is to avoid being labeled a "slut" because in socieities eyes, being a slut can justify sexual harassment or poor treatment (even if it's again--related to socio-economic status rather than actual number of sex partners.)

I mean...this thread even devolved into "people who are fat are easier," thus suggesting again--that weight is a component of promiscuity, which is simply not true. But it fits in nicely with the categories which elevate some women and demean others.

Hookup culture: for the white and wealthy.

Actually, it seems like wealthy, white, conventionally attractive women are more likely to view casual sex more favorably. So there's actually no validity to "sluts" being of lower value (aka. "hot rich girls" are more likely to fit Eska's model of sluttiness...and "hot rich girls" are obviously not valued less than other women, generally.)

So yeah--it's a way to police people's sexuality and it mostly works on the lower classes, who will just be called sluts anyway despite not engaging in as much sex.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Gore Motel said:


> Were you telegraphing signs of interest? Smiling? Eye contact? Touching? If I see a woman all clammed up staring at her phone not giving me any eye contact or even noticing my existence I would not bother to approach her. But, I am a simple Japanese man with a simple life.


I was doing what I always do: people watching while drawing in my journal. I tried for two or three consecutive weeks and admittedly by the third I got bored so I began to bring my reading. Maybe I was too lazy and underestimated my appeal.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

g_w said:


> Throw these elements into the mix...
> 
> 1) About going home with fat girls as you mentioned in your earlier post?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the goldmine. I knew some girls made a show of rejection. Your account lines up with the data I've both heard and seen.

I brought up my experience as an example of the hook up paradox but to quickly answer your questions..as I explained to @GoreMotel I went with the same attitude I normally had at the time: to ppl watch and draw while waiting. I just wanted to know what it was like to have a casual hookup. At the time I'd never had sex and i figured it would be a great way to loose it since it might be and embarrassing experience and I'd have the relief of never having to explain. Also it seemed like it would be interesting. But I underestimated how difficult and isolating the whole hook up thing would be. It was boring. One night I spent talking to an old man about Vietnam and the other listening to a couple describe their marriage while I waited. This wasn't the entire evening but I was definitely approachable as in I wasn't UN friendly. Idk. I probably gave off a combination of weird homeschooling vibes and I wasn't good looking enough -ish! But I was/am not fat so that was what blew me away at the time!! Anyways after that it kind of killed my self esteem so I stopped trying. Lol. 
@Meltedsorbet makes a great point about socioeconomic castes and slut behavior. So around this time I was working as a housekeeper for an all white girls sorority house. I noticed the girls congratulated each other for hooking up with certain frat boys and there was almost like a heirarchy with the girl who been with the most affluent and handsome guys being at the top. I can honestly say in Latin and conservative jewish communities this mentality we would have been ridiculed if not ostracised.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

To add,

I propose two possible evolutionary links,

Avoiding cuckoldry, and increasing the offspring's quality.

*Cuckoldry*



> _In evolutionary biology, the term is also applied to males who are unwittingly investing parental effort in offspring that are not genetically their own._


Evolutionary speaking, a male runs a risk that a female does not; cuckoldry.

If a female had sex with multiple partners, within a given time span, and these partners were chosen by the same standard; regardless of whom's sperm fertilized the egg, the offspring will inevitably be hers.

The male who settles with that female, runs the risk of spending time/effort/resources on an offspring that is not his.

The female is in a "win-win" situation, as her offspring carries the genes of a partner she deemed worthy, she's being supplied with resources, and the offspring is automatically hers, regardless of which male is the father.

Thus,

In order to ensure that a female is a "safe bet" to mate and couple with, and ensuring paternity, a social tactic to diminish the risks of being a cuckold, is to impose a "rule", such as "slut-shaming", which would act as a "engineering" process, to advantage males, in that regard.

_

*Offspring quality*

The evolutionary success of a species can be maximized by propagating the most optimal genes.

Thus, a social tactic can be introduced.

Two main tactics can give rise to an evolutionary "tournament", in which competition will determine the "best genes".

*Slut-shaming* for females, and *Virgin-shaming* for males.

Slut-shaming incites the female to be more selective, while Virgin-shaming incite the males to engage in a "tournament".

This "tournament" is a competition that filters the gene pool, as it couples the mates accordingly.

The "better" the male, the "higher" he will likely aim, and thus, it eventually leads to the "best male" coupling with the "best female". (*_Best_ is accorded to whatever is considered to whatever standard is set in place, at that time)

It is a form of "_*survival of fittest*_", within a the context of mate selection, where the males are pushed into an "arena", and the females are the "judges"/"prize".


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

> 3) Bob has had sexual intercourse with 10 escort females, in one week; he's a "loser".


The real question is, what becomes of those escorts when he's had his fun?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Eska said:


> Males and females, possess different "statuses", and thus circumstances.
> 
> Males are expected to initiate the requests, while females are expected to filter the incoming requests.
> 
> ...


I know that this isn't your overall broader point, but subtext seems to exist given what you're saying that Stephanie is a slut because she isn't properly using her "filter" ...however, that isn't taking into account how often she's propositioned. Would Julie be less of a slut because she only had sex with one male in a week? 

What if she were only approached by that one male and felt totally meh about it, but Stephanie had been approached by precisely 507 eligible bachelors? In that case, Stephanie's filter would actually be pretty stringent despite her partner count.

I wouldn't say that my partner count is abnormally high, but it's not exactly low either. Considering how often I've been approached, pursued, asked out, propositioned though - it actually becomes pretty low, relatively. Some rejects have been attractive people too, so selection has been present.



SevSevens said:


> guys don't like this because who wants to end up with a person who chose the tatood body builder over you? Could you imagine looking at your kids in 20 years and being like, yup their mother used to get slamed by the bouncer at the dive bar.
> 
> It's just not the sort of genes people want to propagate.


Why not? You talk about tattooed body builders like they're something women slum it with. Last I checked they're considered conventionally attractive. And they're masculine, unlike some dudes who's main concern is just being ripped (they kinda annoy me, lol).










(^Not that all dudes fit into one category or the other. Most don't. But between those two options...)

Actually, two of the last dudes I hooked up with were literally body building bouncers. I was bought brunch, given cab fare, we texted afterwards (he initiated), talked about life, I got a FB request, and the one was asking to fly me back to see him again (met him on vacation). What is considered unappealing about a woman who hooks up with attractive men who treat her like a lady? If the pointed nose is at the profession, that doesn't really matter if you aren't planning on pursuing a committed relationship with the person.



sweetraglansweater said:


> I asked her if she had plans to loose weight...and she said "why should I?"


What is with associating fat automatically with = unattractive; and slim = conventionally attractive? (And it's not just you who's doing this, I'm not picking on you, lol, it's been an ongoing trend on the thread).

Is butterface boy shoulders more of a score than a plus sized model with good proportions, decent waist to hip ratio, and gorgeous features? 

Anyway, I've actually been where your friend is. I don't watch my weight as much as I should. (Though, it's starting to creep into my face, so tomorrow I begin a diet and work out regime. That's always when it's time to do something). I feel the same way usually - why should I? I still get plenty of male attention anyway, I'm not particularly looking for a relationship, and it almost feels like a protective layer guarding me from the more obsessive and dangerous behavior, lol.

I've been underweight and bulimic too though. (And blonde, redhead, brunette...my appearance has seen all kinds of nuances). The only real difference I've noticed is that I don't get away with as much. Can't act like a bratty batshit lunatic anymore and expect excuses made and declarations of love outside my window. Part of that might be my age too though. My dating pool has dealt with their share of that at this point and learned lessons.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> I know that this isn't your overall broader point, but subtext seems to exist given what you're saying that Stephanie is a slut because she isn't properly using her "filter" ...however, that isn't taking into account how often she's propositioned. Would Julie be less of a slut because she only had sex with one male in a week?
> 
> What if she were only approached by that one male and felt totally meh about it, but Stephanie had been approached by precisely 507 eligible bachelors? In that case, Stephanie's filter would actually be pretty stringent despite her partner count.
> 
> I wouldn't say that my partner count is abnormally high, but it's not exactly low either. Considering how often I've been approached, pursued, asked out, propositioned though - it actually becomes pretty low, relatively. Some rejects have been attractive people too, so selection has been present.


The quantity of propositions would be irrelevant, as she remains in a position where she is filtering, and not initiating.

In this subtext, the point does not resolve around the "filter's" 'efficiency'; it revolves around the female's position, in each of these encounters.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Veggie said:


> given cab fare


And this kind of makes me sound like a prostitute rereading it, haha, so I'll add that I was alone in a strange city and he wanted to make sure I got home to my hotel okay. It was one of those - "here, take this" - "no, I couldn't" - "nah, just take it" - "aw, okay, well, thanks, I'll get you back somehow" - ...kinda things.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

> What is with associating fat automatically with = unattractive; and slim = conventionally attractive? (And it's not just you who's doing this, I'm not picking on you, lol, it's been an ongoing trend on the thread).
> 
> Is butterface boy shoulders more of a score than a plus sized model with good proportions, decent waist to hip ratio, and gorgeous features?
> 
> Anyway, I've actually been where your friend is. I don't watch my weight as much as I should. (Though, it's starting to creep into my face, so tomorrow I begin a diet and work out regime. That's always when it's time to do something). I feel the same way usually - why should I? I still get plenty of male attention anyway, I'm not particularly looking for a relationship, and it almost feels like a protective layer guarding me from the more obsessive and dangerous behavior, lol.


I'm sure some people have a wide variance of taste, but last I checked being fat was unhealthy and typically unhealthy people are seen as unattractive because it indicates that their fertility is not viable. It's a purely biological stereotype. We're not talking chubby or curvy. I mean fat. Like she could get diseases and diabetes fat. I'm all for healthy female imagining (I'm not a skinny girl, just your average girl myself) but I also know that when something crosses over from chubby to obese we can categorically call it unattractive, if only because it is unhealthy. 

No offense to people here who may see themselves as 'fat' (whatever that means to you). But I think it's nothing more than pandering than to call an obese person anything else than what our biological judgment would deem reasonable. This of course does not mean we should be cruel or mean. It's merely a practical observation.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Eska said:


> Thus, based on these analogies, I conclude the following;
> 
> The idea is based on the difficulty of acquisition; the effort-to-accomplishment ratio.
> 
> ...


I understand your reasoning and it is internally consistent. That said, I do not believe it's a double-standard due to effort. At no point do I believe the derogatory "slut" term to be reflective of the effort it takes to have sex. Instead, I believe it to be based on the cultural belief about what sexual behavior is intrinsically valuable between sexes. The double-standard is not that it is "slutty" because females are able to acquire sexual intercourse easier, if that is even the case (I don't think this can be quantified), but the double-standard is that females are expected to be sexually mono-amorous and repressed while males are expected to be sexually polyamorous and dominant. As such, females and males are judged according to the way that they fit into that cultural criteria, and the reality is that there isn't any sexual behavior and orientation which is intrinsically more valuable based upon sex. The reason that it's often talked about a double-standard with a negative slant toward females is because it infringes more greatly upon female liberty, insofar as their sexual behavior is expected to be more restrictive. That's the double-standard - it's not based on effort.


----------



## Diminuendo (Jun 1, 2015)

Eska said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do think strong instincts (more so than culture) are the basis for slut/virgin shaming and other attitudes toward sex. Your theories are solid. However, evolution works slowly and the world people live in today is very different from the one we adapted to. Slut shaming may have not been as much a double standard 100,000 years ago as it is today and will be in the future.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I'm sure some people have a wide variance of taste, but last I checked being fat was unhealthy and typically unhealthy people are seen as unattractive because it indicates that their fertility is not viable. It's a purely biological stereotype. We're not talking chubby or curvy. I mean fat. Like she could get diseases and diabetes fat. I'm all for healthy female imagining (I'm not a skinny girl, just your average girl myself) but I also know that when something crosses over from chubby to obese we can categorically call it unattractive, if only because it is unhealthy.
> 
> No offense to people here who may see themselves as 'fat' (whatever that means to you). But I think it's nothing more than pandering than to call an obese person anything else than what our biological judgment would deem reasonable. This of course does not mean we should be cruel or mean. It's merely a practical observation.


_Obese_, I agree, but there's more grey area with just...fat. Is it literally fat or is it water weight? Where is the fat collected? Is there cellulite? 

I know some overweight people who have better diets than their skinnier counterparts too (who may also smoke, be anorexic, on drugs, etc).

Having had an eating disorder "fat" is an ambiguous word to me. I thought I was fat when I was underweight. I'm not sure what to peg myself as now. I could be healthier, but I'm not unhealthy. I almost never eat anything processed or fried, and even though I don't work out as much as I should, I have really good circulation. 

Idk, dudes who measure attractiveness in terms of "fat" or "not fat" are stereotypically the types who see "fat" as anything other than zero thigh gap and what not in my experience. That thought process alone generally alerts me to a certain "conquer" personality type, whether they consciously admit to it or not, because it's more about the status symbol of the woman (those bods are en vogue, and typically somewhat unnatural and hard to acquire) and less about her genuine attractiveness a lot of the time.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Clyme said:


> I understand your reasoning and it is internally consistent. That said, I do not believe it's a double-standard due to effort. At no point do I believe the derogatory "slut" term to be reflective of the effort it takes to have sex. Instead, I believe it to be based on the cultural belief about what sexual behavior is intrinsically valuable between sexes. The double-standard is not that it is "slutty" because females are able to acquire sexual intercourse easier, if that is even the case (I don't think this can be quantified), but the double-standard is that females are expected to be sexually mono-amorous and repressed while males are expected to be sexually polyamorous and dominant. As such, females and males are judged according to the way that they fit into that cultural criteria, and the reality is that there isn't any sexual behavior and orientation which is intrinsically more valuable based upon sex. The reason that it's often talked about a double-standard with a negative slant toward females is because it infringes more greatly upon female liberty, insofar as their sexual behavior is expected to be more restrictive. That's the double-standard - it's not based on effort.


I'm inclined to agree, although, my point, as demonstrated in the analogies, was to point out a possible explanation as to why males get glorified, while females do not. 

I was not addressing shaming, in itself; I was addressing the "double standard" about glorifying the act.

I specifically address shaming, in post #131, although, from an evolutionary perspective,

* *






Eska said:


> To add,
> 
> I propose two possible evolutionary links,
> 
> ...


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Veggie said:


> _Obese_, I agree, but there's more grey area with just...fat. Is it literally fat or is it water weight? Where is the fat collected? Is there cellulite?
> 
> I know some overweight people who have better diets than their skinnier counterparts too (who may also smoke, be anorexic, on drugs, etc).
> 
> ...


On an aside, people who are obscenely underweight due to disorders, eating or otherwise ate also unattractive. Because they are unhealthy. Certainly there are outliers who fetishize obesity or its opposite but these people are not adhering to the biological norm. As for quibbling about fat. Americans are grossly overfed compared to their worldly counterparts... so we can quibble about cellulose but at the end of the day we as a culture simply eat too much. Fat is less a bodily type and more a lifestyle or mentality. The self indulgence or pity was the true critique: being fat was the symbol of her dissipated behavior. She was indulging because she gave up and didn't care. That attitude to me is lesser than no matter what the body type.

/end derail


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I know that this isn't your overall broader point, but subtext seems to exist given what you're saying that Stephanie is a slut because she isn't properly using her "filter" ...however, that isn't taking into account how often she's propositioned. Would Julie be less of a slut because she only had sex with one male in a week?
> 
> What if she were only approached by that one male and felt totally meh about it, but Stephanie had been approached by precisely 507 eligible bachelors? In that case, Stephanie's filter would actually be pretty stringent despite her partner count.
> 
> ...


Because people who value and over identify with intelligence will look down upon someone who engages with a pugilistic muscle head with a penchant for masochism.

Personally i'm indifferent...but if you want to date a Phd or someone who owns a Yacht do not tell him you slept with the bouncer...you will pretty much be done for in terms of longer term, unless of course, that is the bouncer and he happens to be an outlier for his social class, or he is secretly not into you but using you for another reason. 

Again, I don't like the idea of social class, but as a reality, it is more static than gravity. To deny that social class exists is like saying there is no racism...there is racism...there is social class, and there are is a hierarchy of privilege and rights in the world.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Eska said:


> I'm inclined to agree, although, my point, as demonstrated in the analogies, was to point out a possible explanation as to why males get glorified, while females do not.
> 
> I was not addressing shaming, in itself; I was addressing the "double standard" about glorifying the act.
> 
> I specifically address shaming, in post #131, although, from an evolutionary perspective,


You've provided nothing more than a hypothesis and thus, there's nothing to substantiate what you propose may be the case. Rather though, I'm inclined to think that our social and cultural standards do not operate rigorously according to the propagation of genes. As an argument from induction, we have many social standards which do not directly reflect a tendency toward breeding. Our societies frequently posit that males should be dominant leaders, that females should be submissive, that we are valuable according to our ability to work, that our value is reflected through material possessions and wealth, and so on it goes. The idea of sex-based roles could be said to stem strongly from female oppression, as a way of securing the patriarchal power-structures. The idea that our value is based on the merit of our work was advanced strongly by the protestant reformation. The idea that the the merit of our work, and therefor our value, is reflected by material possessions and wealth is advanced by capitalism and classical liberal thought. My point here is that our values and beliefs, whether we admit this or not, are strongly pioneered by ideological pushes from the past. In this sense, we must be weary of ascribing an evolutionary psychology explanation to cultural phenomena as there can be very complex and nuanced reasons for why particular standards emerge.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

sweetraglansweater said:


> On an aside, people who are obscenely underweight due to disorders, eating or otherwise ate also unattractive. Because they are unhealthy. Certainly there are outliers who fetishize obesity or its opposite but these people are not adhering to the biological norm. As for quibbling about fat. Americans are grossly overfed compared to their worldly counterparts... so we can quibble about cellulose but at the end of the day we as a culture simply eat too much. Fat is less a bodily type and more a lifestyle or mentality. The self indulgence or pity was the true critique: being fat was the symbol of her dissipated behavior. She was indulging because she gave up and didn't care. That attitude to me is lesser than no matter what the body type.
> 
> /end derail


I never said I was obscenely underweight. I was about five pounds away from where I was supposed to be at my thinnest given my height, but that's not so extreme. I'm not talking extremes at all (that's my point, really - I think "fat" is an extreme word that gets thrown around carelessly...and it's usage alone is sometimes an alert to me) - you are  And I was considered attractive  Bulimia is easier to hide than anorexia as bulimics tend not to lose as much weight. I remember my college roommates trying to shove pizza down my throat when we were all drinking, but they really only knew that something was wrong because they were able to observe my day to day habits in detail. (These were also the same girls who told me I "could have any guy _ wanted" though too, so...mixed messages. Lol).

I can't relate to your friend giving up (well, actually, that's not true, but ironically, I've only ever been in those places when I was in very good shape...and no eating disorder), but I can relate to just not caring. And not about myself, but about impressing people._


----------



## aja675 (Jul 30, 2015)

Personally, I hate slut shaming and people do it to me a lot because they know I'm easily pissed off by it. I did a bunch of shocking antics in high school, and even though I am legal now, people try to piss me off by reacting to everything I do with fake offense and falsified sexual shock.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

SevSevens said:


> Because people who value and over identify with intelligence will look down upon someone who engages with a pugilistic muscle head with a penchant for masochism.


Anyone who truly values intelligence will have a healthy curiosity as to why. The bigoted and arrogant will look down upon someone because of prejudices that they likely haven't taken the time to, intelligently, explore. (Like, they're not even specifically theirs. They're regurgitation of indoctrination). Yawn. Weed 'em out 



SevSevens said:


> Personally i'm indifferent...but if you want to date a Phd or someone who owns a Yacht do not tell him you slept with the bouncer...you will pretty much be done for in terms of longer term, unless of course, that is the bouncer and he happens to be an outlier for his social class, or he is secretly not into you but using you for another reason.


Don't really have aspirations for either the Phd or the Yacht (types tend to often, though not always, be SO SERIOUS...it's all so serious!) - Especially if they expect me to be their Jackie O while they go fuck the Marilyns, like it's 1952 and I'm not allowed to sit at the bar either (am I a woman, or am I ten?)

Bouncers are usually the big men on campus for their social (working) class too. And in my experience they tend to be the types most likely to tattoo your name on their arm right next to mom's. Lol. (Phd often (not always) has a mean sadistic streak from getting rejected as a young'in). 



SevSevens said:


> Again, I don't like the idea of social class, but as a reality, it is more static than gravity. To deny that social class exists is like saying there is no racism...there is racism...there is social class, and there are is a hierarchy of privilege and rights in the world.


I don't deny that there is a social class. Can always try to reinvent the wheel though in terms of who and what deserves...who and what. Or just do that thing you do. See what happens.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Clyme said:


> You've provided nothing more than a hypothesis and thus, there's nothing to substantiate what you propose may be the case. Rather though, I'm inclined to think that our social and cultural standards do not operate rigorously according to the propagation of genes. As an argument from induction, we have many social standards which do not directly reflect a tendency toward breeding. Our societies frequently posit that males should be dominant leaders, that females should be submissive, that we are valuable according to our ability to work, that our value is reflected through material possessions and wealth, and so on it goes. The idea of sex-based roles could be said to stem strongly from female oppression, as a way of securing the patriarchal power-structures. The idea that our value is based on the merit of our work was advanced strongly by the protestant reformation. The idea that the the merit of our work, and therefor our value, is reflected by material possessions and wealth is advanced by capitalism and classical liberal thought. My point here is that our values and beliefs, whether we admit this or not, are strongly pioneered by ideological pushes from the past. In this sense, we must be weary of ascribing an evolutionary psychology explanation to cultural phenomena as there can be very complex and nuanced reasons for why particular standards emerge.


I've proposed an example that substantiates the hypothesis, to some extent,

It may, or may not, be valid.



Eska said:


> To support the idea further, with a general situation,
> 
> 1) James has had sexual intercourse with 10 females, in one week; he's a "stud".
> 2) Stephanie has had sexual intercourse with 10 males, in one week; she's a "slut".
> ...


To elaborate,

In a stereotypical context,

Dating is a form of prostitution.

The idea revolves around the male's resources, being exploited and/or tested, in order to determine if sex will be granted.

Although, why does a male who successively succeeds at obtaining sex, through "dating"/"pick up", is glorified, while a male who successively succeeds at obtaining sex, through "direct payment", is shamed?

There are two main discriminatory variables; the skills utilized, and the tenacity of the standard by which these skills were judged.

"Direct payment" prostitutes grant sex upon monetary transaction, with no need for "romance"/"charm"/etc.

"Dating" prostitutes grant sex upon displaying certain qualities, usually found in the form of "romance"/"charm"/"wit"/etc.

Thus, in vague terms,

Being successful at acquiring sexual contact, through "dating", indicates a presence of valuable assets. ("_Wow, he must be witty/clever/etc._")

Being successful at acquiring sexual contact, through "direct paying", does not indicate a presence of such assets/traits; it can actually indicate the absence of such assets/traits.

Such contexts are generalized, and the stereotypical perspective is based on assumptions, regarding the interactions.

_

I disagree with your point that; value is based on the merit of one's work due to 'modern' ideologies.

Certain feats represent the presence of certain characteristics, which influence mate selection.

The bowerbird would be a more explicit example,

The males build bowers, as demonstrated below, with an array of purposefully designed patterns, to attract females. 

Depending on the display's characteristics, it is reasoned to portray different bower-building skills (strength/intellect/etc.)










Other examples, such as the kangaroos, where they display their musculature, and fight, in order to gain female attention/approval (competitively).

These attractions have evolutionary/biological grounding, as does status/wealth/size/strength/etc., in human's cultural contexts.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Anyone who truly values intelligence will have a healthy curiosity as to why. The bigoted and arrogant will look down upon someone because of prejudices that they likely haven't taken the time to, intelligently, explore. (Like, they're not even specifically theirs. They're regurgitation of indoctrination). Yawn. Weed 'em out
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's why I like that song by John Mayer, We keep on waiting for the world to change.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Eska said:


> I've proposed an example that substantiates the hypothesis, to some extent,
> 
> It may, or may not, be valid.
> 
> ...


I can see the reasoning here, but at what point does this enter into the territory of sex-based differences? I understand why you suggest that the ability to acquire sexual intercourse is glorified, but the key focus here is why it's glorified for males and shamed for females.



> I disagree with your point that; value is based on the merit of one's work due to 'modern' ideologies.


All highly productive and wealthy societies place a strong emphasis on a person's value being based upon their ability to work, as is usually reflected by their wealth and material positions. Wealthy individuals are highlighted by these societies as a way of spotlighting what is desirable. If you need me to demonstrate evidence of this, I most certainly can.



> Certain feats represent the presence of certain characteristics, which influence mate selection.
> 
> The bowerbird would be a more explicit example,
> 
> ...


I do not deny that attractions have evolutionary and biological grounding, but what I contend is that reproduction is not an underlying focus to all cultural and social standards, and more particularly, I express skepticism over the idea that the discrepancy between values of male and female sexual behavior stems from reproduction-motivated origins. As such, I feel that to assert this, you'd need more evidence to back the conjecture up.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Clyme said:


> I can see the reasoning here, but at what point does this enter into the territory of sex-based differences? I understand why you suggest that the ability to acquire sexual intercourse is glorified, but the key focus here is why it's glorified for males and shamed for females.


That would be the second topic, which I've addressed in post #131.

I've proposed two evolutionary links, which could explain the behavior.

The main topic addressed why it is glorified in males, but not in females.

"Shaming" is a 'step further'.



> All highly productive and wealthy societies place a strong emphasis on a person's value being based upon their ability to work, as is usually reflected by their wealth and material positions. Wealthy individuals are highlighted by these societies as a way of spotlighting what is desirable. If you need me to demonstrate evidence of this, I most certainly can.


I agree with what you've just stated, although, I disagree with your original point that such a criteria originated from 'modern' ideologies. Unless I misunderstood, and you meant that such a standard was emphasized during that period, not that it originated from that period.



> I do not deny that attractions have evolutionary and biological grounding, but what I contend is that reproduction is not an underlying focus to all cultural and social standards, and more particularly, I express skepticism over the idea that the discrepancy between values of male and female sexual behavior stems from reproduction-motivated origins. As such, I feel that to assert this, you'd need more evidence to back the conjecture up.


I do not propose that reproduction was the underlying focus of all cultural and social standards.

Although, when you say "reproduction-motivated origins", are you referring to copulation, or ensuring the genes'/species' survival? Both are linked, although, they are separate concepts.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

SevSevens said:


> That's why I like that song by John Mayer, We keep on waiting for the world to change.







:victorious:


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Veggie said:


> :victorious:


That's cute.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Eska said:


> The quantity of propositions would be irrelevant, as she remains in a position where she is filtering, and not initiating.
> 
> In this subtext, the point does not resolve around the "filter's" 'efficiency'; it revolves around the female's position, in each of these encounters.


It's not irrelevant, especially since you go on to say this:



Eska said:


> *Offspring quality*
> 
> The evolutionary success of a species can be maximized by propagating the most optimal genes.
> 
> ...


You're associating selectivity with ideal genes in the female. You're proposing that slut shaming is a tactic to encourage selectivity. You're associating "slut" with a high partner count. If you weren't, it wouldn't matter whether Stephanie had been with ten men or with one, she'd be a "slut" either way because initiation on her end wasn't present, which would nullify the value of the encounter(s) despite their quantity.

In order to properly marry those concepts, the quantity of propositions would have to be relevant, or filtering/selectivity may not be present at all in the female, though this is what encourages males to engage in a "tournament" (again, what if Julie were only approached by one male - one whom she wasn't even attracted to, and chose to sleep with anyway? Would she be the prize to aim for over Stephanie, who was highly selective despite the ten men she slept with? Or are we only aiming for virgins who are choosing a life long monogamous partner in the tourney? And still then - what are their options?) 

Quality of the encounter(s) would have to come into play as well, and in order to determine that someone is a fit partner, judging and filtering would become a skill in itself, just as you see initiation as being a skill. Otherwise there's nothing of value to obtain in being "chosen" and it wouldn't be about natural selection so much as random selection.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> It's not irrelevant, especially since you go on to say this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are two different contexts.

The part you quoted, from the first post, is a cultural explanation as to why males are glorified, but not females. It does not refer to "slut-shaming".

The part you quoted, from post #131, is an evolutionary explanation as to why males are incited to "chase" (virgin-shaming), while females are discouraged. (slut-shaming)


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Eska said:


> These are two different contexts.
> 
> The part you quoted, from the first post, is a cultural explanation as to why males are glorified, but not females. It does not refer to "slut-shaming".
> 
> The part you quoted, from post #131, is an evolutionary explanation as to why males are incited to "chase" (virgin-shaming), while females are discouraged. (slut-shaming)


I've already acknowledged that they are two separate arguments, and I originally stated that I was reading into subtext with the first.

However, I think there's a reason you've included both within the thread. One doesn't really work without the other.

In your OP, you referred to Stephanie as a "slut" - so, that _was_ slut shaming.

You later went on to give reasons for why we may do this outside of just - initiation is a skill, filtering is not.

BUT, in doing this, you pretty much refuted your own argument by alluding to that filtering IS a skill in order for those chosen in the filtering process to be of value. (Of course chasing isn't an issue there, that's not what filtering is about).


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> I've already acknowledged that they are two separate arguments, and I originally stated that I was reading into subtext with the first.
> 
> However, I think there's a reason you've included both within the thread. One doesn't really work without the other.
> 
> ...


Labeling Stephanie as a "slut", does not necessarily imply "shame".

I used the common label, attributed to promiscuous females, and I placed that hypothetical individual, between the two variables I wanted to compare, in order to provide a larger impact on the contrast between acquiring sex through dating, and prostitution.

_

Could you elaborate on why you think I've refuted my own argument?

The first point, in the original post, was to demonstrate why males are glorified, while females are not (not why they're shamed).
The second point, in the original post, was to demonstrate the relevance of the method of acquisition (dating vs prostitutes).

Post #131 provides possible evolutionary explanations, for slut-shaming.

The first explanation, implies that it is a tactic that protects males from being cuckolded.

The second explanation, implies that it is a tactic/parameter that sets up for an evolutionary "tournament".


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Eska said:


> Labeling Stephanie as a "slut", does not necessarily imply "shame".


Obviously your point was that there is shame attributed to this label, while there is glory attributed to "stud" - you don't need to outright say - "I have decided to shame you by referring to you as a slut" - really, slut shamers are less likely to do this in a forthright manner too, because then they can't purely deflect away from themselves onto their shame deserving recipient. "Papa, are you calling me a slut?!" - "Well, that's the word I just used right? We all know the connotation's. And what do YOU think Mary Sue? Was your behavior shameful? ... *stern knowing gaze* ...." (*Exit Mary Sue, in tears*)



Eska said:


> I used the common label, attributed to promiscuous females, and I placed that hypothetical individual, between the two variables I wanted to compare, in order to provide a larger impact on the contrast between acquiring sex through dating, and prostitution.


Still not a very clear point. Promiscuity is dependent on options and their quantity and quality. Women acquire sex through dating as well. Since it's become pretty clear given points made that filtering is a skill just as initiation is...not sure how that lines up with prostitution (where you have clients, no choice, go). Seems to be a completely different ball game.



Eska said:


> Could you elaborate on why you think I've refuted my own argument?


I already did. I was pretty concise. 



Eska said:


> The first point, in the original post, was to demonstrate why males are glorified, while females are not (not why they're shamed).
> The second point, in the original post, was to demonstrate the relevance of the method of acquisition (dating vs prostitutes).


Considering other points you've made, they're weak points. If women are receiving a substantial amount of propositions more so than other women (that they aren't obligated to respond to), than they likely have something to feel proud of too. If we're assuming that their proposition makers aren't attractive (or see them as so), why aren't we assuming the same for the men who are acquiring sex? (That their acquisitions aren't particularly attractive? OR that their acquisitions aren't just going meh, sure, go ahead). Creating an attractive net is a skill just as infiltrating it is. (Or maybe it's innate to a degree? Just as men can simply be born with good genes - can't women do the same? Or is the woman's worth solely based on her ability to attract the good genes of the male? Is her worth only determined upon her ability to say "I will not!" to the majority of these males? If so - wouldn't the women with the good genes (biologically) probably be met with more options and temptation? Shouldn't these ladies be given some relative leeway then?)



Eska said:


> The second explanation, implies that it is a tactic/parameter that sets up for an evolutionary "tournament".


Uh huh 

I feel like I acknowledged that. Or I know I did.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Obviously your point was that there is shame attributed to this label, while there is glory attributed to "stud" - you don't need to outright say - "I have decided to shame you by referring to you as a slut" - really, slut shamers are less likely to do this in a forthright manner too, because then they can't purely deflect away from themselves onto their shame deserving recipient. "Papa, are you calling me a slut?!" - "Well, that's the word I just used right? We all know the connotation's. And what do YOU think Mary Sue? Was your behavior shameful? ... *stern knowing gaze* ...." (*Exit Mary Sue, in tears*)
> 
> Still not a very clear point. Promiscuity is dependent on options and their quantity and quality. Women acquire sex through dating as well. Since it's become pretty clear given points made that filtering is a skill just as initiation is...not sure how that lines up with prostitution (where you have clients, no choice, go). Seems to be a completely different ball game.


No, the point, as I've said, is to demonstrate why males glorified, while females are not.
Not being glorified, is not equivalent to being shamed.

The contrast highlights the difference between a male acquiring sex through dating, and a male acquiring sex through prostitution.
The idea that it "_seems to be a completely different ball game_", is precisely one of the points I'm highlighting.
It supports the idea that the method of acquisition, for males, in such a context, is a relevant factor to whether or not its glorified.



> I already did. I was pretty concise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I address the point about proportional quality, between the initiator and the filter, in post #70


* *






Eska said:


> Generally, the female is expected to be "harder" to obtain, and the male is expected to be "easier" to obtain, due to the qualities being sought out, and the resources/skills required.
> 
> Although, that does not mean that their attractiveness' disparity is not taken into count.
> 
> ...







About the "_creating an attractive net_",

Considering that the idea is based on stereotypical interactions, and 'attitudes', in "dating"; what is stereotypically being sought by both sexes, is also factored in, as well as how both sexes respond to such traits.

Females are stereotypically expected to be physically attractive, and feminine.

Males ares stereotypically expected to be physically attractive, 'witty', gallant, and the lead performers.

In simplistic and vague terms,

_The female is expected to sit there and look beautiful, while the male performs for her._

The male is also expected to provide resources (pay/drive/etc.).

Analogously speaking, it is similar to the Bowerbird's performance,





Typically, the male's position requires more energy/time/resources, and thus, the effort is judged accordingly.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> A _double standard_ is defined as (by Oxford dictionary);
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have the time I want to think through this but I've never understood the effort justification for the slut/stud double standard.

I agree that double standards aren't a difference in literal treatment. I understand double standards - holding people to different standards- to involve giving comparable interests they share more or less consideration or criticizing them more or less for the same poor judgment. The way most people use the term 'fairness' leads me to assume it has something to do with desert. It's an injustice when someone knowingly and willingly acts contrary to the interests of someone who doesn't deserve it and it's unfair when people who are not deserving are rewarded or credited or when they're rewarded and credited more than equally deserving people are. Double standards don't have to be 'unfair'. A meritocracy doesn't seem intuitively unfair to most people but it is a clear double standard (I don't think meritocracies are practically possible). Neither does retribution but it is also a clear double standard (punishing someone for past choices they regret is 'unfair' to me because you have more control of your complexion than you do past decisions).

If something is fundamentally wrong why is it more acceptable because it required effort. Is killing someone with your bare hands better than shooting him while he sleeps? Some men have an easier time sleeping with women than some women do. As long as that was I'd expand if I had time but I don't.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> I don't have the time I want to think through this but I've never understood the effort justification for the slut/stud double standard.
> 
> I agree that double standards aren't a difference in literal treatment. I understand double standards - holding people to different standards- to involve giving comparable interests they share more or less consideration or criticizing them more or less for the same poor judgment. The way most people use the term 'fairness' leads me to assume it has something to do with desert. It's an injustice when someone knowingly and willingly acts contrary to the interests of someone who doesn't deserve it and it's unfair when people who are not deserving are rewarded or credited or when they're rewarded and credited more than equally deserving people are. Double standards don't have to be 'unfair'. A meritocracy doesn't seem intuitively unfair to most people but it is a clear double standard (I don't think meritocracies are practically possible). Neither does retribution but it is also a clear double standard (punishing someone for past choices they regret is 'unfair' to me because you have more control of your complexion than you do past decisions).
> 
> *If something is fundamentally wrong why is it more acceptable because it required effort.* Is killing someone with your bare hands better than shooting him while he sleeps? Some men have an easier time sleeping with women than some women do. As long as that was I'd expand if I had time but I don't.


That is the error you're committing; you're disassociating the variable from the act, and judging the act itself, then attributing it to the variables, on equal groundings.

In this context, the act, and the variable, are inclusive.

In the same way killing a terrorist who threatened to kill innocents, is typically considered "good", while a terrorist killing innocents, is typically considered "bad"; both are considered "killing", although, the variable is the relevant factor for the discriminatory judgment.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Eska said:


> It could remain proportionally compared to its male equivalent; a male who slept with 10 married females, in a week.
> 
> I.


as long as all the husbands and wives knew all about it, cool group of friends.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> That is the error you're committing; you're disassociating the variable from the act, and judging the act itself, then attributing it to the variables, on equal groundings.
> 
> In this context, the act, and the variable, are inclusive.


If the act is considered intrinsically bad then the variables are irrelevant, the act is bad (and wrong) in all circumstances. If it's not the act that's considered intrinsically bad but the consequences then the act can be justified in some circumstances and not others but my reasoning still applies and it's a contradiction to give comparable interests (like sexual happiness) that men and women share more or less consideration or to judge them differently for committing the same mistake (and I still don't see how being sexually promiscuous is more or less of a mistake depending on how easily it is to persuade other people into having sex with you).

It might be besides the issue but I could point out that slut shaming and the slut-stud double standard is just a subset of general romantic preference and gender role based shaming that both men and women are subject to.



> In the same way killing a terrorist who threatened to kill innocents, is typically considered "good", while a terrorist killing innocents, is typically considered "bad"; both are considered "killing", although, the variable is the relevant factor for the discriminatory judgment.


People generally consider killing innocents to be fundamentally worse than killing terrorists because we all have contradicting intuitions. People by and large do not think logically about ethical issues. It seems intuitively obvious that killing an innocent person is worse but there's no objective basis for this, we just feel differently about innocent people than we do about people who are cruel, sadistic, uncaring and a threat to us. I don't think there's any impartial standard we can use to oppose discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc. but accept desert based double standards in how we treat innocent vs. guilty people. It's true that guilty people could have avoided the discrimination against them which makes it hard to incentivize people to oppose the desert based double standard in the same way they oppose discrimination based on things that were not within one's control or within their control but not blameworthy but that doesn't make it not discrimination and discrimination is morally inconsistent.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> If the act is considered intrinsically bad then the variables are irrelevant, the act is bad (and wrong) in all circumstances. If it's not the act that's considered intrinsically bad but the consequences then the act can be justified in some circumstances and not others but my reasoning still applies and it's a contradiction to give comparable interests (like sexual happiness) that men and women share more or less consideration or to judge them differently for committing the same mistake (and I still don't see how being sexually promiscuous is more or less of a mistake depending on how easily it is to persuade other people into having sex with you).
> 
> It might be besides the issue but I could point out that slut shaming and the slut-stud double standard is just a subset of general romantic preference and gender role based shaming that both men and women are subject to.
> 
> People generally consider killing innocents to be fundamentally worse than killing terrorists because we all have contradicting intuitions. People by and large do not think logically about ethical issues. It seems intuitively obvious that killing an innocent person is worse but there's no objective basis for this, we just feel differently about innocent people than we do about people who are cruel, sadistic, uncaring and a threat to us. I don't think there's any impartial standard we can use to oppose discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc. but accept desert based double standards in how we treat innocent vs. guilty people. It's true that guilty people could have avoided the discrimination against them which makes it hard to incentivize people to oppose the desert based double standard in the same way they oppose discrimination based on things that were not within one's control or within their control but not blameworthy but that doesn't make it not discrimination and discrimination is morally inconsistent.



It is not a contradiction, as the equations are different.

Variable A + act A = "good" ("stud glorification" -> male)
Variable B + act A = "bad" ("slut shaming" -> female)

Variable A + act B = "bad" ("virgin shaming" -> male)
Variable B + act B = "good" ("virgin glorifying" -> female)

The variables are different, thus, another set of variables, within those initial variables, is rendering them unequal in perception.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Eska said:


> No, the point, as I've said, is to demonstrate why males glorified, while females are not.
> Not being glorified, is not equivalent to being shamed.
> 
> The contrast highlights the difference between a male acquiring sex through dating, and a male acquiring sex through prostitution.
> ...


That contrast wouldn't require the woman to be included as an example at all in demonstration uno if you weren't associating her role to be in some way the same or similar to the man acquiring sex through prostitution. (Generally considered shameful (usually illegal) in society).

Then you go on, when you give your slut-virgin shaming argument, to dis-include males acquiring ladies through prostitution altogether. Because filtering (the woman's role) and initiation (sans monetary transaction-the man's) are skills as you see them. 

So comparing Stephanie's partner count to a man acquiring sex through prostitution is giving specificity to the dude's methods in getting laid but not to Stephanie's. *And that's the double standard.* 

You differentiate how the men acquire sex. You focus solely on Stephanie's partner count. Without taking into account her ability to filter, which you've determined is on par with initiation abilities in dudes. It would have to be, or there would be no glory in their acquisitions, as you see it. There would be no tournament. Just a bunch of chicks sleeping with whomever asked them to or got there first (it can't be determined that this is happening or not based purely on partner count).



Eska said:


> I address the point about proportional quality, between the initiator and the filter, in post #70


That's not my point at all. You're making the _man_ the "prize" there and saying that it would be easier for the more attractive woman to land him, essentially. My point is how many of these men have women had the opportunity to sleep with (and chosen not to)? Due to personal preference, feels, circumstance, better not's, whatever. How many have they roped in? Compared to other women? 



Eska said:


> Analogously speaking, it is similar to the Bowerbird's performance


I love that he gets cock blocked at the end. And his face when he does :laughing:

Really though, he's just like "DUDE!"

Here's some videos on the Black Widow  Notice how everything is way more...life or death. Not just...damn it! Look at the intricacies of the web that she's created (finding location in creating it alone requires skill), and what she has to deal with afterwards. The little dude spider is brave considering her ability to easily kill him, but let's assume that we're dealing with humans here where it's often the opposite, as the cherry to the analogy. (Most men physically overpower women).













Eska said:


> About the "_creating an attractive net_",
> 
> Considering that the idea is based on stereotypical interactions, and 'attitudes', in "dating"; what is stereotypically being sought by both sexes, is also factored in, as well as how both sexes respond to such traits.
> 
> ...


Lol. No.

Here's an infographic kinda reinforcing the rest of what you're saying though:










Do you see how dramatic "sit there and look beautiful" can get? (I.e. - you're a defenseless target...for men, other women, talking animals, rapists, supernatural forces). What's funny too, is that beauty is the salvation of these women, but according to your arguments, this doesn't even seem all that relevant. Don't matter if you's a hoe! Right? No matter how good your genes are. I was reading over my last argument like, uh, why did I specify "biologic" genes? What other kind would they be? Doy. Lol. But. I think what I meant was...physical attractiveness. There can be many types of attractiveness. Apparently this is pretty attractive, regardless of the woman's actual genes:










(No). Selectivity isn't really related to a woman's genes at all. This is why you also see women with certain dudes and wonder - how? They played their princess card. That mind game. (Side note - probably easier to do for women who don't get as many seemingly genuine propositions. "I'd fly to the moon for you! Your DNA would make that kinda offspring I think I'm supposed to want!" as opposed to just a lazy "Wanna fuq?" ...filter's probably kind of on auto pilot then...BUT...then that can get twisted too...so idk). Anyway, that's kind of it's own performance also, right? And sit there and look beautiful, with a heart full of butterflies - that probably requires some skill when you've been repeatedly attacked for doing so? And all you want to do is run screaming and fleeing into the woods to shack up with a bunch of dwarfs? (Knowing that you have a shelf life the entire time? Also - that, too - looking pretty - requires a lot of time, energy and money. You obviously know nothing of the intricacies of the grooming habits of females ). 

I have this theory that women above average in attractiveness are some of the loneliest and most paranoid people in the world. No "you're rich and famous? I'm rich and famous!" brotherhood (though I've always been about a sisterhood). It's all much...darker. Individual. Girl against girl. (I bet being rich and famous (popular) is a real chore at times though...) But yea, I promise you that's probably a lot of work, psychologically, on top of everything else


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> It is not a contradiction, as the equations are different.
> 
> Variable A + act A = "good" ("stud glorification" -> male)
> Variable B + act A = "bad" ("slut shaming" -> female)
> ...


It is a contradiction unless the variable is directly related to what makes the act bad.

A man who is approached by a woman doesn't have to put any effort into courting her and you never addressed (to me) why an action becomes better or worse based on how difficult it is to accomplish. Why would accepting sex be worse than actively pursuing it? I don't understand what this is based on. If it's generally easier for women to have sex than it is for men it's because men are generally more open to it. Why should women, or even individuals of either gender who can obtain sex more easily, be more discriminating or 'conservative' than men, or people with fewer opportunities or interested prospective partners, are expected to be? How can two people be open to the same act that requires the participation of the other and only one is faulted for what they both agreed to? Why is it worse for me to rob a bank than it is for anyone else to (and variables being equal, me and the person I'm being compared to are both acting out of self-interest -not to buy medicine for a sick child or something like that or even to avoid our starving or living in poverty and we can't justify it for a greater good)?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> That contrast wouldn't require the woman to be included as an example at all in demonstration uno if you weren't associating her role to be in some way the same or similar to the man acquiring sex through prostitution. (Generally considered shameful (usually illegal) in society).
> 
> Then you go on, when you give your slut-virgin shaming argument, to dis-include males acquiring ladies through prostitution altogether. Because filtering (the woman's role) and initiation (sans monetary transaction-the man's) are skills as you see them.
> 
> So comparing Stephanie's partner count to a man acquiring sex through prostitution is giving specificity to the dude's methods in getting laid but not to Stephanie's. *And that's the double standard.*


The point was not to compare Stephanie, to the male acquiring sex through prostitution.

It is not because both individuals utilize skills, that their skills are typically perceived as equal in value.

Drinking 250ml of water in 3 seconds, is a "skill", although, it would be typically perceived as 'faint', compared to the "skill" of climbing Mount Everest.




> You differentiate how the men acquire sex. You focus solely on Stephanie's partner count. Without taking into account her ability to filter, which you've determined is on par with initiation abilities in dudes. It would have to be, or there would be no glory in their acquisitions, as you see it. There would be no tournament. Just a bunch of chicks sleeping with whomever asked them to or got there first (it can't be determined that this is happening or not based purely on partner count).


Could you quote the statement where you think I've implied that the female's ability to filter is typically "_on par with initiation abilities in dudes_"?

My point, in the original post, precisely points out that the male's position is typically perceived as requiring more effort than the female's position.




> That's not my point at all. You're making the _man_ the "prize" there and saying that it would be easier for the more attractive woman to land him, essentially. My point is how many of these men have women had the opportunity to sleep with (and chosen not to)? Due to personal preference, feels, circumstance, better not's, whatever. How many have they roped in? Compared to other women?


I did not make the male the "_prize_".

I did not state that the females were initiating, I stated one of them is likely to expend less effort, in order to obtain sex from the male; meaning that the most attractive female would be more 'easily' "picked up" by the male.

I suspect that you were assuming an implicit meaning of "initiation", in the word "obtain", which may have led you to confuse my point.

Although, I fail to see the relevance of your point, about "_How many they've roped in? Compared to women?_.



> I love that he gets cock blocked at the end. And his face when he does :laughing:
> 
> Really though, he's just like "DUDE!"
> 
> Here's some videos on the Black Widow  Notice how everything is way more...life or death. Not just...damn it! Look at the intricacies of the web that she's created (finding location in creating it alone requires skill), and what she has to deal with afterwards. The little dude spider is brave considering her ability to easily kill him, but let's assume that we're dealing with humans here where it's often the opposite, as the cherry to the analogy. (Most men physically overpower women).


If I understand your point correctly, it is a flawed analogy.

You seem to be implying that there are physical repercussions, for the female, if a male fails to charm her.

You seem to be implying that it is typical for females to be "_killed_", if a male fails to charm them.

Depending on what is the analogous equivalent of "_killed_", 

One can actually argue the opposite, as the males are typically the ones who fear rejection the most, since they are the initiators, and are the ones putting their "ego" "on the line", in the evolutionary tournament. (competition with other males + self-esteem based on female perception)



> Lol. No.
> 
> Here's an infographic kinda reinforcing the rest of what you're saying though:
> 
> ...


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> It is a contradiction unless the variable is directly related to what makes the act bad.
> 
> A man who is approached by a woman doesn't have to put any effort into courting her and you never addressed (to me) why an action becomes better or worse based on how difficult it is to accomplish. Why would accepting sex be worse than actively pursuing it? I don't understand what this is based on. If it's generally easier for women to have sex than it is for men it's because men are generally more open to it. Why should women, or even individuals of either gender who can obtain sex more easily, be more discriminating or 'conservative' than men, or people with fewer opportunities or interested prospective partners, are expected to be? How can two people be open to the same act that requires the participation of the other and only one is faulted for what they both agreed to? Why is it worse for me to rob a bank than it is for anyone else to (and variables being equal, me and the person I'm being compared to are both acting out of self-interest -not to buy medicine for a sick child or something like that or even to avoid our starving or living in poverty and we can't justify it for a greater good)?


That is the point I've demonstrated in my last to response, to you.

The variable, is influential on the act's perception, due to the variables possessing different circumstances.

Ex;

If Usain Bolt walks, he is not likely to be glorified.
If a 12 month old child walks, he is likely to be glorified.

Both actions are the same, although, they are committed by different variables with different circumstances, which leads to a differential treatment.

_

Your second point assumes that my point, in the original post, referred to "slut shaming".

My point, in the original post, is demonstrating why males are glorified, while females are not, based on a stereotypical perception of "dating".

Later, in post #131, I address why females are shamed, with two possible evolutionary links.

Post #131,

* *






Eska said:


> To add,
> 
> I propose two possible evolutionary links,
> 
> ...


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> That is the point I've demonstrated in my last to response, to you.
> 
> The variable, is influential on the act's perception, due to the variables possessing different circumstances.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, you aren't saying anything when you point out that the variable is influential on the act's perception due to the variables 'possessing' different circumstances.

I don't think babies are seriously glorified (credited) for learning how to walk, their parents are just happy about it and the 'credit given to them is playful and (literally) condescending.

If Usain is not glorified for walking when the baby is then the act of walking is not (at least consistently) being regarded as good in itself, it's his determination to push himself and his being driven to succeed etc. that is considered good in itself (the truth is a lot of any athlete's skill might be due largely to effort but hereditary, natural talent and factors outside of his or her control also play a role). What's the comparison when it comes to sexual promiscuity? If it's not the actual sex itself that's considered good or bad, what is the variable that distinguishes female promiscuity from male promiscuity? I see now you say that the original post did not refer to slut shaming (I don't really want to go back and reread but I have heard the 'effort' argument to justify it and women, traditionally, aren't just not glorified for promiscuity, they are actively criticized for it). You can't just consider any kind of effort to be admirable because someone can put a lot of effort into hurting other people. Hitler was an ambitious and hard working man. Secondly, it's not just effort that makes a man successful in having sex with women, it's whether or not they're attracted to him which is largely, if not entirely, out of his control. Even the mind games and character traits men are supposed to display aren't _that_ difficult to project if he has no problem being who other people want him to be, imo. So what exactly is the effort you have in mind, what specifically? Being persistent, earning money to spend on her, playing the role or what? Women have to put some effort into being attractive even if they don't traditionally or generally initiate romantic encounters. I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about this right now but I really don't understand the effort argument because it's not an effort that can be measured absolutely, it's entirely dependent on or relative to the specific individual you're trying to mate with. You could go up to one girl, ask her to have sex and she'll agree. You could go up to another and have to do more. Some women you will always be completely out of luck with because she has 0 attraction to you and no effort you employ will ever change that. Some women will pursue you etc. You act like this effort is completely divorced from whether or not she's actually attracted to you or if there's the potential for her to be turned on by having sex with you. I don't know how else to put that right now. The women a 'player' is more likely to be successful with are relatively easier and thus, less effort. A really impressive amount of effort would be with a woman who will only have sex in a committed romantic relationship and if you do that you're not a 'stud'. I won't continue.

I'm skeptical about the evolutionary argument for men being turned off by promiscuous women. I think this is a cultural attitude, not something that biologically ingrained into us. All other factors being equal, I would be more turned on by a sexually promiscuous woman. I believe this attitude stems from the concern with personal property that arose during the rise of agrarian societies where nomadic hunter-gather groups stopped sharing what little possessions they had, food etc. Prior to then, I don't think men had much concern for paternity or women a need to secure men who could provide them with economic resources in exchange for the assurance of paternity but I could be wrong.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

The 'norms' are created by a double standard in the first place. 

Women's sexuality is still treated as something to be possessed by men. As an 'object' the more use it gets, the more it's value decreases. Men's sexuality isn't viewed as an object, men's 'use' remains as 'experience'. In every other context, experience increases a persons value, regardless of how easily the experience was obtained. Male virginity doesn't increase his worth, because only possessions are viewed as higher value for no other reason than them being brand new. Which also explains why many men who slut shame women don't refrain from having sex with promiscuous women, they just don't want to 'own' one. 

It's easier for men to lift heavy weight, yet they're not shamed for doing and women aren't glorified for doing it either, even though it requires more effort from a woman to achieve. 
Usain Bolt isn't shamed for walking and certainly wouldn't be glorified for refusing to walk. While your analogies support the idea that hard to attain achievements are often more deserving of praise, they don't reflect gender advantages in other contexts, they don't reflect womens perceived loss of value and they don't reflect expectations for women to abstain from sex in order to save them self to give a 'deserving' man exclusive rights to her brand-spanking-new punani.


While there's a significant evolutionary advantage for females to be more selective than males, due to parental investment (when they primarily raise the offspring), there's no significant evolutionary advantage for the offspring of inexperienced mothers. This applies across the entire animal kingdom, males don't have specific preferences for females that haven't previously produced offspring. So while this accounts for the difference in praise given, there seems to be no natural or biological incentive for females to be actively discouraged through slut shaming, only cultural ones.

It's a double standard because female promiscuity diminishes a womans value to the level of a used object. Achieving something with minimal effort doesn't warrant reducing somebody's status to the level of an old second hand shoe. While male promiscuity is treated as acquiring experience, just like in any other context of human beings acquiring experience. The term and standards are still being unfairly applied.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> The 'norms' are created by a double standard in the first place.
> 
> Women's sexuality is still treated as something to be possessed by men. As an 'object' the more use it gets, the more it's value decreases. Men's sexuality isn't viewed as an object, men's 'use' remains as 'experience'. In every other context, experience increases a persons value, regardless of how easily the experience was obtained. Male virginity doesn't increase his worth, because only possessions are viewed as higher value for no other reason than them being brand new. Which also explains why many men who slut shame women don't refrain from having sex with promiscuous women, they just don't want to 'own' one.
> 
> ...


So why do women find men more attractive that have more sexual experience.

It is generally found as a man, that to be attractive to women, one must have sexual experiene and show sexuality.

Women generally seem unattracted to virgins who are sexually inconfiedent?

Instead of going for sexually inexperienced guys who can be found at D&D clubs, libraries and nerd conventions.

Women seem to go for guys who are confident and sexual.

Where do you think a guys confidence around women comes from? Well from being with women of course.

You make this choice (after all attraction is just based on society and media).

So why? You complain about men slut shaming. Yet your the ones making a concious choice to go with men who are more likely to pump and leave.

I am going on the assumption here, that evo psych is not true.

If women stopped choosing to get with these men, then the behaviour would stop.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> With all due respect, you aren't saying anything when you point out that the variable is influential on the act's perception due to the variables 'possessing' different circumstances.


Some acts are not judged solely, as absolutes.

Circumstances can change the perception.

Ex;

A typical killing in self-defense, versus a suicide bombing.

Both are killings, but the circumstances change the perception.



> I don't think babies are seriously glorified (credited) for learning how to walk, their parents are just happy about it and the 'credit given to them is playful and (literally) condescending.
> 
> If Usain is not glorified for walking when the baby is then the act of walking is not (at least consistently) being regarded as good in itself, it's his determination to push himself and his being driven to succeed etc. that is considered good in itself (the truth is a lot of any athlete's skill might be due largely to effort but hereditary, natural talent and factors outside of his or her control also play a role). What's the comparison when it comes to sexual promiscuity?


Thus, there is a discriminating variable that changes the perception of occurrence, even though both are performing the same act.



> If it's not the actual sex itself that's considered good or bad, what is the variable that distinguishes female promiscuity from male promiscuity? I see now you say that the original post did not refer to slut shaming (I don't really want to go back and reread but I have heard the 'effort' argument to justify it and women, traditionally, aren't just not glorified for promiscuity, they are actively criticized for it). You can't just consider any kind of effort to be admirable because someone can put a lot of effort into hurting other people. Hitler was an ambitious and hard working man.


There is a difference between not being glorified, and being shamed.

I've proposed one point as to why they are not glorified (post #1), and two points as to why they are shamed. (post #131)

I did not imply that any effort was admirable; my point was contextualized and contrasted between two variables.

Although, as an off-topic point, effort can be inherently admirable, if it is isolated and quantified, then contrasted.



> Secondly, it's not just effort that makes a man successful in having sex with women, it's whether or not they're attracted to him which is largely, if not entirely, out of his control. Even the mind games and character traits men are supposed to display aren't _that_ difficult to project if he has no problem being who other people want him to be, imo. So what exactly is the effort you have in mind, what specifically? Being persistent, earning money to spend on her, playing the role or what? Women have to put some effort into being attractive even if they don't traditionally or generally initiate romantic encounters. I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about this right now but I really don't understand the effort argument because it's not an effort that can be measured absolutely, it's entirely dependent on or relative to the specific individual you're trying to mate with. You could go up to one girl, ask her to have sex and she'll agree. You could go up to another and have to do more. Some women you will always be completely out of luck with because she has 0 attraction to you and no effort you employ will ever change that. Some women will pursue you etc. You act like this effort is completely divorced from whether or not she's actually attracted to you or if there's the potential for her to be turned on by having sex with you. I don't know how else to put that right now. The women a 'player' is more likely to be successful with are relatively easier and thus, less effort. A really impressive amount of effort would be with a woman who will only have sex in a committed romantic relationship and if you do that you're not a 'stud'. I won't continue.


It is based on the stereotypical perception of "dating", which implies "gender roles", in that context, and thus, it implies stereotypical traits. 

Typically, males are perceived as spending more effort.



> I'm skeptical about the evolutionary argument for men being turned off by promiscuous women. I think this is a cultural attitude, not something that biologically ingrained into us. All other factors being equal, I would be more turned on by a sexually promiscuous woman. I believe this attitude stems from the concern with personal property that arose during the rise of agrarian societies where nomadic hunter-gather groups stopped sharing what little possessions they had, food etc. Prior to then, I don't think men had much concern for paternity or women a need to secure men who could provide them with economic resources in exchange for the assurance of paternity but I could be wrong.


Possibly.

Your point about paternity, is included in my explanation about avoiding cuckoldry.

Females being positioned in such a way, could ensure a higher rate of legitimate paternity.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

I feel like this thinking is classic "looking at the branches rather than the root."

The tree grows these branches (perception of genders) and then the fruit from those branches (double standards), and we try to figure out why the fruit does or doesn't make sense, depending on the branches they come from.

However, the branches don't make sense depending on where the root comes from! The question isn't, "What about men, women, and the situation makes it a double standard." 

The question is why is there such a disparity between the two in the first place? Whether it be positive or negative, that's still the important question. 

Instead of explaining why it's okay for men to have sex with many women, but women can't--based on our current social perspectives--why not figure out if it's even okay to have sex with multiple people, and then try to change the perspective of one or the other gender to match it in a positive way.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> The 'norms' are created by a double standard in the first place.
> 
> Women's sexuality is still treated as something to be possessed by men. As an 'object' the more use it gets, the more it's value decreases. Men's sexuality isn't viewed as an object, men's 'use' remains as 'experience'. In every other context, experience increases a persons value, regardless of how easily the experience was obtained. Male virginity doesn't increase his worth, because only possessions are viewed as higher value for no other reason than them being brand new. Which also explains why many men who slut shame women don't refrain from having sex with promiscuous women, they just don't want to 'own' one.



Regarding your point about males not being treated as "something to possess",

The onus could be on the female to reassess, refine and impose her standard.

Typically, in mate selection, both sexes abide to each others' standards. 
What is sought out, is being provided.

In order for males to be put in the same position, females could need to impose the "virgin standard".

What would be the benefit for females, considering that a female cannot be cuckolded?

Following the logic you've presented, males not finding facial hair attractive on females, could be considered a "double standard".



> It's easier for men to lift heavy weight, yet they're not shamed for doing and women aren't glorified for doing it either, even though it requires more effort from a woman to achieve.
> Usain Bolt isn't shamed for walking and certainly wouldn't be glorified for refusing to walk. While your analogies support the idea that hard to attain achievements are often more deserving of praise, they don't reflect gender advantages in other contexts, they don't reflect womens perceived loss of value and they don't reflect expectations for women to abstain from sex in order to save them self to give a 'deserving' man exclusive rights to her brand-spanking-new punani.
> 
> While there's a significant evolutionary advantage for females to be more selective than males, due to parental investment (when they primarily raise the offspring), there's no significant evolutionary advantage for the offspring of inexperienced mothers. This applies across the entire animal kingdom, males don't have specific preferences for females that haven't previously produced offspring. So while this accounts for the difference in praise given, there seems to be no natural or biological incentive for females to be actively discouraged through slut shaming, only cultural ones.
> ...



My point, in the original post, does not address "slut shaming"; it addresses why males are glorified, while females are not, from a typical perspective.

Not being glorified, does not equal being shamed.

In post #131, I propose two possible reasoning as to why females are shamed.

Post #131,

* *






Eska said:


> To add,
> 
> I propose two possible evolutionary links,
> 
> ...


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Antipode said:


> I feel like this thinking is classic "looking at the branches rather than the root."
> 
> The tree grows these branches (perception of genders) and then the fruit from those branches (double standards), and we try to figure out why the fruit does or doesn't make sense, depending on the branches they come from.
> 
> ...


That has been addressed.

Refer to post #131,


* *






Eska said:


> To add,
> 
> I propose two possible evolutionary links,
> 
> ...


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Eska said:


> That has been addressed.
> 
> Refer to post #131,


I didn't really follow your first option, because it was worded oddly for me.

However, your second option, involving offspring quality, is quite wrong. You equate men to being thrown into an arena where a woman is the judge; however, this is the assumption that a group of men are competing for one woman's affection, which this hardly happens outside of movies. Secondly, you're also assuming that the woman who is more selective also has better genes; yet, since slut-shaming happens for the majority of women, then that means all women--good genes or not--are encouraged to be selective. 

However, let's just assume that the more intelligent people are more selective. That means, if the men aren't being selective, then they are less intelligent. So the more promiscuous men meet the more selective women, it still creates offspring of half positive genes. Not to mention, the majority of men who sleep around, aren't usually your Einstein's in the world. Same with women. Thus, in actual evolutionary reality, we should be shaming slut-men-and-women, so we could reduce the amount of poor genes being created in the world. 

---

Also, just a side bar. There's this common mentality that men are encouraged to go out and have sex, and they all get bro-fisted for all the women they land. I don't usually come across this.

I was a virgin until this year (23), and people more respected me than shamed me. Also, we had more of a habit of narrowing our eyes if we knew a guy who just treated women like objects. I feel like we solely focus on the loud frat groups and assume those guys are the image of the rest of the male population. 

I agree we narrow our eyes more when women do it, but I don't know anyone who either shames virgin men or provides boy scout badges to those who reach a certain amount of women they've had sex with. Hell, the jocks in my high school weren't even like that.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Antipode said:


> I didn't really follow your first option, because it was worded oddly for me.


What part did you have an issue following?



> However, your second option, involving offspring quality, is quite wrong. You equate men to being thrown into an arena where a woman is the judge; however, this is the assumption that a group of men are competing for one woman's affection, which this hardly happens outside of movies. Secondly, you're also assuming that the woman who is more selective also has better genes; yet, since slut-shaming happens for the majority of women, then that means all women--good genes or not--are encouraged to be selective.
> 
> However, let's just assume that the more intelligent people are more selective. That means, if the men aren't being selective, then they are less intelligent. So the more promiscuous men meet the more selective women, it still creates offspring of half positive genes. Not to mention, the majority of men who sleep around, aren't usually your Einstein's in the world. Same with women. Thus, in actual evolutionary reality, we should be shaming slut-men-and-women, so we could reduce the amount of poor genes being created in the world.
> 
> ...


Typically, males compete with other males, to gain a female's approval.

Whether it is consciously or unconsciously, and whether it is based on status/flirting/body language/speech patterns/etc.

I did not imply that a female who is "_more selective also has better genes_".

"Slut shaming" and "virgin shaming", based on the reasoning I've presented, are tactics to 'set up' the social dynamics, in mate selection. 

Analogously speaking, 

it would be like setting up video game, with two teams, and an objective. 
Each team has a role assigned to it, which is its own personal objective. 
Each objective, set with each parameter, create the "game".


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Eska said:


> Whether it is consciously or unconsciously


This is kind of circular reasoning, and thus I can't really refute it. 

Yet, there's quite a different thing when it comes to wanting someone's attention and wanting them, sexually. I highly doubt if you put a female in a room of men, there's going to be a jousting situation where someone gets her hand in bed. 

And you did imply it by your statement that you "presenting" your reasoning. Of course it makes sense based on the reasoning you've presented--but that reasoning doesn't make sense.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Antipode said:


> This is kind of circular reasoning, and thus I can't really refute it.
> 
> Yet, there's quite a different thing when it comes to wanting someone's attention and wanting them, sexually. I highly doubt if you put a female in a room of men, there's going to be a jousting situation where someone gets her hand in bed.
> 
> And you did imply it by your statement that you "presenting" your reasoning. Of course it makes sense based on the reasoning you've presented--but that reasoning doesn't make sense.


I fail to see why you would consider it "circular reasoning".

Its manifestation is not necessarily "_a jousting situation where someone gets her hand in bed_", and it does not necessarily lead to sexual activities.

I did not imply that a female who is "more selective also has better genes".

Could you elaborate on how you think such an idea was implied?


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Eska said:


> I fail to see why you would consider it "circular reasoning".


Circular reasoning is when you create a situation that cannot be disproved. For instance, in my ethics class years back, the popular example was a philosopher who said all actions are done for selfish reasons, whether they know it or not.

Well if I tell him that my actions aren't selfish, he could simply say, "Well, it's subconscious--you aren't aware that you are doing it for selfish reasons."

I can't prove or disprove that; thus, it is kind of moot--it circular reasoning. His theory and his reasoning is proven within itself.

So saying men typically compete for a woman's affection, whether they know it or not, is circular. I could tell you I don't typically compete for a woman's affection, and you could say, "Well, you just don't know it." 

While, psychologically, you could technically be correct, you can't use it in a debate--nor do I believe you actually have any proof to show that it is subconscious in men. But I could be wrong: perhaps you do have proof.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Antipode said:


> Circular reasoning is when you create a situation that cannot be disproved. For instance, in my ethics class years back, the popular example was a philosopher who said all actions are done for selfish reasons, whether they know it or not.
> 
> Well if I tell him that my actions aren't selfish, he could simply say, "Well, it's subconscious--you aren't aware that you are doing it for selfish reasons."
> 
> ...


I disagree with your interpretation of a circular reasoning.

A circular reasoning is a statement that is confirmed by a/set of premise(s), that is re-confirms the original statement.

I posed no such reasoning.

I stated that, in the context of dating, male competition is typically present, whether it is conscious or unconscious, through body language, speech patterns, etc.

Thus, what I'm implying is that competition between males take place in various forms, whether that means it is conscious (actively being involved in outperforming/challenging the threat) or unconscious (instinctual reaction/unconscious body language/etc.).

Some studies linking to these factors,

* *





*http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(05)00096-6/fulltext*



> _The developmental and anatomical causes of human voice sexual dimorphisms are known, but the evolutionary causes are not. Some evidence suggests a role of intersexual selection via female mate choice, but other evidence implicates male dominance competition. In this study, we examine the relationships among voice pitch, dominance, and male mating success. Males were audio recorded while participating in an unscripted dating-game scenario. Recordings were subsequently manipulated in voice pitch using computer software and then rated by groups of males for dominance. Results indicate that (1) a masculine, low-pitch voice increases ratings of men's physical and social dominance, augmenting the former more than the latter; and (2) men who believe they are physically dominant to their competitor lower their voice pitch when addressing him, whereas men who believe they are less dominant raise it. We also found a nonsignificant trend for men who speak at a lower pitch to report more sexual partners in the past year. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that male intrasexual competition was a salient selection pressure on the voices of ancestral males and contributed to human voice sexual dimorphism._


*Men Act Like Dogs to Determine Dominance*



> _One reason women might prefer men who speak in low voices is that vocal pitch is partly related to physical size. Taller men tend to have lower voices because they have longer vocal tracts and vocal folds, the main determinants of pitch.
> 
> Vocal anatomy is also thought to signal a man's level of testosterone, a hormone linked to physical aggressiveness and prowess.
> 
> Studies have shown that women favor men with low, masculine voices during periods in their menstrual cycle when they're likely to get pregnant, and also that they prefer men with lower voices for short-term sexual flings._


*[Sexual attraction: a concept analysis using an evolutionary perspective]. - PubMed - NCBI*


> _The definitional statement of sexual attraction includes the five dimensions of: 1. sexual-oriented psychological dynamics; 2. personal aesthetics and sensory experience; 3. instinct body forces; 4. body language of self; and 5. social and cultural norms._










Although, whether it was true, or not, what is the point you're trying to convey?

In regards to refuting one of my evolutionary perspectives,

If it is true, what is your point?
If it is false, what is your point?


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

Eska said:


> A _double standard_ is defined as (by Oxford dictionary);
> 
> The point, in a double standard, is not the differential treatment itself, it is the fairness of the justification to impose that differential treatment.


ok noted



> *1.* University
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


this is assuming that
1. every female you sleep with is impossibly hard to get, and
2. every male you sleep with is pathetically easy to get

so if you were to apply this analogy to sex, what would make more sense is:

james has attempted to woo the *top 5* women in the world (meaning she is the whole package + very hard to get), and has slept with them all.
bob has attempted to woo the *5 worst* women in the world (meaning they are despicable in every sense + very easy to get), and has slept with them all.

and if you were to apply it to women, it would look something like this:

suzy has attempted to woo the *top 5* men in the world (meaning they are, too, the whole package + very picky), and has slept with them all.
jennifer has attempted to woo the *5 worst* men in the world (meaning they are, too, despicable in every sense + they will sleep with a mattress if it showed enough interest), and has slept with them all.

"top 5 universities in the world" - i mean, really? hit me up when you've managed to charm the pants off beyonce.

it's not as cut-and-dried as people make it out to be. this is about as insulting to men as it is to women. i've known many guys who were very picky about who they will and won't sleep with. sure, most of the time it comes down to attractiveness but there are girls out there who aren't all that attractive but who you'd still have to jump through hoops on top of hoops to get her to even consider the idea of sleeping with you.



> *2.* Brick-breaking
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


re: what i said above



> *3.* Usain Bolt
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


re: what i said above



> *4.* The infamous 'Key VS Lock' analogy.
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


this one always made me laugh. you're likening every guy's dick to a master key and every woman's vagina to a shitty, rusty lock. it reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:

"If you consider a woman less pure after you've touched her, maybe you should take a look at your hands."

if you consider a woman you've slept with a "dirty slut" after you've slept with her, then what does that make you? the holder of a master key? it doesn't take a master key to open a poorly made lock. any key can do that.

you can pick a basic lock fairly easily (or so i've been told) and lock picking is what a majority of guys do when they woo the women they sleep with. it's a hack, a cheat. you lie to her about what you do, who you are, what you want. you buy her drinks and gifts and dinner and you bend over backwards - sometimes to the point of making yourself look like a thirsty, pathetic ass - to get her to "open her legs" for you. you give up your money, your dignity, your integrity. you think she's the only one putting out? nah. you're not a master. you just have no standards... and i don't mean you don't have standards when it comes to the women you sleep with (although this might hold true in some cases), it means you have no standards for yourself. in the end, you'll have given up a lot more than she did.

if you can woo and sleep with any woman of your choosing without once having to lie about who you are or what your intentions with her are and without having to pay for or buy her anything, _then_ you can consider yourself the holder of a master key, whatever the hell that means. bonus: if you can make her fall in love with you without committing any of the aforementioned atrocities then the dick is probably bomb as hell, so congratulations, here's my number.

charlie sheen has slept with well over 100 women but i don't see how anyone would view that as commendable. the women he's slept with slept with "big shot" charlie sheen (which, if you care about money and status and fame, is a big deal, i suppose). however, charlie sheen has slept with 100+ women who probably wanted nothing more from him than his money and bragging rights. 

now he has HIV. good job, buddy. let's see if that master key of yours can unlock the cure to that.

in short, it's a loaded statement. it gives men way too much credit while giving women none. if you sleep with someone whose vagina you'd compare to a shitty lock then you have a shitty key. 



> *5.* Mountain climber
> 
> * *
> 
> ...



* *






re: what i said in response to analogies 1, 2, and 3



> Thus, based on these analogies, I conclude the following;
> 
> The idea is based on the difficulty of acquisition; the effort-to-accomplishment ratio.
> 
> Effort is not solely relative to the goal, it is also relative to the circumstances that are attached to a variable that accomplishes the goal.


what i don't understand is, if a man is putting in crazy amounts of effort to sleep with a woman, wouldn't that, by this logic, up her "value" and devalue him? because of the feats he went to to persuade her to sleep with him?



> From a general cultural standpoint,
> 
> Males and females, possess different "statuses", and thus circumstances.
> 
> Males are expected to initiate the requests, while females are expected to filter the incoming requests.


gotta love culture, right? cultures, traditions, all that outdated shit.

here we are on a forum where everyone claims to abhor tradition and culture (in a valiant attempt to avoid being typed an SJ or, worse, a dom-Fe user) but when i stroll through the debate subforum, s&r subforum, the critical thinking subforum, all i spy with my little eye is stereotypes on top of "that's the way it's always been" on top of "this is how it is/how it should be because society says so!" 

but you're all independent thinkers, right? you're modern and progressive and open-minded, right?

so many self-proclaimed trailblazers, so _little_ trailblazing.

- - - - - - - - - - - page break - - - - - - - - - - -

i've been to clubs and i've been to bars and i've seen women most would deem unattractive being hit on by their fair share of guys.

because how it works is: if a guy doesn't have success with one, he moves onto the next one, and he keeps doing this until he can reel in a female who actually reciprocates. another thing i've noticed is that he'll usually drop his standards after every failed attempt.

if you're a guy and you've failed dozens of times before succeeding, then how does that - in keeping with the key and lock theme - make you the holder of a master key?

in basketball, one doesn't get points for missing the net. one doesn't even get half-points. what one gets is benched, mother fucker.

in baseball, one does not acquire a good batting average by striking out over and over again.

if we measured a person's worth - not just by the number of people they've slept with - but by diving the number of people they've slept with by the number of people who have _tried_ to sleep with them, then it'd be a whole different story. who would come out on top then? see? women can do analogies too. and math.

your key isn't that great, man. it failed to open 100 different locks before it finally opened one.
your lock is high quality, woman. it took 100 attempts by 100 different men before it was finally unlocked. it is also astonishing, woman, how sometimes one single key-holder will make 100 attempts to unlock you because they do not know how to take a hint. this type of key-holder will probably lash out at you and tell you you're a shitty lock.

remember the tale of excalibur? yea.



> Males are expected to approach, engage the conversation, pay for [...], etc.; the resources, and effort, expected to be spent by males, exceeds the resources, and effort, expected to be spent by females.
> 
> The reasoning is found in the analogous contexts presented earlier, is applied to this cultural context.


cool



> To support the idea further, with a general situation,
> 
> *1)* James has had sexual intercourse with 10 females, in one week; he's a "stud".
> *2)* Stephanie has had sexual intercourse with 10 males, in one week; she's a "slut".
> ...


aw










bob is a loser because he's paying for a human being who, in some cases, probably has no other choice than to become a hooker. he's an even bigger loser if he does it in thailand because that would make him both a loser and a pedophile.



> Thus,
> 
> As long as these stereotypical "gender roles" persist, such an idea can be considered fair/justified, through the reasoning of proportional effort-to-accomplishment ratio; the difficulty of acquisition.
> 
> This reflects on the cultural context, which may be influenced by an adjacent evolutionary concept.


re: everything i said

- - - - - - - - - - - - - page break - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

i don't care how many people anyone sleeps with, i really don't. i don't pay that much attention to other people so i always find it intriguing when i find people who _do_. if someone's decisions don't impact me or anyone i care about directly or affect anyone negatively, then it's none of my business. people aren't keys, they are not locks, they are not this, nor that. they are human beings and they are free to do what they like with who they want.

this is why i think freud's penis envy theory is bullshit. i think the antithesis would hold more truth, that men are envious of women for having vaginas. otherwise words like "slut", "whore", and "tramp" probably wouldn't exist. even if they did exist, though... they'd be used much less frequently.

fun fact: i was called a slut more often when i was a virgin than i was after being deflowered. i think the only difference now is that instead of saying it to my face, they like to say it behind my back.

it's a big reason i dislike this argument. it assumes that the word "slut" is only ever used to describe a woman who sleeps with dozens of men and who anyone anywhere could sleep with, which is so far from the truth, from reality. i've heard guys and girls alike (though guys do it much more frequently) call a girl a slut for wearing legs with a t-shirt. i've heard guys call a girl who rejected him a slut. i've heard girls call another girl a slut simply because she's more attractive. i've heard guys call a girl a slut right after they sleep with her, even if they expended months worth of effort before it actually happened.

tl;dr let's replace the infamous key and lock analogy with batting averages. see what happens then.


class dismissed. have fun in detention.


----------



## iGodMode (Dec 3, 2015)

So here's my problem with most actual sluts..... There is no "refusing to be shamed". How does that even work? Lol. If you feel like you shouldn't being doing then that's a personal problem. Most hoes have personal problems with being hoes and that's the actual problem at the end of the day. Society and men say we don't like hoes for wives so there afraid of how it will hurt their social reputation (this means everything to women lol) and attempt to hide it. Then why the fuck are you doing it. If you yourself feel like a hoe that has to hide her exploits or lie to your new boyfriend about your past. How the fuck am I supposed to feel. If the word slut hoe, what have you stings in anyway then you need to be honest with yourself about what your doing or stop doing it. Point blank period end of discussion. Way too many undercover hoes out here that are doing everything hoes do but then create some type of cognitive dissonance in their heads by not admitting it to themselves or pretending to be something else (an angel, good girl, what have you) its tiring honestly.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

iGodMode said:


> So here's my problem with most actual sluts..... There is no "refusing to be shamed". How does that even work? Lol. If you feel like you shouldn't being doing then that's a personal problem. Most hoes have personal problems with being hoes and that's the actual problem at the end of the day. *Society and men say we don't like hoes for wives so there afraid of how it will hurt their social reputation (this means everything to women lol)* and attempt to hide it. Then whey the fuck are you doing it. If you yourself feel like a hoe that has to hide her exploits or lie to your new boyfriend about your past. How the fuck am I supposed to feel. If the word slut hoe, what have you stings in anyway then you need to be honest with yourself about what your doing or stop doing it. Point blank period end of discussion. Way too many undercover hoes out here that are doing everything hoes do but then create some type of cognitive dissonance in their heads by not admitting it to themselves or pretending to be something else (an angel, good girl, what have you) its tiring honestly.


right except that makes absolutely zero sense. in this scenario, it would be the man who cares about his reputation, not the woman. what's that one quote? "nothing is more fragile than a man's ego". most men wouldn't mind marrying a woman who's had a high number of previous sexual partners if it weren't for the fact that his friends (and society) would judge him for it. if she kept her sexual escapades on the low-low then i doubt he'd care. what most guys are terrified of is another guy coming up to them and saying "yo i fucked your bitch!" (even if the guy didn't actually).

let's say that when you first meet a girl, she lies about how many partners she's had... and let's also say that you are romantically interested in her... you go on a few dates, you eventually start dating, you fall in love, you move in together, you get married, you have kids, blah blah blah.

then one day she reveals that she's slept with xx amount of guys. would you love her less? would you stop loving her altogether? would you regret all the years you invested in your relationship? would you view her differently? would you value her less? because of something that has literally nothing to do with you _or_ your relationship? you're probably going to pretend that you're mad at her because she lied and because "honesty is the foundation of a successful relationship!" but that's not exactly true, is it? because i doubt you were honest about the number of women you've slept with. so far i've had three guys (and they were decent guys) i've been involved with lie about having sex with at least _one_ girl, in that the number of people they claimed to have slept with in the beginning of our fling/relationship dropped down by at least 1 once we started getting a little more serious.

so i guess the same can be said of men. why lie about the number of people you've slept with? why lie about sleeping with that one girl who, in fact, you don't even know? who cares about their reputation now? who fucking cares in general? well, _you_ do.

"hoe this, hoe that" hoe about you stop? hoe about you learn2respect?


----------



## iGodMode (Dec 3, 2015)

i cant play the piano said:


> right except that makes absolutely zero sense. in this scenario, it would be the man who cares about his reputation, not the woman. what's that one quote? "nothing is more fragile than a man's ego". most men wouldn't mind marrying a woman who's had a high number of previous sexual partners if it weren't for the fact that his friends (and society) would judge him for it. if she kept her sexual escapades on the low-low then i doubt he'd care. what most guys are terrified of is another guy coming up to them and saying "yo i fucked your bitch!" (even if the guy didn't actually).
> 
> let's say that when you first meet a girl, she lies about how many partners she's had... and let's also say that you are romantically interested in her... you go on a few dates, you eventually start dating, you fall in love, you move in together, you get married, you have kids, blah blah blah.
> 
> ...


lol I do not care the most fun women I ever been with was an outright slut and I made her feel comfortable enough to admit it and tell me about her escapades the previous night and we still kicked it and enjoyed each others company. I could give a fuck about social norms I'm an INTP lol. I respect the truth far more. Were not spinning this on me. I have no problems with hoes. I have problems with women who are sluts / hoes but lie about it or try to hide it. If that makes me a bad person then well fuck it I'm owning it. I wouldn't marry a woman with a high partner count (I mean I'm never getting married anyway what a horrible one sided trap) for the same reason a bank owner wouldn't hire a convicted felon and put him on vault security. Extreme analogy but to put it plainly risk mitigation. If that also makes me a bad person. Well again *kanye shrug* Now indulging in your fairy tale scenario if I were to get into a relationship with a supposed "slut" and found out years after but as far as I could tell she held me down throughout all those years I had love her as a person and we pretty much enjoy each other / vice versa and I found out fuck it like you said she was there and invested for x amount of years I'm not that much of an asshole and a dummy to toss out someone who's genuinely on my team because they like dick. Loyalty is very hard to come by... and I'm not saying hoes can't be loyal but if I know before hand then yea I'd keep her at arms length. I dunno why grown ass men lie to women or anyone in general its childish. I guess the same could be said for throwing around blunt honesty like a brick but the older you get the less time you have for people's bullshit... so Also your not going to thought police my vocabulary or change my mind or opinion don't waste your energy there. Good discussion though.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

iGodMode said:


> lol I do not care the most fun women I ever been with was an outright slut and I made her feel comfortable enough to admit it and tell me about her escapades the previous night and we still kicked it and enjoyed each others company. I could give a fuck about social norms I'm an INTP lol. I respect the truth far more. Were not spinning this on me. I have no problems with hoes. I have problems with women who are sluts / hoes but lie about it or try to hide it. If that makes me a bad person then well fuck it I'm owning it. I wouldn't marry a woman with a high partner count (I mean I'm never getting married anyway what a horrible one sided trap) for the same reason a bank owner wouldn't hire a convicted felon and put him on vault security. Extreme analogy but to put it plainly risk mitigation. If that also makes me a bad person. Well again *kanye shrug* Now indulging in your fairy tale scenario if I were to get into a relationship with a supposed "slut" and found out years after but as far as I could tell she held me down throughout all those years I had love her as a person and we pretty much enjoy each other / vice versa and I found out fuck it like you said she was there and invested for x amount of years I'm not that much of an asshole and a dummy to toss out someone who's genuinely on my team because they like dick. Loyalty is very hard to come by... and I'm not saying hoes can't be loyal but if I know before hand then yea I'd keep her at arms length. I dunno why grown ass men lie to women or anyone in general its childish. I guess the same could be said for throwing around blunt honesty like a brick but the older you get the less time you have for people's bullshit... so Also your not going to thought police my vocabulary or change my mind or opinion don't waste your energy there. Good discussion though.


thank you. i pride myself in my discussion skills. i predict you're going to thank my other post now


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

The slut double standard is still a double standard regardless. 

People do not have this acquiescent value that changes just because they've slept around or because they're stupid or because they're a genius. It doesn't change. You are no more _valuable_ than the person you like the least. Everyone has a set intrinsic value, it doesn't change. 

Your university analogy gives a varying worth of women relative to how _easy_ they are or perceived to be. We're human, we're not prestigious fucking universities lol.

The slut double standard lowers and relies on the perceived worth of a woman. But it's not only damaging to women but to men too. Not to mention the notion that you could do anything you want with a slut and she'll be down/won't protest.

Honestly I don't care. Do what you want. As long as it doesn't negatively impact me by all means go fuck whoever you want. Just don't go calling me a slut. Who I choose to sleep with is nobody's business besides me and my partner or partners. I don't need nor desire any input from anyone telling me I'm wrong for making the choices I have and will. If you think you're morally superior to me or higher in value just because you've slept with less people than I have, or because I might choose to dress in a certain manner or call me a slut because I don't give you my number, then you can go fuck yourself.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

right? boys have dicks and dicks are dumb therefore boys are dicks or dumb i don't know where i'm going with this


----------



## Juggernaut (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm almost certain this was meant to be on technicality, (Devil's advocate, even.) not that Eska is actually justifying calling women sluts. It's widely understood that calling a woman a slut isn't "right."

Men are essentially pursuers. If he has sex with lots of women, he's doing his job according to his gender role. A woman would be failing her job according to her gender role.

"Method of acquisition"

Another perspective.
______________________________

There's not much really to discuss, I don't think.

"Slut" shouldn't be a thing. We're stepping away from gender roles. Fab.


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

i cant play the piano said:


> right? boys have dicks and dicks are dumb therefore boys are dicks or dumb i don't know where i'm going with this


Sleep, you ever heard of it? It's glorious. Maybe you need some.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

i cant play the piano said:


> right? boys have dicks and dicks are dumb therefore boys are dicks or dumb i don't know where i'm going with this


"boys' dicks are dumb"?

Well I might not have the smartest dick around but for what it can do it does well enough.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

Wellsy said:


> "boys' dicks are dumb"?
> 
> Well I might not have the smartest dick around but for what it can do it does well enough.


stop it wellsy you're making me nervous


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

it's not a double standard. it's one standard for men, and a different standard for women.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Please! This is such a joke of a double standard. If you want to see a real double standard check out the cheerleader that provided alcohol to a 15 year then raped him repeatedly getting a whole 90 days for doing it. Then look at Jarrod from Subway who paid 14-17 year old prostitutes to have sex with him and got 15 years... Now THAT is a fucking double standard!


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

Carpentet810 said:


> Please! This is such a joke of a double standard. If you want to see a real double standard check out the cheerleader that provided alcohol to a 15 year then raped him repeatedly getting a whole 90 days for doing it. Then look at Jarrod from Subway who paid 14-17 year old prostitutes to have sex with him and got 15 years... Now THAT is a fucking double standard!


but-but-but-but men can't get raped!


* *




For those of you who don't get sarcasm and the like: this was sarcasm


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

lol when people don't know what they're talking about


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Yes, in a situation where you maintain archetypal gender-roles then slut shaming is not a double standard.

If one is interested in equality(as one should be) then there should be no gender-roles and thus no slut-shaming.


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

i cant play the piano said:


> lol when people don't know what they're talking about


That's how I feel largely about men's rights activists. What other rights do they even need? When have they been discriminated against as a majority? 










Though western feminism nowadays is quite arbitrary


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

AddictiveMuse said:


> That's how I feel largely about men's rights activists. What other rights do they even need?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


literally everything except for the words that come out of my finger tips is pointless and i'm sick of having to read other people's wrong opinions


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> Regarding your point about males not being treated as "something to possess",
> 
> The onus could be on the female to reassess, refine and impose her standard.
> 
> ...


Human sexual dimorphism indicates that the male genes which have been selected through evolution are those which aid him to chase off potential rivals. Size, strength and aggression are the main general differences between men and women. So it's not so much about what females find desirable in a mate, it's more about what females are left with after the males have finished battling it out. 



> My point, in the original post, does not address "slut shaming"; it addresses why males are glorified, while females are not, from a typical perspective.
> 
> Not being glorified, does not equal being shamed.


The thread title said slut double standard, which implies slut shaming, since that's the double standard.



> In post #131, I propose two possible reasoning as to why females are shamed.


The sexual dimorphism also suggests that the males parental investment was much smaller than the females. So if the paternal investment was low anyway, then the advantages for a male pairing with a non-promiscuous female, wouldn't outweigh the disadvantages. 

Getting exclusive rights to one female might ensure paternity, but it doesn't ensure the offspring reaches maturity. Pregnant women and young infants are particularly vulnerable, for long periods of time, in comparison to other species. 
There wouldn't be any evolutionary advantage for offspring of a female who devotes herself exclusively to one male, if the male doesn't do the same in return. They would likely need a father completely and exclusively invested in them for a long period of time OR several men partially invested in them (or at least providing resources to the mother, in order to get sex) for short periods of time. 

A promiscuous male with a preference for virgins isn't going to give his offspring the best advantages for survival. 

1. He's not going to be able to provide adequate resources and protection to several different family units at the same time. 

2. Virgins would be likely be too young to reproduce or too young and inexperienced to successfully raise offspring if they were able to reproduce. 

3. The chances of a woman dying during childbirth were high, especially with the first childbirth. So a man moving from one virgin to another is unlikely to successfully produce more offspring than the man moving from one promiscuous and experienced woman to another. 

So a preference for non-promiscuous women would mostly only work out for men who were devoted enough to be fully invested for the long haul. This doesn't appear to have been the case though.

The advantages need to be significant for it to become part of evolution. If his kids don't live, ensuring his sperm is the only one to get in there is pretty pointless in evolutionary terms.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> So why do women find men more attractive that have more sexual experience.
> 
> It is generally found as a man, that to be attractive to women, one must have sexual experiene and show sexuality.
> 
> ...


I would argue that men who are attractive gain more sexual experience and confidence gained from sexual experience is attractive. It's not sexual experience in and of itself that attracts women, only the attributes that generally come with it.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> I remain confused, to some extent.
> 
> You seem to be criticizing the idea for being associated to gender, rather than individuals. Correct?


How much effort someone puts into mating is not directly related to gender and while I can somewhat understand the effort argument when it comes to glorifying someone for successfully mating (this wouldn't even necessarily apply to initiators alone and if it did, females can still be initiators and males can be discriminating) I don't understand how it explains (let alone justifies) shaming someone for being promiscuous when their obtaining casual sex requires little effort or when it does but other members of their group are statistically less likely to have to invest a lot of effort into obtaining sex.



> Although, I still do not see why it would be a contradictory/inconsistent judgment.


Holding people to different standards (giving comparable interests they share more or less consideration or, when the variables in different situations are equal, criticizing them more or less for the same choices) is inconsistent. Sexual promiscuity can't be inherently bad just because obtaining casual sex does not require effort (a lot of things don't require effort) so if sexual promiscuity is bad when it requires no effort, why would investing effort into being promiscuous (or maybe I should say actually obtaining casual sex if promiscuity refers to a mindset and not what you do) make it worse? If the effort invested into obtaining casual sex is admirable, it should be admirable when it's shown by males or females and again, even if there's no great honor in obtaining something that was easy to acquire, it just being easy to acquire can't make it shameful.



> It is gender based, because the roles are assigned to the genders.


It is a double standard that cultures assign those roles and penalize people for not meeting them to begin with. Race based chattel slavery in the antebellum American South wasn't not a double standard just because the Southern culture assigned black people the role of slaves and whites the roles of free (wo)men and potential slave owners (I realize there were free blacks and black slave owners but you get the idea, only people who were considered 'black' could be slaves at one point). Regardless of whether or not a culture generally accepts women being initiators they can be initiators and you're holding people to different standards even when relevant variables are comparable. You can't really be saying that this isn't inconsistent or that it really is inherently gendered because 'society' expects you to play one role and not another.



> The idea is based on a stereotypical perception of "dating", where males are expected to initiate, and females be selective to some extent; hence why 'outlier' cases are not factored in.


The 'expectation' itself is a double standard.




> It can, because a double standard is based on the fairness of a differential treatment, not the differential treatment itself.


A double standard is, by definition, different standards for different people. I agree that literal differential treatment is not necessarily a double standard (if we're talking about actual specific acts or behavior and not consideration).



> Any double standard can be justified to not be a double standard, technically.


No, it can't. You're holding people to the same standard or you aren't. You're making the concept completely meaningless by arguing that anything can be justified to be anything. There are real moral, logical and even empirical contradictions (something that would contradict unambiguous evidence based on direct experience) whether they're seen as contradictions or not.



> If it is deemed "fair" that females are shamed for being promiscuous, and males are encouraged to be, then, from that perspective, it is not a double standard.


With all due respect, your reasoning is wild. I suspect that you're trolling me.

You seem to be arguing that there is literally no such thing as a double standard.




> The male would need to "lead on" the females, with false promises/ambiguous promises, and then 'leave' them.


Would people who support the slut/stud double standard generally consider this to be admirable?



> The issue would not be the act, it would be a solution to the consequences of the act.


I don't understand.





> Genes are unique to the individual, even though there is a similarity to those of his relative, his remain authentic.


I'm not an expert on genetics but I think it's unlikely that someone has any unique genes. All humans share around at least 99.9% of their genes. What distinguishes close relatives is that they share more in common than they do with most people. A father shares exactly 50% of his genes, above and beyond what he shares with random strangers, with his children but he also shares around 25% with his full nieces and nephews (as much as he would with his grandchildren), around 6.25% with the children of a full 1st cousin etc. If I'm not mistaken, parents and their children don't share unique genes, they just share a greater amount of DNA than they do with most people. Many researchers believe altruism evolved because people who sacrificed themselves not just for children but for siblings, cousins, nephews etc. were more likely to propagate those same altruism causing genes (not directly but by allowing their relatives to propagate their shared genes).



> I'm not claiming that the point of the male's existence is to propagate his genes, although, I claim that in the context of mate selection, it is. It is not an "objective" standpoint, as it revolves around how one theorizes the purpose "mate selection", based on the instinctual habit commonly attributed to animals. (purpose of reproduction, etc.)


I understand but once you accept an evolutionary explanation of why it's more acceptable for men to be promiscuous in most human societies, there are no normative implications that justify the slut-stud double standard (and I'm not convinced that evolution and not cultural norms that developed with the concept of personal property in hierarchical agrarian societies explain where the double standard came from but I am open to it). I would think bonobo males have the same 'genetic interest' in assuring paternity that human males do but bonobo society is very sexually open and they use sex as a means of settling conflicts and bonding.




> I meant that they would refrain of mating with certain individuals, in order to diversify their genes.


I don't understand and I'm not sure what you're replying to. How would not mating with certain individuals, aside from close relatives, help enhance genetic diversity?



> You mean that it would be a double standard if males criticize females for being promiscuous, but not other males?


Yes, having a preference doesn't necessarily imply criticizing or insulting people who don't meet that standard. It's still hard for me to imagine how someone who is 'turned off' by sexual promiscuity in women could not have certain biases that I have a personal problem with. If you valued women's sexual happiness you would want them to have as much of it as possible (which isn't to deny that the necessary real life costs of casual sex might outweigh the benefits).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> You're implying that size, strength and aggression, are not part of the preferences.
> 
> Size, strength and aggression are preferences, and they are biologically founded.


I don't see how you managed to misunderstand what I was saying, it was clear enough. Sexual dimorphism happens for three reasons, aids survival, aids fertility and/or is sexually attractive. Changes that aid survival and fertility are not _determined_ by preferences of the opposite sex. Strength, size and aggression might be female preferences, but they're unlikely a direct _result_ of female preferences. 



> You've altered the context to modern social circumstances.


Yes. Males providing food to 'court' females is prevalent in modern society and also across many different species. It's difficult to imagine that early humans weren't exchanging food for sex. 



> 1. The confidence remains 'much lower' than if he was directly supporting his legitimate child.
> 
> 2. Depending on the time span and area you're referring to, food could have been a 'luxury', and its value/use would not only to be used to seduce, as it would also be to ensure the female's survival/energy to support the infant while pregnant, as well as ensuring she lives in order to take care of the offspring.


If he's promiscuous and therefore either dividing his care and resources or not contributing at all, then why would his parental involvement be important enough to sacrifice other resources?
If she's loyal, her offspring could have maybe 1/8 of the fathers available resources. If she's promiscuous, then she could have several men contributing maybe 1/16 of their available resources. 





> Ensuring paternity is a process that takes place before the offspring's birth.


Evolutionary 'ensuring paternity' isn't the result of a series of purposeful successful strategies that males come up with to pass on their genes. It's a series of random inclinations that accidentally result in the long term survival of that particular male's offspring. So yes, whatever action that will ensure paternity is done before the birth of offspring, but it won't become an evolutionary tactic until subsequent generations have passed on the natural inclinations that accidentally resulted in their survival. 

The theory which you're proposing is that a male preference for virgins is an evolutionary tactic which served to ensure paternity. This would be dependant on the joint offspring of promiscuous men and non-promiscuous women having a survival advantage. There's no indication of this ever being the case. Most indications support the theory that both sexes were promiscuous and it would seem that males having confidence in paternity was either detrimental to survival or irrelevant to it. 



> Cultural changes do not necessarily abolish biological instincts.
> 
> The fact that a female's preference change, due to a hormonal imbalance, I think, is more likely related to refine/fine-tune the criteria to attract the most safest/most trustworthy males, let alone the idea that it might simply be in regards to the psychological needs shifting, caused by the hormonal imbalance.


Female chimpanzee's are promiscuous. They mate with lots of males, at different times throughout their reproductive cycle. The dominant males usually mate with them when they're at their most fertile and the remaining males mate with them at other times. The similarities to women's preferences during their cycle would suggest (though obviously not confirm) a similar natural outcome, which would be promiscuity.



> It being evolutionary, does not exclude it from being based on "power and domination".


True. But when oppression is removed and behavior changes quickly, it's a safe bet to assume that the previous behavior was a result of oppression and not a result of evolution.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Your missing my point here.
> 
> There are a lot of things Im confident in. My ability to walk, my ability to talk, martial arts, IT Skills...
> 
> ...


I'm not missing your point. I don't agree that male confidence with women is always a direct result of sexual experience with women. Some gain it simply from spending time with women, but I think some just acquire it quickly anyway


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> If you have to ask, it obviously is.


I suppose we can both agree that your argument/point is flawed.



Ubuntu said:


> How much effort someone puts into mating is not directly related to gender and while I can somewhat understand the effort argument when it comes to glorifying someone for successfully mating (this wouldn't even necessarily apply to initiators alone and if it did, females can still be initiators and males can be discriminating) I don't understand how it explains (let alone justifies) shaming someone for being promiscuous when their obtaining casual sex requires little effort or when it does but other members of their group are statistically less likely to have to invest a lot of effort into obtaining sex.
> 
> Holding people to different standards (giving comparable interests they share more or less consideration or, when the variables in different situations are equal, criticizing them more or less for the same choices) is inconsistent. Sexual promiscuity can't be inherently bad just because obtaining casual sex does not require effort (a lot of things don't require effort) so if sexual promiscuity is bad when it requires no effort, why would investing effort into being promiscuous (or maybe I should say actually obtaining casual sex if promiscuity refers to a mindset and not what you do) make it worse? If the effort invested into obtaining casual sex is admirable, it should be admirable when it's shown by males or females and again, even if there's no great honor in obtaining something that was easy to acquire, it just being easy to acquire can't make it shameful.


I think I understand the confusions.

*First confusion*

You state that it should not be assigned to gender, although, it is, because the "mating" culture has given rise to a stereotype that males are the initiators, and females the filters. My point, in the original post, was based on that stereotypical perception.

We can look at this example;

*https://bumble.com/en/about*

Bumble is an app like Tinder, although, it requires females to make the 'first move'.

Their slogan is: _We're changing the rules of the game_.

This reflects the stereotypical perception of the "mating" culture I'm referring to.

'Outlier' cases do not alter the "rule", hence why it remains attributed to gender.

*Second confusion*

My point, in the original post, reflects on why males are glorified, while females are not.

Not being glorified, does not mean being shamed.

I address why females are shamed, in a separate post (post #131), where I utilize 2 evolutionary perspectives to explain the phenomenon.



> It is a double standard that cultures assign those roles and penalize people for not meeting them to begin with. Race based chattel slavery in the antebellum American South wasn't not a double standard just because the Southern culture assigned black people the role of slaves and whites the roles of free (wo)men and potential slave owners (I realize there were free blacks and black slave owners but you get the idea, only people who were considered 'black' could be slaves at one point). Regardless of whether or not a culture generally accepts women being initiators they can be initiators and you're holding people to different standards even when relevant variables are comparable. You can't really be saying that this isn't inconsistent or that it really is inherently gendered because 'society' expects you to play one role and not another.


It can be justified to not have been a double standard.

It is based on what the differences between the subjects of that differential treatment; their circumstances.

White --> x and *y* --> z = not worthy of being a slave
Black --> x and *q* --> c = worthy of being a slave

The combination of their characteristics, do not give the same result, which can lead to a different perception, and based on that different perception, you can accord different treatments to each individual.

A "double standard" is characterized by an *unfair* differential treatment, which can be technically justified by any belief.

Ex;

Do you think it's a "double standard" that an individual without a permit is legally forbidden of driving, but not an individual with a permit? I assume not.

Individual without permit = A
Individual with permit = B

A --> human --> aged 25 --> fully functional --> PhD in Physics --> has a permit = can legally drive
B --> human --> aged 25 --> fully functional --> PhD in Physics --> does not have a permit = cannot legally drive

The discriminating variable is the possession of the permit, and what expectation is attached to that variable? Competence of driving.



> The 'expectation' itself is a double standard.


It is an expectation based on a general perception of how males and females behave, in 'X' context.



> A double standard is, by definition, different standards for different people. I agree that literal differential treatment is not necessarily a double standard (if we're talking about actual specific acts or behavior and not consideration).


You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You first state that a double standard, by definition, is different standards for different people.

You then state that literal differential treatment is not necessarily a double standard.

Different standards are different treatments (how you perceive one, is a treatment).

Although, I disagree with your definition.

*double standard - definition of double standard in English from the Oxford dictionary*



> _A rule or principle which is *unfairly* applied in different ways to different people or groups_


*Double Standard | Definition of double standard by Merriam-Webster*



> _a situation in which two people, groups, etc., are treated very differently from each other *in a way that is unfair* to one of them_


The notion of it being "unfair" is the main aspect of it, as opposed to a simple differential treatment.

By your definition, any differential treatment would be a "double standard".

Ex;
If you like someone, and dislike another, it is a double standard.
If you don't let a 2 year old to do 'x', but allow a 25 year old to do 'x', it is a double standard.
If you find someone beautiful, but someone else repulsive, it is a double standard.
etc.



> No, it can't. You're holding people to the same standard or you aren't. You're making the concept completely meaningless by arguing that anything can be justified to be anything. There are real moral, logical and even empirical contradictions (something that would contradict unambiguous evidence based on direct experience) whether they're seen as contradictions or not.


Circumstances alter standards, which is the point I've been stressing, and it seems to be the main factor of confusion in our interaction.




> With all due respect, your reasoning is wild. I suspect that you're trolling me.
> 
> You seem to be arguing that there is literally no such thing as a double standard.


I am not trolling.

I am not saying that "_there is literally no such thing as a double standard_", I am stating that the criteria by which one deems what is, and what is not a double standard, can be different. 

"_Fair_" and "_Unfair_" are not objective measurement



> ts.
> Would people who support the slut/stud double standard generally consider this to be admirable?





> I don't understand.


Whether it is admirable or not, is irrelevant to the presence of that solution/tactic.



> I'm not an expert on genetics but I think it's unlikely that someone has any unique genes. All humans share around at least 99.9% of their genes. What distinguishes close relatives is that they share more in common than they do with most people. A father shares exactly 50% of his genes, above and beyond what he shares with random strangers, with his children but he also shares around 25% with his full nieces and nephews (as much as he would with his grandchildren), around 6.25% with the children of a full 1st cousin etc. If I'm not mistaken, parents and their children don't share unique genes, they just share a greater amount of DNA than they do with most people. Many researchers believe altruism evolved because people who sacrificed themselves not just for children but for siblings, cousins, nephews etc. were more likely to propagate those same altruism causing genes (not directly but by allowing their relatives to propagate their shared genes).


Essentially, your DNA would be unique, is what I mean.

If someone extracted DNA from you, and your siblings, and compared them, they would all be distinguishable.

Identical twins is the only case where this isn't the case initially, although, they change overtime.



> I understand but once you accept an evolutionary explanation of why it's more acceptable for men to be promiscuous in most human societies, there are no normative implications that justify the slut-stud double standard (and I'm not convinced that evolution and not cultural norms that developed with the concept of personal property in hierarchical agrarian societies explain where the double standard came from but I am open to it). I would think bonobo males have the same 'genetic interest' in assuring paternity that human males do but bonobo society is very sexually open and they use sex as a means of settling conflicts and bonding.


The reasoning would be that due to the previous social complications, such tactics have evolved (shaming), and then, through societal changes, culturally, it ended up evolving the current standard ("stud").

Thus, the evolutionary reason influenced the current cultural standard.



> I don't understand and I'm not sure what you're replying to. How would not mating with certain individuals, aside from close relatives, help enhance genetic diversity?


I meant that if people would want to help enhance genetic diversity, they would restrict themselves from mating with those who do not present a set standard of "genetic diversity".

Ex;

Individuals with acceptable genetic diversity: 50
Individuals with unacceptable genetic diversity: 50

Total pool of available mates: 100

If you remove the unacceptable genetic diversity from the pool, the pool would be cut in half, 50.

Thus, more competition for specific females, etc.



> Yes, having a preference doesn't necessarily imply criticizing or insulting people who don't meet that standard. It's still hard for me to imagine how someone who is 'turned off' by sexual promiscuity in women could not have certain biases that I have a personal problem with. If you valued women's sexual happiness you would want them to have as much of it as possible (which isn't to deny that the necessary real life costs of casual sex might outweigh the benefits).


Valuing some aspects does not mean that anything is permissible for benefiting that particular aspect, some things come at a price.

By that same logic, you could say that it would not be fair for a male to not allow his wife to have sex with other males, because it would be against valuing the "_woman's sexual happiness_".


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> I don't see how you managed to misunderstand what I was saying, it was clear enough. Sexual dimorphism happens for three reasons, aids survival, aids fertility and/or is sexually attractive. Changes that aid survival and fertility are not _determined_ by preferences of the opposite sex. Strength, size and aggression might be female preferences, but they're unlikely a direct _result_ of female preferences.


I'm not sure what you mean by them being female preferences, but not being results of female preferences.

Although, the point remains that they are preferences.



> Yes. Males providing food to 'court' females is prevalent in modern society and also across many different species. It's difficult to imagine that early humans weren't exchanging food for sex.


It is more likely that early humans were providing food in order to show their competence as food gatherers/hunters/providers/etc.

In modern society's context, typically, food is but a facade/pretext for "dating"; it 'sets up' the environment, it does not reflect the same skills/traits.



> If he's promiscuous and therefore either dividing his care and resources or not contributing at all, then why would his parental involvement be important enough to sacrifice other resources?
> If she's loyal, her offspring could have maybe 1/8 of the fathers available resources. If she's promiscuous, then she could have several men contributing maybe 1/16 of their available resources.


As I've pointed out in an earlier post, it depends on how organized was their society. 

Males needed to ensure their paternity, maybe after pregnancy, the female raised the offspring alone and/or other lower-ranking males/siblings took care of the offspring.



> Evolutionary 'ensuring paternity' isn't the result of a series of purposeful successful strategies that males come up with to pass on their genes. It's a series of random inclinations that accidentally result in the long term survival of that particular male's offspring. So yes, whatever action that will ensure paternity is done before the birth of offspring, but it won't become an evolutionary tactic until subsequent generations have passed on the natural inclinations that accidentally resulted in their survival.
> 
> The theory which you're proposing is that a male preference for virgins is an evolutionary tactic which served to ensure paternity. This would be dependant on the joint offspring of promiscuous men and non-promiscuous women having a survival advantage. There's no indication of this ever being the case. Most indications support the theory that both sexes were promiscuous and it would seem that males having confidence in paternity was either detrimental to survival or irrelevant to it.



It would evolve as a tactic to ensure one's paternity, which also signifies that they will be more willing to aid the offspring, producing a more productive society.

That is based off the idea that males do not want illegitimate offspring.

Perhaps this part of the following paper, explains it in a more articulate matter;

*http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/series/sfb-649-papers/2005-46/PDF/46.pdf*



> _High intrasexual competition among males for female partners increases the risk of cuckoldry and thus reproductive failure for men, which makes a quantity-maximizing strategy even more attractive to men as a means to diversify this risk. Moreover, the greater the degree of paternal uncertainty, the less willing will be men to invest in their putative offspring (e.g. Alexander, 1974). Given the obvious difficulties involved in gathering data on perceived paternity, there have been but few direct tests of its effects on paternal investment levels. Anderson et al. (2005), using self-reported retrospective data on men in Albuquerque, New Mexico, find paternal uncertainty to increase the likelihood of men to divorce their wives, to lower the time they spend with their putative children, and to reduce their involvement with the educational progress of their alleged progeny. The importance of paternity and paternity confidence for male behavior is further underscored by a number of empirical findings on related topics, such as mate guarding among men (e.g. Buss, 2002), male jealousy and the sexual double standard (e.g. Daly et al., 1982; Shackelford et al., 2002), inferior investment in offspring by patrilineal than matrilineal kin (e.g. Gaulin et al., 1997), the dependence of rules of inheritance of a man’s property across societies on paternal confidence (Gaulin and Schlegel, 1980; Hartung, 1985), and the greater valuation among men of physical resemblance to children as an indirect means to ascertain their paternity (e.g. Daly and Wilson, 1982; Platek et al., 2002/2003; Volk and Quinsey, 2002). In addition, there is ample evidence that stepchildren suffer in a number of ways (e.g. Case et al., 1999; Daly and Wilson, 1985; Wilson and Daly, 1987)._





> Female chimpanzee's are promiscuous. They mate with lots of males, at different times throughout their reproductive cycle. The dominant males usually mate with them when they're at their most fertile and the remaining males mate with them at other times. The similarities to women's preferences during their cycle would suggest (though obviously not confirm) a similar natural outcome, which would be promiscuity.


And thus, due to that tactic producing paternal incertitude, a tactic would develop to prevent/restrict it.



> True. But when oppression is removed and behavior changes quickly, it's a safe bet to assume that the previous behavior was a result of oppression and not a result of evolution.


"Oppressing" certain acts, can have an evolutionary purpose.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> I suppose we can both agree that your argument/point is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by them being female preferences, but not being results of female preferences.
> 
> Although, the point remains that they are preferences.
> 
> ...


Why is that more likely?



> In modern society's context, typically, food is but a facade/pretext for "dating"; it 'sets up' the environment, it does not reflect the same skills/traits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why did males _need_ to ensure their paternity?
If they actually needed to, why not through a more effective method?
Slut-shaming is really unreliable compared to methods of other species.



> *It would evolve as a tactic to ensure one's paternity,* which also signifies that they will be more willing to aid the offspring, producing a more productive society.


How does a tactic evolve? 
What's the process? 





> That is based off the idea that males do not want illegitimate offspring.
> 
> Perhaps this part of the following paper, explains it in a more articulate matter;
> 
> ...


Why would one develop to prevent it? 

Why haven't chimps developed one to prevent it?



> "Oppressing" certain acts, can have an evolutionary purpose.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have explained both.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It does have to do with the perception of the act.

The act, in itself, can be perceived in various ways, due to the variables that are attached to it.

If you're referring to my point in the original post, the "issue" is the method of acquisition, based on the general perception of "mating", in the modern social context. It acts as a justification as to why males are glorified, why females are not.

Males have X position.
Females have Y position.

X position implies [...].
Y position implies [...].

X is harder.
Y is easier.

Therefore, males [...] and females [...].

If you're referring to the evolutionary perspective; it is a method of organizing social interactions/mate selection/mating.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thus, we are not utilizing the same definition of "double standard".



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is irrelevant to the point.

What the treatment is, is irrelevant; the point is that there is a difference in treatment, and it can be justified.

I could use either of the 5 analogies used in the original post, which involve giving more consideration to either variable.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, you have used a circumstance to evaluate and justify the "fairness" of a differential treatment.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An unfair double standard?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Why is that more likely?


Due to the circumstances we're speculating, and what is more beneficial/crucial to their survival.



> Why did males _need_ to ensure their paternity?
> If they actually needed to, why not through a more effective method?
> Slut-shaming is really unreliable compared to methods of other species.


In order to ensure that they further their own genes and to make sure that their resources (time/energy/etc.) are well spent. 

Even if they are not monogamous, mating, itself, requires time/energy.



> How does a tactic evolve?
> What's the process?
> 
> Why would one develop to prevent it?



In the same essential way agriculture could have evolved; recognizing/acknowledging an organizing method as being efficient to reach their goals. "Problem solving", basically.



> Why haven't chimps developed one to prevent it?


Other methods can evolve,

*Sperm Wars*



> _As was noted in the previous section, although a dominant chimpanzee may try to monopolize time with a female in estrous, *most of the competition in this species is carried out at the level of the sperm.* The reproductive tract inside a female chimpanzee becomes the battleground for a sperm war that takes place over the course of several days. Only one sperm among all of the billions within her vaginal tract and uterus can win the prize of fertilizing the egg. In fact, only a very small percentage of sperm, possibly as little as 1%, are even capable of fertilization; *the rest of the sperm have an entirely different function. This other 99% of sperm consists of what are called blockers, or kamikaze sperm. Their function is to prevent the sperm of other males from reaching the egg. There appear to be at least two types of kamikaze sperm (Baker, 1996). Type A sperm block the passage of sperm that enter the female after they do. Type B sperm actually attack sperm that have been delivered prior to themselves. This sperm competition in chimpanzees has necessitated the evolution of testicles large enough to produce adequate amounts of sperm. This is why the testicles of chimpanzees are much larger than those of men.*_


*Primate Sperm Competition: Speed Matters*


>



*Functional evidence for differences in sperm competition in humans and chimpanzees. - PubMed - NCBI*
*Functional evidence for differences in sperm competition in humans and chimpanzees (PDF Download Available)*



> _Whereas chimpanzee sperm showed maintenance of membrane potential after capacitation (in some cases even an increase), sperm from humans consistently showed reduction in membrane potential. These results indicate that the sperm of human beings and chimpanzees exhibit marked differences in mitochondrial function, which are affected by selection pressures relating to sperm competition and that these pressures differ significantly between humans and chimpanzees._


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Eska said:


> Due to the circumstances we're speculating, and what is more beneficial/crucial to their survival.


Meh, how is providing food to display competence as hunter/gatherer crucial to survival? You can also show that competence by eating it in front of them, let them eat their heart out. 

But really you don't have to prove that. (you could also just keep up an image, e.g. brag or be pretentious about those things, or complain how selfish people are) 

We are a social animal who survived by living in a group. Like most social animals, in order to function as a group, create stability and security, a status/dominance hierarchy is established (dynamically). It's related to body size, age, strength, (display of) aggression, etc. but the point of a hierarchy is to minimize actual fighting over resources which would weaken the group as a whole. Other traits are also important, like persuasion, ability to establish social/political alliances, etc. Higher status means better *access to resources*. 


What needs to be 'proven' is the willingness to share these resources (altruism), as a woman is burdened with a relatively heavy pregnancy (or dependent offspring). Compared to for instance female lions, who usually do the hunting, and can still do that when they are pregnant (gestation is just over 100 days). The males are less inconspicuous, and tend to get overheated faster because of their manes. Nomadic male lions have a hard time surviving without a pride. 


You'd also need to look at it as heuristics, I think, and from the position of the person/gene, not the big picture. For instance, while you could argue strength etc. are selection traits, there is no objective measure of 'how strong','how aggressive','how tall', 'how altruistic' or 'how much courage' is optimal or worthy of selection. Even if you finally found out who is the most courageous in room A, this ranking can be different in room B, and the same might be said about one's own intra-sexual position. This would also make it a rational choice and not an intuitive or instinctual. A heuristic that would work for both rooms would be more like when a woman is approached by a guy who she feels is less courageous/aggressive than herself, or smaller in bodysize, it would 'feel wrong' or simply 'not sexy', or 'meh'. Also, our brain reward may be less satisfactory when something was accomplished too easily, which is a heuristic algorithm to aim for something higher and actualize potential. 


* *




_Creative Thought as a nonDarwinian Evolutionary Process_
Thus, evolution is broadly construed as the incremental change that results from recursive, context-driven actualization of potential, or CAP. Different forms of evolution vary with respect to the frequency of deterministic versus probabilistic change, and the degree of context dependence (how much they are affected by context). Note that whereas Darwinian variation-selection is quite an elaborate affair, CAP is simply change of state in response to a context. CAP subsumes variation-selection, which is one process through which change of state can occur. The CAP framework provides a perspective from which it can be seen how truly unusual Darwinian evolution is, and has been ever since the appearance of a genetic code, when acquired traits stopped being inherited (context-driven change no longer retained). Natural selection is such an unusual means of change, it is perhaps no wonder it does not transfer readily to other domains.
http://cogprints.org/4647/1/ct.htm


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Eska said:


> In order to ensure that they further their own genes and to make sure that their resources (time/energy/etc.) are well spent.



Ah the good old days when women had a swelling red hot ass when they were in heat! Damn concealed ovulation. How did we evolve that way? 
:sad: 

Time energy? For what? They didn't have a bank account back then. There was no refrigerator to stash game. There was no accumulation of private property for most of human history. So it's their 'access' to resources, not 'their' resources. The 'reassurance' that evolved is the brain-chemical induced cognitive distortion commonly known as 'being in love', which lasts long enough to reassure the highly critical infants first year, when the brain size is doubled from 35% at birth to app. 70% of adult weight. After that, new game new chances, although there's other chemicals involved in more durable relations. 


What you perhaps refer to is the institution called marriage, and its honey-'moon' (1st month period having no sex as a "reassurance", whether virgin or not, that's where the 'blood' myth probably comes from, menstruation not the hymen). This coincides with 'private property' and the shift from a matriarchal agrarian society of clan communities, to a urbanized patriarchal protocapitalist class society of families that settled on trade locations, with the paterfamillias as the owner of the family estate. A daughter would belong to the paterfamilias (for resources and protection) until she married and was 'handed' over (manus) to another familias, or the husband. 


This is the cultural revolution called 'birth of civilization', not evolution. The first recorded instance of the veiling of women was around 1300 BC, and this was restricted to noble women of higher class and forbidden for prostitutes and common women. Marriages were arranged in order to strengthen economic relations and daughter were in that sense social capital. It was not unusual that a marriage contract (dowry, bride price, right and duties) contained a clause in case the woman dies without having given birth to a son, her father was entitled to the return of her dowry, minus the bride price. Or that, if after 2 years or so she had failed to give birth to a son, the man was entitled to marry another woman, to be selected by the first lady, and usually from a lower class. In this case the contract (as recorded) would contain no dowry, as the father of the bride would use the bride price to enable a son to get married (and pay for the bride to her father), or to pay off debts. Selling your children as a slave was not unusual and most slaves at the time were women. 


Obviously for any woman to get pregnant unmarried would be a disaster, since there were not many job openings available for women at the time, except perhaps for 'the oldest profession'. With regard to exchanging sex for food:



* *




What does and does not constitute prostitution continues to be a subject of debate, but there's evidence that some kinds of animals engage in a form of prostitution. Female chimpanzees living in the Ivory Coast have been observed to trade sex for meat. In one experiment capuchin monkeys were taught to use silver discs as a sort of money (they could be redeemed for grapes), and it wasn’t long before one monkey exchanged one of the tokens for sex. Dr. Fiona Hunter, a researcher at Cambridge University, observed female penguins in Antarctica trading sex for stones and pebbles. Adélie penguins need rocks to build their nests, and some females—though they already had a mating partner—would have sex with a single male while away and then take some of his stones. While the females may have had other motives than gathering pebbles, Hunter noted that “stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,” and penguins are usually very protective of them. Some penguins engaged in the behavior over and over, but she said, "It's probably only a few percent."
Is prostitution really the world's oldest profession?





For thousands of years ever since, marriage was (and still is in many places) basically the only way for a woman to climb the social ladder. This btw didn't change focus on social status and access to resources. 


I think part of these demands by men, were because they were given more individual responsibility that they didn't really have at times of the former more collectivist (matriarchal) agrarian clan communities or hunter-gatherer groups. But the world had become a dangerous place very fast, because the invention of bronze not only led to tools to work the land more efficiently (resulting in surplus), but also led to an arms race with lethal weapons and large scale war. 


Anyway from that perspective it's not at all unlikely that slut shaming was also an instrument for intrasexual competition.


Female Aggression said:


> The only form of aggression in which girls and women exceed boys and men is on measures of indirect aggression (gossiping and ostracising)







Eska said:


> Even if they are not monogamous, mating, itself, requires time/energy.



Eh...? :laughing: that assessment is correct :dry:. 
But not nearly as much as friendship requires as a social investment. ( ETA: unless someone is friendzoned ) Or family. Or so many other instances of social relation/exchange/transaction/contract. 




Eska said:


> In the same essential way agriculture could have evolved; recognizing/acknowledging an organizing method as being efficient to reach their goals. "Problem solving", basically.
> 
> 
> Other methods can evolve,
> ...



I'll just quote the abstract below:




Contest Competition said:


> Literature in evolutionary psychology suggests that mate choice has been the primary mechanism of sexual selection in humans, but this conclusion conforms neither to theoretical predictions nor available evidence. *Contests override other mechanisms of sexual selection; that is, when individuals can exclude their competitors by force or threat of force, mate choice, sperm competition, and other mechanisms are impossible.* Mates are easier to monopolize in two dimensional mating environments, such as land, than in three-dimensional environments, such as air, water, and trees. Thus, two-dimensional mating environments may tend to favor the evolution of contests. The two-dimensionality of the human mating environment, along with phylogeny, the spatial and temporal clustering of mates and competitors, and anatomical considerations, *predict that contest competition should have been the primary mechanism of sexual selection in men.* *A functional analysis supports this prediction.* Men's traits are better designed for contest competition than for other sexual selection mechanisms; size, muscularity, strength, aggression, and the manufacture and use of weapons probably helped ancestral males win contests directly, and deep voices and facial hair signal dominance more effectively than they increase attractiveness. However, male monopolization of females was imperfect, and female mate choice, sperm competition, and sexual coercion also likely shaped men's traits. *In contrast, male mate choice was probably central in women's mating competition because ancestral females could not constrain the choices of larger and more aggressive males through force, and attractive women could obtain greater male investment. *Neotenous female features and body fat deposition on the breasts and hips appear to have been shaped by male mate choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself.
> 
> You first state that a double standard, by definition, is different standards for different people.
> 
> ...


A double standard - two standards. One standard for this person, or class of people, and another for that. That's what the term implies, to me.

Literal different treatment (if we're talking about specific actual behavior or acts) isn't necessarily a double standard because it isn't necessarily the act or behavior itself that is considered intrinsically bad. People don't necessarily benefit equally from the same treatment and the same behavior doesn't necessarily have the same consequences depending on circumstance. For example (this might not be the best I could use), I do consider it to be a double standard that children are expected (in some cultures) to respect adults and their elders more than their elders are expected to respect them. People deserve respect because they're sentient beings and not because of their age (I draw the line between sentient beings and non-sentient things because sentient beings have comparable interests, interests that I consider to be morally relevant, that make respect applicable. 'Respect' to me involves considering someone's interests and regarding them as worthy of what would benefit them). There's a higher social status that comes with age in many cultures and children are considered as having a moral obligation to obey their parents for it's own sake. On the other hand, I do not consider it to be a double standard if children are encouraged to obey their parents not because their parents deserve more respect due to having a higher social status or on the basis of their being their parents or elders or because disobedience is 'disrespectful' or even inherently bad but because children typically benefit from obeying their parents and more from their guidance than their parents would under theirs. A child should obey his parents when they tell him not take take dangerous drugs, or bully people or go to school because they and or other people would be happier in the long run if they did. Children have no moral obligation to obey their parents for the sake of obeying them.

I don't understand how 'treatment' involves perceiving someone.



> Although, I disagree with your definition.
> 
> *double standard - definition of double standard in English from the Oxford dictionary*
> 
> ...


No, by my definition a difference in consideration is a double standard. It's a double standard to send people to jail on the rationale that they, but not other people, deserve to suffer for their crimes. It's not a double standard to send some people but not others to jail under the rationale that it is necessary to deter (both them and other prospective criminals from committing) the crime that they committed and that, other factors being equal, an innocent person would probably suffer more because at least the guilty can take comfort in the agency they had in the situation. But it's not consistent to regard sending an innocent person to jail as fundamentally worse and in some hypothetical scenarios I would think sending a guilty person would be worse than sending an innocent one in their place.







> Circumstances alter standards, which is the point I've been stressing, and it seems to be the main factor of confusion in our interaction.


Circumstances alter our commitment to upholding certain standards consistently.






> I am not trolling.


I understand.



> I am not saying that "_there is literally no such thing as a double standard_", I am stating that the criteria by which one deems what is, and what is not a double standard, can be different.
> 
> "_Fair_" and "_Unfair_" are not objective measurement


If by 'fair' you mean impartial then there is an objective standard of 'fairness'. The slut-stud double standard is not something that could be accepted by a perfectly impartial judge, even if (s)he saw nothing wrong with shaming people for sexual promiscuity in itself. If 'fairness' has something to do with desert and not just an indiscriminate respect and consideration for everyone with comparable interests then I might agree.






> The reasoning would be that due to the previous social complications, such tactics have evolved (shaming), and then, through societal changes, culturally, it ended up evolving the current standard ("stud").
> 
> Thus, the evolutionary reason influenced the current cultural standard.


But my issue is with whether or not the double standard can meaningfully, by an objective standard, be considered morally inconsistent. Not the matter of fact explanation as to why it exists. Explaining why murder exists doesn't justify it, it just explains why it exists.



> I meant that if people would want to help enhance genetic diversity, they would restrict themselves from mating with those who do not present a set standard of "genetic diversity".
> 
> Ex;
> 
> ...


I don't understand this at all.



> Valuing some aspects does not mean that anything is permissible for benefiting that particular aspect, some things come at a price.


I think I agree but probably not for the same reasons you do.

[/QUOTE]By that same logic, you could say that it would not be fair for a male to not allow his wife to have sex with other males, because it would be against valuing the "_woman's sexual happiness_".[/QUOTE]

This is exactly why I consider monogamy to be unethical. I believe monogamy is inherently in direct conflict with the idea of universal sympathy and for what it's worth, living a monogamous lifestyle when everyone (who isn't asexual) is necessarily polygamous in terms of desire is comparable to a homosexual living a heterosexual lifestyle (which isn't to say that it couldn't possibly be justified but I don't believe you can promote monogamy and egalitarianism/universal sympathy at the same time). It's not unreasonable to ask that other people sacrifice their interests for your benefit when you stand to gain or lose more than they do if they do or don't and when necessary but I don't see why anyone should have a problem with their partner spending intimate time with other people that they wouldn't have spent with them anyways if they really cared about their well-being.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> Due to the circumstances we're speculating, and what is more beneficial/crucial to their survival.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, I think I see what you mean now.
I don't believe it was an evolutionary tactic that developed. Without protection, females wouldn't have been virgins for very long. To ensure paternity through acquiring a 'virgin bride' would mean finding one very young or finding one that's been protected. 
If she's been protected, then it would be to ensure _another man's_ paternity.
A community might protect a female until she reaches reproductive age if they're going to sell or exchange her. Which would explain slut shaming because losing her virginity would decrease her monetary value, which the community would eventually benefit from. 




> Other methods can evolve,
> 
> *Sperm Wars*
> 
> ...


:laughing:

So male chimps get more opportunities for promiscuous sex _and_ a bigger tool box with better tools in it? Lol. 
That's what happens when you don't slut shame :laughing:

Seriously though, thanks for those links, I found them very interesting.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@mimesis

What do you think about the theory that male preferences shaped women's disposition for storing fat on their breasts and hips?

It makes more sense to me, that women evolved breasts because it was more suitable for our posture once we were upright on two legs. So having fat stores above and below the abdomen during pregnancy (rather than being concentrated on the abdomen) would balance out the weight distribution, putting less stress on the spine and internal organs and make it easier to maneuver and balance. 

Since males could mate with multiple females, it doesn't add up that they were picky enough to avoid mating with females who were still storing fat on the waist.

I think there must be something I'm missing.

Oh and concealed ovulation, I wonder if it's more about concealing when we're not fertile, so we can more easily 'pretend' we are.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_mimesis_
> 
> What do you think about the theory that male preferences shaped women's disposition for storing fat on their breasts and hips?
> 
> It makes more sense to me, that women evolved breasts because it was more suitable for our posture once we were upright on two legs. So having fat stores above and below the abdomen during pregnancy (rather than being concentrated on the abdomen) would balance out the weight distribution, putting less stress on the spine and internal organs and make it easier to maneuver and balance.


Oh, so how come men don't have bewbs? :shocked:

Actually I guess some men do. I don't see how above and below the abdomen would put less stress on the spine as compared to being concentrated on the abdomen. This bloke apparently doesn't need buttock fat to offset his anterior wealth. . 












Breast Size Evolution said:


> The full, plump bosom seen in the human ape is an anomaly. No other primate has a permanent breast. (...) female primates do not have fat deposited on the rump. For example, the female gorilla has a skinny posterior and stores fat on her abdomen, as do human males. So it has been widely theorized that the plump buttock and bosom of modern women are sexual ornaments, selected for by ancestral males.
> Breast size: a human anomaly | Science | The Guardian





> Men are more likely to have fat stored in the abdomen due to sex hormone differences. Female sex hormone causes fat to be stored in the buttocks, thighs, and hips in women. When women reach menopause and the estrogen produced by the ovaries declines, fat migrates from the buttocks, hips and thighs to the waist; later fat is stored in the abdomen.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue#Obesity





Neverontime said:


> Since males could mate with multiple females, it doesn't add up that they were picky enough to avoid mating with females who were still storing fat on the waist.


You mean multiple females at once?  jk Anyway, there are still women who do so, so apparently still a substantial amount were not pickly. 










If you only have one choice, aren't you likely going to be more pickly than when you have unlimited opportunity? Aside from that, what is attractive is very subjective.













Neverontime said:


> Oh and concealed ovulation, I wonder if it's more about concealing when we're not fertile, so we can more easily 'pretend' we are.


Perhaps the permaboobs and permanently swollen buttocks are a side effect of the gene mutation that is linked to concealed ovulation. Like suggesting to be permanently in heat. You are less limited in exchange of food for sex. And like you said, it allows for a hidden agenda. 

In this text there's more written about concealed ovulation. 
https://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/****.htm


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Why would someone searching for a healthy woman for healthy offspring seek out a virgin?

Nulliparous women are kind of a wildcard in terms of capacity. There's nothing that screams fertile and physically capable of childbearing and child rearing like having living offspring.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Oh, so how come men don't have bewbs? :shocked:
> 
> Actually I guess some men do. I don't see how above and below the abdomen would put less stress on the spine as compared to being concentrated on the abdomen. This bloke apparently doesn't need buttock fat to offset his anterior wealth. .
> 
> ...


I did say during pregnancy :happy:











Female spines have evolved to support the stress of pregnancy, male spines haven't.



> .1. Pregnancy and lumbar curvature
> 
> The combination of bipedalism and increased abdominal mass during pregnancy uniquely posed ancestral hominin females with the adaptive challenge of a forward-shifted center of mass (COM) during pregnancy. If this COM were not moved back over the hips, ancestral women would have been subjected to a nearly 800% increase in hip torque during pregnancy (Whitcome, Shapiro, & Lieberman, 2007). The muscular fatigue and lower back pain resulting from this hip torque would have impaired foraging efficiency (Whitcome et al., 2007). This would have left women and their families—including fetus, offspring, and mate—at risk of nutritional stress (Marlowe, 2003 and Whitcome et al., 2007). Selection would therefore have favored morphological adaptation in women that enabled them to shift the gravid COM back over the hips.
> 
> The female hominin spine1—but not the male hominin spine—possesses evolved morphology to deal with this adaptive challenge: women possess wedging in the third-to-last lumbar vertebra (Whitcome et al., 2007). This wedging helps pregnant women shift their COM back over their hips, thereby reducing hip torque by over 90% (Whitcome et al., 2007). The inability to shift the COM back over the hip joints, on the other hand, results in sustained contraction of the lower back muscles, which increases risk of fatigue and injury (White & Punjabi, 1990).......


If the spine evolved to cope with pregnancy, I don't see why fat distribution wouldn't. 
Oestrogen keeping fat off the waist during the reproductive years could be primarily for preparation for pregnancy, not just enticing mates. 



> .......The fitness benefits experienced by ancestral women with a beneficial intermediate degree of lumbar wedging between hypolordosis and hyperlordosis would have created the background selective conditions for the evolution of a male mate preference for such women. Men who preferred and selected these women as mates would have gained several key fitness benefits, including having a mate who was less vulnerable to spinal injuries, better at foraging during pregnancy, and better able to sustain multiple pregnancies without debilitating injury. On this basis, we advance the hypothesis that selection fashioned psychological adaptations in men to detect cues to lumbar vertebral wedging in women and regulate mating attraction accordingly.
> 
> Ancestral men could not have directly observed potential mates’ vertebrae, so their detection of vertebral wedging had to be based on observable cues. One cue to lumbar vertebral wedging is the curvature of the lower back (George, Hicks, Nevitt, Cauley, & Vogt, 2003). Wedging in the lumbar vertebrae extends the tailbone relative to the rest of the spine, resulting in a more acute angle between the thoracic back and buttocks (see Fig. 1).2
> 
> We therefore advanced the hypothesis that men possess evolved mate preferences for lumbar curvature in women. Because the theoretically optimal degree of vertebral wedging for women is one that minimizes the net fitness threats posed by hypolordosis and hyperlordosis, we hypothesized that men should possess an evolved preference for women with an angle of lumbar curvature maximally distant from these countervailing threats, which orthopedic medical literature indicates is approximately 45.5°


This study indicated that men's preferences for butt attractiveness is perhaps more so determined by the curvature of the spine than by the mass of the butt.



> In Study 1, as hypothesized, men's attraction toward women increased as women's lumbar curvature approached this angle. However, vertebral wedging and buttock mass can both influence lumbar curvature. Study 2 thus employed a forced-choice paradigm in which men selected the most attractive woman among models exhibiting the same lumbar curvature, but for different morphological reasons. Men again tended to prefer women exhibiting cues to a degree of vertebral wedging closer to optimum. This included preferring women whose lumbar curvature specifically reflected vertebral wedging rather than buttock mass. These findings reveal novel, theoretically anchored, and previously undiscovered standards of attractiveness.


Lumbar curvature: a previously undiscovered standard of attractiveness

Why men are attracted to Tailbones/Lordosis ? | Sola Rey


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Why would someone searching for a healthy woman for healthy offspring seek out a virgin?
> 
> Nulliparous women are kind of a wildcard in terms of capacity. There's nothing that screams fertile and physically capable of childbearing and child rearing like having living offspring.


with regard to the time/energy costs of mating / social investment

*Male chimpanzees prefer mating with old females* 
Copulation preferences in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, suggest that males prefer older females who have had previous offspring. However, this finding is counter to some behavioral models, which predict that chimpanzee males, as promiscuous breeders with minimal costs to mating, should show little or no preference when choosing mating partners (e.g. should mate indiscriminately). To determine if the preferences indicated by copulations appear in other contexts as well as how they interact, we examined how male chimpanzees' grooming patterns varied amongst females. We found that males' preferences were based on interactions among females' fertility status, age, and parity. First, grooming increased with increasing female parity. We further found an effect of the estrous cycle on grooming; when females were at the lowest point of their cycle, males preferentially groomed parous females at peak reproductive age, but during maximal tumescence, males preferred the oldest multiparous females. Nulliparous females received relatively little grooming regardless of age or fertility. Thus, male chimpanzees apparently chose grooming partners based on both female's experience and fertility, possibly indicating a two-pronged social investment strategy. Male selectivity seems to have evolved to effectively distribute costly social resources in a pattern which may increase their overall reproductive success. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
http://mdanderson.influuent.utsyste...us(87177856-a861-4def-8af6-393b37eab568).html 



*Male chimpanzees' grooming rates vary by female age, parity, and fertility status* 
Cross-cultural studies indicate that women's sexual attractiveness generally peaks before motherhood and declines with age. Cues of female youth are thought to be attractive because humans maintain long-term pair bonds, making reproductive value (i.e. future reproductive potential) particularly important to males. Menopause is believed to exaggerate this preference for youth by limiting women's future fertility. This theory predicts that in species lacking long-term pair bonds and menopause, males should not exhibit a preference for young mates. We tested this prediction by studying male preferences in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). We show that despite their promiscuous mating system, chimpanzee males, like humans, prefer some females over others. However, in contrast to humans, chimpanzee males prefer older, not younger, females. These data robustly discriminate patterns of male mate choice between humans and chimpanzees. *Given that the human lineage evolved from a chimpanzee-like ancestor, they indicate that male preference for youth is a derived human feature, likely adapted from a tendency to form unusually long term mating bonds*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17113387


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@mimesis this discusses an old study 1993, but I couldn't find another more recent one about body shape and fertility.



> A new study suggests fertility is not only affected by weight, but by how it is distributed.
> 
> 
> According to a Dutch study of 500 women, women who tend to gain weight in the waist - developing an apple shape - take longer to conceive than their pear-shaped counterparts - women who tend to gain in the hips.
> ...


Pear-Shaped Women More Fertile than Apple-Shaped, Study says

Women with apple shape body type aren't storing fat only around the abdomen, they have breasts and buttocks too.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> Why would someone searching for a healthy woman for healthy offspring seek out a virgin?
> 
> Nulliparous women are kind of a wildcard in terms of capacity. There's nothing that screams fertile and physically capable of childbearing and child rearing like having living offspring.


As previously mentioned, myself and othe rlike minded men:

A) Don't want to raise someone elses child
B) Don't want to make a woman pregnant and then have another man cuckolded into raising my own offspring


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> As previously mentioned, myself and othe rlike minded men:
> 
> A) Don't want to raise someone elses child
> B) Don't want to make a woman pregnant and then have another man cuckolded into raising my own offspring


Why does she need to be a virgin?
Sperm only live for 5 days. A week after having sex with her last partner, your paternity would be assured.

While you have every right to not raise somebody else's kids, men are not usually 'cuckolded' into raising someone else kids. Many do so knowingly and willingly and there are others who have a relationship with the mother and have no responsibility for raising her kids. 

Non-promiscuous women don't offer any guarantees for the future. Don't put too much faith in that, you might just get blindsided due to your preconceived notions.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> Why does she need to be a virgin?
> Sperm only live for 5 days. A week after having sex with her last partner, your paternity would be assured.
> 
> While you have every right to not raise somebody else's kids, men are not usually 'cuckolded' into raising someone else kids. Many do so knowingly and willingly and there are others who have a relationship with the mother and have no responsibility for raising her kids.
> ...


I actually have no isues with non-virgins.

For me its just single mums where I draw the line.

Sorry if you thought I was responsing to Vrgins. 
My cuckolded response was in response to your comment about women who already have kids, if they are not a single mum then they are probably in a relationship.
if they are a widow, then that is a different story altogether.

But hypothetically if I was only willing to get with a virgin, so what?

A woman can choose who she dates, why not a man


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> I actually have no isues with non-virgins.
> 
> For me its just single mums where I draw the line.
> 
> ...


He can choose who he dates, whether he is a virgin himself or not, but in case of the latter, that would be holding a double standard, and I have heard some twisted logic to argue against that. 

I have spoken with guys who said they had nothing against non-virgins, and don't regard them as shameful or sinful. In fact they appreciate and value them as 'teachers' who can learn men how to be a good and competent lover for the inexperienced virgin they regardless seek to marry.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> I actually have no isues with non-virgins.
> 
> For me its just single mums where I draw the line.
> 
> ...


Hypothetically, I would wonder why her virginity is so important, unless you were also a virgin yourself. I've never heard a man with this preference provide a rational explanation for it and I'm interested in what the rational explanation is, that's all. 

I would ask a woman too, if she had a similar preference that I couldn't understand. 

I wouldn't learn these things if I didn't ask, I can only make assumptions about their motives which isn't as accurate as I'd like.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

mimesis said:


> He can choose who he dates, whether he is a virgin himself or not, but in case of the latter, that would be holding a double standard, and I have heard some twisted logic to argue against that.
> 
> I have spoken with guys who said they had nothing against non-virgins, and don't regard them as shameful or sinful. In fact they appreciate and value them as 'teachers' who can learn men how to be a good and competent lover for the inexperienced virgin they regardless seek to marry.


I dont see any reason to argue against it, if a man only wants to sleep with virgins, he has made it clear of his desires?

Why argue and try to manipulate him into wanting something else.

As already discussed, women are attracted to men who have sexual experience. SO it makes sense for men to lose their virginity and become attractive by sleeping around. How else do they develop this confidence that attracts women.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> Hypothetically, I would wonder why her virginity is so important, unless you were also a virgin yourself. I've never heard a man with this preference provide a rational explanation for it and I'm interested in what the rational explanation is, that's all.
> 
> I would ask a woman too, if she had a similar preference that I couldn't understand.
> 
> I wouldn't learn these things if I didn't ask, I can only make assumptions about their motives which isn't as accurate as I'd like.


I dont know, but different people are attracted to different things.

All I see it as are preferences, once I know peoples general preferences, I can understand any consequences of any actions I take and I can base my life accordingly.

And as women seem attracted to men with more sexual experience, it makes sense for men to get sexual experience.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> As previously mentioned, myself and othe rlike minded men:
> 
> A) Don't want to raise someone elses child
> B) Don't want to make a woman pregnant and then have another man cuckolded into raising my own offspring


I don't care about your personal preferences, as I'm pointing out something important related to evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology (as this keeps getting dragged into the thread). Men's preference for virgins or women without children is cultural; it makes no sense on an evolutionary basis.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> And as women seem attracted to men with more sexual experience, it makes sense for men to get sexual experience.


People of both sexes, in general, prefer a partner with some experience. People of both sexes have a limit to the quantity of previous partners they find repulsive. Right now, I'm seeing someone who's had five previous partners. That's perfect for me. I dated a guy who had had 10+ previous partners and I was repulsed by it, but I was too naive about the risks to not put my foot down for it. Had someone who admitted to 40+ partners and I left the date.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> I dont know, but different people are attracted to different things.
> 
> All I see it as are preferences, once I know peoples general preferences, I can understand any consequences of any actions I take and I can base my life accordingly.
> 
> And as women seem attracted to men with more sexual experience, it makes sense for men to get sexual experience.


You won't really know future virgin brides preferences, because she probably won't know her own. Until she starts to feel the lack of experience 10 years into the marriage and feels like she sacrificed opportunities for sexual experience unnecessarily. Also, that she's the only one around her who did. It's not like she can reassure herself that you're in the same boat having made the same sacrifices. Then she may start wondering about her real self-worth, beyond being brand-new for the benefit of someone else.

Or maybe you set the slut free and she realizes she wants more than you can offer. Or you could be lucky and she discovers that sex isn't something she's really into anyway, so missing out is no big deal. 

Gaining experience might be good for you to attract women, but I wouldn't advise seeking a marriage or long term partnership on an intentional unequal footing. That's not likely to turn out how you hoped.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> You won't really know future virgin brides preferences, because she probably won't know her own. Until she starts to feel the lack of experience 10 years into the marriage and feels like she sacrificed opportunities for sexual experience unnecessarily. Also, that she's the only one around her who did. It's not like she can reassure herself that you're in the same boat having made the same sacrifices. Then she may start wondering about her real self-worth, beyond being brand-new for the benefit of someone else.
> 
> Or maybe you set the slut free and she realizes she wants more than you can offer. Or you could be lucky and she discovers that sex isn't something she's really into anyway, so missing out is no big deal.
> 
> Gaining experience might be good for you to attract women, but I wouldn't advise seeking a marriage or long term partnership on an intentional unequal footing. That's not likely to turn out how you hoped.


As far as relationships go, "How many people have you slept with", never springs up and I never ask it. I know somebody posted above about how many people the people they have seen have slept with:

A) If she asked, I actually dont see the bearing.
B) If the guy was telling her, I dont see any reason for it other than bragging (thats all I can see it as).

I know women talk about sex, I also talk about sex, some stories are funny, also its good to know what partners like. But I personally dont why notch count has to come into it.

Ive only been with two women who have bought this up, one seemed to be assessing how I reacted, then when I didnt react she pulled my pants down and the rest is censored.

The other was someone off POF who seemed to take delight in telling me that she had fucked 3 other guys that day and was fucking the decorator the next day.

Tbh in regards to the second one, it wasnt the level of promiscuity that got me, it was the way she was saying it in a bragging way.

And on a personal note in regards to virgins, not my cup of tea as I personally dont want to be responsible for taking a girls virginity. But my point was, there are guys who do seem to like that and everybody has different tastes so I would rather just leave them to it.

Same as sexual fetishes, there are some things I wont do, but if other people want to do em thats cool, its their life. But Im not gonna be all happy celebrating or acting like its amazing. Im pretty indifferent.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> I don't care about your personal preferences, as I'm pointing out something important related to evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology (as this keeps getting dragged into the thread). Men's preference for virgins or women without children is cultural; it makes no sense on an evolutionary basis.


Really?

So evolutionarily, how many women survived child birth compared to today. Why do you think women have a clit and experience multiple orgasms seemingly a lot stronger than men do. Could it be that because without modern medicine, women were more likely to die during childbirth. Hence ultimate pleasure for ultimate sacrifice?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> As far as relationships go, "How many people have you slept with", never springs up and I never ask it. I know somebody posted above about how many people the people they have seen have slept with:
> 
> A) If she asked, I actually dont see the bearing.
> B) If the guy was telling her, I dont see any reason for it other than bragging (thats all I can see it as).
> ...


Sure, I understand. Nobody likes to hear someone bragging about sexual escapades. 

It was my two cents for anyone reading the thread who thinks settling down with a virgin will be a care-free option.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Ok Im going to take this at another angle.

Discussions regarding sex.

This is not a generalisation, it is just based on personal experience and experience of others whom I have spoken to. So before anyone takes it personally and starts screaming sexism, misogamy, the patriarchy, blah blah blah just because they take everything personally. This is relative to my life experiences. If you disagree, feel free to point out where you have experienced differently. 

Women: Women I have noticed seem to spend more time talking in detail about sex. I have noticed this from talking to women one on one. And when with groups of women listening to them talking to each other. The descriptions seem a lot more graphic and more about feelings. Leading to quite an indepth conversation about sex. Then if there is one who is insecure or seems to think she is above the others, that is when the slut shaming starts. 

Men: Not so indepth. Just a "I slept with so and so on such and such a night". Other guys respond yeah cool high five, whatever. That is generally it, end of conversation. As I hang around with hetrosexual males, and am hetro myself we dont want to talk about each others penis's so the conversation ends there and then. 

As for male slut shaming. It actually has nothing to do with the female. It is not aimed at the female. It is a rejection defence mechanism.

Guy A sleeps with some girl. Guy B likes said girl and thinks that as she slept with Guy A she is easy (please remember male ego here, guy B does not compare himself to guy A, as that may mean accepting he is lacking in certain personality traits or admitting Guy A is better than him), so he assumes that said girl is easy. Guy B has no skill with women what so ever and gets rejected, the fact he thinks she is easy, he hits on her and makes it blatantly obvious he just wants sex (thus, making her used and pressured) so therefore rejection. Instead again of looking at himself, he blames the girl and labels her a slut, whore or a sket, to make himself feel better. Im not saying if this is right or wrong, just my view of the dynamic that happens.

Now why do the high fives and stud calling come in. Guy A sleeps with some girl. Guy B likes said Girl, but does look at himself and realises that Guy A is better than him when it comes to women. So he says dude your the man, or some other stuff. 


Which again leads me to the question, if it is a double standard. Why do women call each other sluts? I already understand the male reason but I dont grasp the female reason? If a girl gets with a guy and another girl likes the guy, why does she not give respect?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> Sure, I understand. Nobody likes to hear someone bragging about sexual escapades.
> 
> It was my two cents for anyone reading the thread who thinks settling down with a virgin will be a care-free option.


Cool understood.
Just thought you thought I was into Virgin's. Im not.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> Really?
> 
> So evolutionarily, how many women survived child birth compared to today. Why do you think women have a clit and experience multiple orgasms seemingly a lot stronger than men do. Could it be that because without modern medicine, women were more likely to die during childbirth. Hence ultimate pleasure for ultimate sacrifice?


I think you're coming up with a non sequitur to revel in your antiscientific opinion, but that's quite alright.

Women have a clit because a penis is generated from the same tissue in a fetus. They're homologous. A clitoris, just like the penis, is considered to be a "phallus". Most sex doesn't stimulate the clitoris, for what it's worth; in fact, most women (even in countries where men are intact) don't experience orgasms from vaginal intercourse, and those that do, generally don't until they're in their late 20s or early 30s.

Prior to the advent of agriculture, most hunter-gatherer societies were probably matrilocal. This means that the husband moved to his wife's home or tribe.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> I think you're coming up with a non sequitur to revel in your antiscientific opinion, but that's quite alright.
> 
> Women have a clit because a penis is generated from the same tissue in a fetus. They're homologous. A clitoris, just like the penis, is considered to be a "phallus". Most sex doesn't stimulate the clitoris, for what it's worth; in fact, most women (even in countries where men are intact) don't experience orgasms from vaginal intercourse, and those that do, generally don't until they're in their late 20s or early 30s.


Theres a thing called tantric sex. A lot of people seem to think that sex is just the in out (to put it crudely), where as I find its the foreplay, the intercourse and the afterplay. Obviously if a guy i sjust bothered about cumming and views it as a race, he will never explore this deeply into it.



> Prior to the advent of agriculture, most hunter-gatherer societies were probably matrilocal. This means that the husband moved to his wife's home or tribe.


I disagree there. Everything I have read regarding Evo Psych (Red Queen and The Selfish Gene) has indicated that it was one tribe and someone from another tribe trying it on with a woman, resulted in head being smashed in with a rock. Hence why only the Alpha Male actually breeded, most men were just hunter.gatherers and probably never got laid as there was no benefit to their genes being passed on (the Beta's).

Where have you gained this idea from?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> Where have you gained this idea from?


A masters degree in anthropology, which gave me some knowledge about the most recent understandings of modern humans according to cultural anthropology and paleoanthropology. "Red Queen" and "The Selfish Gene" are pretty mediocre in terms of both evolutionary psychology and anthropology. 

Three quarters of hunter gatherer societies today are matrilocal. Pastoral societies also show a high degree of matrilocal structure. Humans are, as a whole, built to be polyamorous rather than to be involved in long term pair bonding (oxytocin bonding cycles). There's also no such thing as alphas in human societies -- but that's a whole different story. Human males have always been disposable -- and always will be because of biology -- to some degree in human culture, whether that culture is based on foraging, pastoralism, or agriculture. Agrarian societies have more genetic bottlenecking in terms of male contribution to their genetic composition than pastoral and forager societies. 

Tantric sex is not involved in or necessary for biological processes; it's born of cultural, not of biology. As such, it's irrelevant to this discussion, so I'm not even going to go there. Uncircumcised men have probably as much "pleasure" out of sex -- as would be seen on the biological/evolutionary basis -- as a woman, and probably much more on average.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

mimesis said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Methods of bonding can lead to an increased rate, due to the newly available support group it provides.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your point being that other methods/reasoning of evaluation might have evolved?




mimesis said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The energy required for mating, and what leads up to it, which can be spent on other activities, or on more worthy females.




> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Friendship" can require "more" investment, although, that does not dismiss the investment required for mating, and whatever leads up to mating.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I understood correctly, that would support my point.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your initial definition, and the definition you're describing, do not correspond.

In your elaboration, you imply that it has to be "_bad_", while in the initial definition, you mention that it is but two different standards for two different variables.

Imposing a different treatment requires perceiving the variables differently; if you cannot discriminate a factor, a differential treatment cannot be imposed.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Therefore, you impose a value judgment in your definition; it is not a neutral perception of a differential treatment.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By "fair", I mean "correct"/"right"/"just", based on value judgments.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It can be considered "_morally inconsistent_", depending on what is that "moral rule".



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You want genetic diversity.
You must stop copulating with individuals who are not "genetically diversified".
Therefore, there are less individuals to copulate with, because you must restrict yourself from copulating with those who are not "genetically diversified".



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Social organization is usually required, to further the productivity of a group/society.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Ah, I think I see what you mean now.
> I don't believe it was an evolutionary tactic that developed. Without protection, females wouldn't have been virgins for very long. To ensure paternity through acquiring a 'virgin bride' would mean finding one very young or finding one that's been protected.
> If she's been protected, then it would be to ensure _another man's_ paternity.
> A community might protect a female until she reaches reproductive age if they're going to sell or exchange her. Which would explain slut shaming because losing her virginity would decrease her monetary value, which the community would eventually benefit from.


I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not.

The point is that it evolves to make the female as likely as possible to have not copulated with another male, and thus, making the mate (at that point in time) confident that he is/will be the father of the offspring.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> Its modern/current usage can still be, in part, relevant to paternity.
> 
> Related to paternity, there is male microchimerism.
> 
> ...


It's a possible risk of what? Passing on dna from another man? 



> There are also cases of twins having different fathers.
> 
> *Twins With Different Fathers: How It's Possible*


Again, 1 month, contraception, paternity testing, it's all easily verified.




> Sexual promiscuity, in females, also reflects on behavioral traits that are often associated with the jeopardizing of a relationship/marriage.


Like? Thinking for herself? Not doing things her husbands way? Not tolerating her husbands god-given right to sow his superior seed? 
All these things are often associated with jeopardizing a marriage. 




> *http://www.ounce.org/pdfs/cmfsi_2005-03_premsexcohabit_teachman.pdf*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> It's a possible risk of what? Passing on dna from another man?


I suspect so.

*Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother's previous mate*



> _Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that *previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female (‘telegony’).* In the fly Telostylinus angusticollis, males transmit their environmentally acquired condition via paternal effects on offspring body size. We manipulated male condition, and mated females to two males in high or low condition in a fully crossed design. Although the second male sired a large majority of offspring, offspring body size was influenced by the condition of the first male. This effect was not observed when females were exposed to the first male without mating, implicating semen-mediated effects rather than female differential allocation based on pre-mating assessment of male quality. Our results reveal a novel type of transgenerational effect with potential implications for the evolution of reproductive strategies._


*DNA From Sperm Of Ex Partners Lingers In Female Flies And Influences The Genetics Of Her Offspring*



> _“There is no evidence of such effects in humans, but there has not been any research on this possibility in humans. There is a potential for such effects in mammals,” explained Crean. “For example, there is a lot of foetal DNA in maternal blood during pregnancy, and this could potentially play a role in such effects. There is also evidence in mammals that seminal fluid affects offspring development, so semen from one male could potentially influence the development of eggs fertilized by another male (which is what we think is happening in flies).”_


As mentioned in the quote above, it is not proven to be present in mammals, although, there is potential.



> Again, 1 month, contraception, paternity testing, it's all easily verified.


The point of the strategy would be to alter the way in which it is verified.

Ex;

Being confident that your female has not been sexually promiscuous, by cultural pressure (slut-shaming).

VS

Constantly checking paternity tests, utilizing contraception, etc.



> Like? Thinking for herself? Not doing things her husbands way? Not tolerating her husbands god-given right to sow his superior seed?
> All these things are often associated with jeopardizing a marriage.


It is, I would suspect, a matter of being "careless".

Considering how sexual promiscuity is viewed for females, it may be a sign of rebellious behavior/edgy, etc., which can reflect traits that may not be suitable for an ideal relationship, and/or that may not be suitable for being a 'worthy' mother.

This would have to be revised within each culture, based on how these "dynamics" operate.

It could conflict with certain values about sexuality, etc.



> There's so many possible causations there, it would be faster to just list reasons to get married in the first place.


Indeed, although, it remains an apparent correlation.

Correlations are often drawn when profiling murders/psychopaths/bullies/etc.

The same method can be applied to other behaviors.



> How would it be beneficial?


It would influence social organization (whether one deems it to be beneficial, or not).

Ex;

Female promiscuity could influence the stability of marriages, which in effect, would gradually diminish the prominence of the nuclear family. 

Female promiscuity could influence the male approach, in terms of dating, which could gradually shift the standards, and thus, shift the job market/purchases, and thus, the economy.

etc.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Eska_ --

I'd hold back on the issues of telegony until it's been demonstrated in mammals. Seems like you're seeking increasingly more spurious reasons to justify "slut shaming".


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @_Eska_ --
> 
> I'd hold back on the issues of telegony until it's been demonstrated in mammals. Seems like you're seeking increasingly more spurious reasons to justify "slut shaming".


I have addressed it.



Eska said:


> I suspect so.
> 
> As mentioned in the quote above, it is not proven to be present in mammals, although, there is potential.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I didn't say many men are studs.
> 
> Many men don't want to be selective, meaning, when sex is offered many are inclined to accept it, even if they aren't particularly attracted to the woman who's offering. While there are men who would only consider having sex with women who they really like, I don't believe this is 'many' men.



That's more biological than anything, isn't it?





> This isn't personal and my preferences really aren't relevant to the discussion about slut-shaming.



I should have phrased that differently. I meant that the focus on studs shows a sort of obsession with them from the people who complain about the stud vs slut dynamic.


It's not really new, though. Since these people tend to only ever focus on successful men to begin with. They'll often make sweeping statements about all men when they're only talking about a very small number.


So to rephrase my statement: The problem isn't that studs exist. The problem is that they're the only men that matter in the eyes of those who claim there's some injustice in the stud vs slut dynamic.





> There's no power or control regarding who wants to have sex with us. We can all choose who we want to have sex with, doesn't mean the other person which we choose will also want to have sex with us.
> 
> Women don't have more power, only more opportunities when men are less selective.




There is power. It's the same power females members of other animal groups have. The males the females do not find worthy, will not be able to continue their lineage.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> I suspect so.
> 
> *Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother's previous mate*
> 
> ...


Even if it was shown to occur in humans, what difference would it make? Your offspring already carries DNA from multiple men anyway through its ancestry. Then if this were the case, there would be various genetic influences from previous mates/pregnancies, etc. dotted all over, through the ancestral lines. 



> The point of the strategy would be to alter the way in which it is verified.
> 
> Ex;
> 
> ...


Slut-shaming doesn't result in the guaranteed prevention of female promiscuity, it does however result in any promiscuous occurrences being concealed. 
Wouldn't the absence of suppression result in a natural evolution continuing on the course it was on, before people interfered with force and oppression? If female promiscuity wasn't beneficial to the human race as a whole, without the interference it may have been weeded out by now. We can't eradicate a natural trait by suppressing it. The trait remains in the genes and gets passed on to further generations, even if the behavior isn't occurring due to social or physical interventions. 
If women were free to be promiscuous, then any naturally monogamous females would be obviously apparent. Men could easily distinguish the 'good girl's from the 'bad girls' and make more informed mate selections.



> It is, I would suspect, a matter of being "careless".
> 
> Considering how sexual promiscuity is viewed for females, it may be a sign of rebellious behavior/edgy, etc., which can reflect traits that may not be suitable for an ideal relationship, and/or that may not be suitable for being a 'worthy' mother.
> 
> ...



Different mothers provide different benefits. 
Different children benefit from different maternal influences. 



> Indeed, although, it remains an apparent correlation.
> 
> Correlations are often drawn when profiling murders/psychopaths/bullies/etc.
> 
> The same method can be applied to other behaviors.


Again, much more accurate if the behaviors are evident, rather than hidden.



> It would influence social organization (whether one deems it to be beneficial, or not).
> 
> Ex;
> 
> ...


That might be a good thing.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> That's more biological than anything, isn't it?
> 
> 
> I should have phrased that differently. I meant that the focus on studs shows a sort of obsession with them from the people who complain about the stud vs slut dynamic.
> ...


If one sex makes a significantly larger parental contribution than the other, then that sex needs to be more selective and the other more competitive. If it's natural for men not to be selective when choosing mates, then their natural paternal contribution is likely low. Therefore, it would be natural for women to be selective and only select the best possible genes when choosing mates. 

If the sexes make equal parental contributions, then selectivity/competition isn't so intense. 

If the paternal contribution to raising the offspring is the highest, then they become selective. 

Human reproduction is pretty adaptive, we seem to be able to adjust to different mating systems, depending on our circumstances. However, to think that male promiscuity is ok, female promiscuity is not and yet still expect females not to be particularly selective under those circumstances, is expecting too much. That goes against most natural mating systems. 
That's not power, it's adapting to benefit from the options you're left with.

Basically, men can't have their cake and eat it too. 

If you want equal choice, then aim for equal sacrifices and investments.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> If one sex makes a significantly larger parental contribution than the other, then that sex needs to be more selective and the other more competitive. If it's natural for men not to be selective when choosing mates, then their natural paternal contribution is likely low. Therefore, it would be natural for women to be selective and only select the best possible genes when choosing mates.



Men ARE selective when choosing mates.
Only we get called shallow and other names for being selective.






> If the sexes make equal parental contributions, then selectivity/competition isn't so intense.
> 
> If the paternal contribution to raising the offspring is the highest, then they become selective.
> 
> ...




If you're out for a mate, then you're not sleeping around.

Maybe that's another facet to the slut/stud issue. Women are called sluts because people assume they should be looking for mates, not sleeping around.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> Men ARE selective when choosing mates.
> Only we get called shallow and other names for being selective.


So true.

But stuff it, I would rather get called shallow than be with some girl I dont want to be with, just because I cant handle the word shallow.

If guys are that affected by the fact they get called shallow, they really need to have a long hard think about why they continue living.

Or come to my local boxing gym, then they can be toughened up a bit.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> Men ARE selective when choosing mates.
> Only we get called shallow and other names for being selective.


Are you saying that men don't often have sex with women who they find unattractive? 

Or just not relationships with them?






> If you're out for a mate, then you're not sleeping around.
> 
> Maybe that's another facet to the slut/stud issue. Women are called sluts because people assume they should be looking for mates, not sleeping around.


I was discussing natural mating systems. Mating = sexual intercourse. Mate = potential breeding partner. 

Within the context of a mating system.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> So true.
> 
> But stuff it, I would rather get called shallow than be with some girl I dont want to be with, just because I cant handle the word shallow.
> 
> ...


Why are you called shallow for being with a women who you enjoy being with?

Are your requirements all physical ones or something?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Even if it was shown to occur in humans, what difference would it make? Your offspring already carries DNA from multiple men anyway through its ancestry. Then if this were the case, there would be various genetic influences from previous mates/pregnancies, etc. dotted all over, through the ancestral lines.


The point would be to minimize the influence from other DNA, to keep yours as dominant as possible.



> Slut-shaming doesn't result in the guaranteed prevention of female promiscuity, it does however result in any promiscuous occurrences being concealed.
> Wouldn't the absence of suppression result in a natural evolution continuing on the course it was on, before people interfered with force and oppression? If female promiscuity wasn't beneficial to the human race as a whole, without the interference it may have been weeded out by now. We can't eradicate a natural trait by suppressing it. The trait remains in the genes and gets passed on to further generations, even if the behavior isn't occurring due to social or physical interventions.
> If women were free to be promiscuous, then any naturally monogamous females would be obviously apparent. Men could easily distinguish the 'good girl's from the 'bad girls' and make more informed mate selections.


Thus, you're saying that promiscuity is "natural", and therefore, it should be not be suppressed?

What do you think about successful monogamous relationships?

Essentially, it becomes a matter of "trade-offs"; is promiscuity's advantages worth destabilizing social organization? etc.



> Different mothers provide different benefits.
> Different children benefit from different maternal influences.


Indeed, although, 'realistically', one usually relies on likelihood of success.

Also, it does not solely involve parental care, it also involves relationship stability (marriage, etc.).



> That might be a good thing.


You mean that diminishing the prominence of the nuclear family, and impacting the economy, etc. might be a "good thing"?

Whether it is "good" or not, depends on the idealized outcome, and whatever aspects it encompasses.

It may be "good" for you, but "bad" for another.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

I don't think there's a simple yes and no answer.

It's not an entirely a double standard because male and female sexuality, either the socially constructed kind or the biological kind*, have inherently different meanings within the context of culture and biological reproduction.

I think the reason why it's ridiculous to criticize women for their sexual practices without criticizing men for comparable practices is a nasty thing to do, because at the end of the day, what's happening between two consenting adults is inconsequential to you or me and none of our business.

However, female sexuality... with women having the monopoly on sex and basically being in charge when it comes to sexual selection, are held to a higher standard than men are. It's unfair, and as I previously said; practically speaking it's bullshit. However, there's only so many eggs to go around, yet there's so much sperm going after those eggs. You can't help but have a difference subjective value between the two. It's exactly how markets work, except it's in the realm of sexuality.

Women are held to a higher standard sexually not because people hate female sexuality. But because it's just plain ol' worth more. To illustrate my point I came up with what I call 'the diamond ring analogy' (I'm sure other people have formulated similar, better, analogies before, but I am not aware of them, it's fairly simple and straightforward):

Imagine two identical people, with identical families, identical backgrounds, etc. Only difference is, one of them receives a golden, diamond embedded ring that was past down in their family for centuries. Let's call this person 'A'.

Then you have person 'B'. They didn't receive any such thing. Except, on a random night out, they put some coins in a crappy vending machine, which gave them a cheap, disposable, plastic ring.

Who would you tell to be more careful with the ring and what they should trade it for? person A or person B? I'd think, most people would say person A.

Anyway, in this analogy, women are obviously A and men are B. Simply put, male sexuality is an overbundance because what men have to offer reproductively, sperm, is in overabundance. So women, who only have that one egg per month, are in possession of something much more valuable than men are. And call it archaic all you want, it's still a major difference between men and women sexually. And this is where the "double standard" comes from. Society knows that female sexuality is more valuable than male sexuality, so many of the traditions related to sexuality are based on that.

Now I do not believe we need to uphold those values in modern society. We're no longer cavemen, where women being the limiting factor of human reproduction is at all relevant. We're too economically productive and secure out here. However, I do think it's important to understand _where_ that doublestandard comes from. Since most people lazily frame it as a patriarchal construct, which I believe distorts the nature of male versus female sexuality and how we deal with it.

More accurately, where our minds evolved along with modern society, our reproductive organs haven't. And sometimes, we have to consciously give ourselves a reality check about that.

*To expand a little on that part. When I say "the socially constructed kind and biological kind" I'm refering to gender and sex, which are often painted as one being socially constructed and the other being biological. Which I believe is a false dichotomy. There's no such thing as "nature vs nurture"; nature and nurture are two co-dependent sides of the same coin. So despite the sociological consensus of differentiating between 'gender' and 'sex' on that basis, I completely disagree with it. And I think viewing 'gender' and sex' as being in a continuum with each other as much more accurate.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

It is only a double standard if you allow it to become one. Personally I don't listen to much of what society deems good or bad, so therefore I do whatever I want, whenever I want. People who pay too much attention to what other people think are morons, I don't let people dictate my life, my lifestype or what I do for fun. Come to think of it I don't give any consideration at all loL.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Derange At 170_ -


I didn't thank because I disagree with some of your statements. That said, I think it ties back into what I said about men essentially being disposable. What you said about eggs being more important than sperm, also, I think is why for most of humanity's development as a species, groups were likely matrilocal. The woman (due to biology) and her maternal relatives have more investment in the offspring.

That said, it's apparently not right to say that men have been disposable for the majority of human society.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> @_Derange At 170_ -
> 
> 
> I didn't thank because I disagree with some of your statements.


:'0



koalaroo said:


> That said, I think it ties back into what I said about men essentially being disposable. What you said about eggs being more important than sperm, also, I think is why for most of humanity's development as a species, groups were likely matrilocal. The woman (due to biology) and her maternal relatives have more investment in the offspring.
> 
> That said, it's apparently not right to say that men have been disposable for the majority of human society.


I think _most men_ were considered disposable. I think men were historically born disposable and had to prove their worth (through their ability to provide), but were also expected to give their life to women or children or revert resources to them, if the continuation of the tribe was at stake. And that's a very logical thing when you consider that women are the limiting factor in reproduction. I understand it and back then it made sense. But it's really pretty perverse for us to carry over the idea to modern times.

What you're saying ties readily into the work of Warren Farrell, who extensively wrote on the topic and laid the foundation for the modern men's rights movement. I mean, he did write "The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex" in the early '90s. Though I suppose you have a somewhat different interpretation of male disposability.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> "Gender" is tied to specific expectations.
> 
> In the same way drinking is outlawed before a certain age.
> In the same way driving is outlawed before a certain age.
> ...


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Derange At 170 said:


> :'0
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we could actually have an interesting discussion on this and not wear our asses for hats.

(Which has been proved thus far.)


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> I think we could actually have an interesting discussion on this and not wear our asses for hats.
> 
> (Which has been proved thus far.)


Indeed. I have issues with feminism, not feminists. And having issues with topics fuels discussion. And I like to discuss things. :v

I'm a voluntaryist/"an-cap" and my "political soulmate" who I always discuss politics with and see eye-to-eye with on 90% of the issues is a socialist anarchist. People generally have a far too strong of an inclination to assume that when people disagree on things, it's because of the other person's shortcomings.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> The point would be to minimize the influence from other DNA, to keep yours as dominant as possible.


What if your genes are crap and theirs are better?



> Thus, you're saying that promiscuity is "natural", and therefore, it should be not be suppressed?


I'm saying there's nothing to indicate that female promiscuity has a disadvantage for the human race as a whole. If it did, there wouldn't be a need to suppress it because nature would have bred it out already. There's also nothing to indicate that female promiscuity has a disadvantage for individuals or their future families. The only problems seem to arise from men's paranoia (note, due to promiscuity, not infidelity). 
Single women shouldn't have to behave differently than single men, in order to ensure that one day in the future, a man who they haven't even met yet feels more secure about his paternity. If when the time comes it bothers him that much he can get a paternity test. 



> What do you think about successful monogamous relationships?


Sexually monogamous or socially monogamous?



> Essentially, it becomes a matter of "trade-offs"; is promiscuity's advantages worth destabilizing social organization? etc.


I'm sure there were once similar questions about freeing slaves or allowing women to vote or ending child labour.



> Indeed, although, 'realistically', one usually relies on likelihood of success.
> 
> Also, it does not solely involve parental care, it also involves relationship stability (marriage, etc.).


It's too difficult to speculate the numerous potential reasons behind the breakdown of a marriage, in order to discuss this.

Parents can raise children successfully without being in a relationship with each other.



> You mean that diminishing the prominence of the nuclear family, and impacting the economy, etc. might be a "good thing"?
> 
> Whether it is "good" or not, depends on the idealized outcome, and whatever aspects it encompasses.
> 
> It may be "good" for you, but "bad" for another.


Changes are rarely good for everyone and everything.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Someone want to explain to me why this thread is still alive?


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> Are you saying that men don't often have sex with women who they find unattractive?
> 
> Or just not relationships with them?



That's exactly what I'm saying.
You're focusing on a minority of men and trying to paint all men with the same brush.








> I was discussing natural mating systems. Mating = sexual intercourse. Mate = potential breeding partner.
> 
> Within the context of a mating system.



Isn't it the same thing within that context?


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Agni of Wands said:


> Someone want to explain to me why this thread is still alive?


>asks why thread is alive
>literally posting in it, bumping it to the top of the subforum
>ISHKJSAFHKJHFKJDSHFJKSHDFKLJHSD;HFJKLDHSFKLJDKLSFJKLDSJFKLDJSFKLJDS'FDS


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> >asks why thread is alive
> >literally posting in it, bumping it to the top of the subforum
> >ISHKJSAFHKJHFKJDSHFJKSHDFKLJHSD;HFJKLDHSFKLJDKLSFJKLDSJFKLDJSFKLJDS'FDS


It was already at the top.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Agni of Wands said:


> It was already at the top.


You still bumping it, bruv. And now I am too. FUCK.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> You still bumping it, bruv.


Ah well.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying.
> You're focusing on a minority of men and trying to paint all men with the same brush.



So women don't have all the 'power' then, only over a minority. 





> Isn't it the same thing within that context?


I thought so


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> That is implying that the act is regarded as "good"/"bad", in absolute.




Whatever is considered of intrinsic value (whether it's the act, the consequence or whatever else) should be considered absolutely good in all circumstances (which isn't to say that a decision having bad consequences can't be justified if the costs are both necessary and compensated for).




> I think I've identified the source of the confusion and/or disagreement.
> 
> You're referring to "gender", in its inherit form, outside of the environment in which it operates.
> 
> ...


I think the primary disagreement is your not accepting that the intrinsic dis-value of whatever thing it is that makes sexual promiscuity bad in any circumstance is unaffected by gender or the identity or status of any of the patients or actors involved. The only variable that directly matters is the thing that is considered intrinsically good or bad, other variables don't affect the nature of that thing. Effort can't consistently be regarded as more admirable when it's displayed by someone who is male rather than female. A lack of self-control, a desire to experience sexual pleasure or whatever it is that makes sexually promiscuous behavior contemptible when it is considered as such can't consistently be regarded as worse because it's demonstrated by someone who's female rather than male.

Gender isn't directly related to whatever traits or roles people are expected to show or play ('expected' in the sense of literally being expected to, not in the sense of 'coercing' people into certain gender roles through social pressure), even if it was a fairly good basis for predicting how likely it is that someone will possess X trait or play that role.

The law has to be relatively systematic for practical reasons but as a matter of principle I would not hold a 10 year old with the same capacity for reasoning, critical thinking etc. to a different standard than I would an adult (I might have some issues with the attitude we tend to have about older children not being moral agents but I won't get into that. Adults aren't equally capable of the same reasoning, impulse control, maturity etc. just because they are adults. With or without the same capacity, I wouldn't say that I supported holding people to fundamentally different standards, as agents or as patients, because I wouldn't condone treating or considering them differently based on aspects of their identity that aren't directly related to relevant variables). Grouping people based on gender and age are comparable in that not everyone exemplifies the norm within their group but a greater capacity for sound judgment, competence and reasoning is caused by aging whereas whatever traits or roles that put one in the position of having to invest effort into mating isn't caused by gender. Smoking causes lung cancer (for the sake of conversation I'll assume nothing else does), it may not cause lung cancer in everyone who smokes (just like some 14 year olds have a greater capacity for reasoning, competence, critical thinking and impulse control etc. than some 30 year olds do) but the cause of lung cancer in those who have it is smoking. So even though I do think people and actions should be judged on an individual basis without any direct consideration to their age or gender, there's a more compelling reasoning to systematically treat people of a certain age group a certain way, not as a matter of principle but for practical reasons and convenience.

I didn't properly quote you in my last post. The rest of my reply is on page 32 (post #317).


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

10 females in one week????? That's 9 more than I've had my whole life!


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It can be argued that yes, they are scrutinized for the same act, based on their age.

"_You shouldn't be [...] at that age._"
"_It's illegal to [...] at that age._" 
etc.

As you've hinted to; "_being systematic for practical reasons._".

Not all 16 years old are incompetent at 'x', but it remains the "rule of thumb", hence why I've stated, multiple times, that the idea I've proposed is based on the general perception/stereotypical expectations/"rule of thumb" of dating interactions.

What is the main variable/'pivot point', in that context? "Gender".



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which implies that two different standards can be compatible, in a given context.

Not to confuse "compatible" with "identical".




> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is not irrelevant, as I've pointed out in the first part of this reply.

It is the generalization/expectation/stereotype on which the idea I've presented, is based.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Therefore, you are targeting the consequences of such promiscuous acts.



Ubuntu said:


> Whatever is considered of intrinsic value (whether it's the act, the consequence or whatever else) should be considered absolutely good in all circumstances (which isn't to say that a decision having bad consequences can't be justified if the costs are both necessary and compensated for).
> 
> I think the primary disagreement is your not accepting that the intrinsic dis-value of whatever thing it is that makes sexual promiscuity bad in any circumstance is unaffected by gender or the identity or status of any of the patients or actors involved. The only variable that directly matters is the thing that is considered intrinsically good or bad, other variables don't affect the nature of that thing. *Effort can't consistently be regarded as more admirable when it's displayed by someone who is male rather than female.* A lack of self-control, a desire to experience sexual pleasure or whatever it is that makes sexually promiscuous behavior contemptible when it is considered as such can't consistently be regarded as worse because it's demonstrated by someone who's female rather than male.
> 
> ...


It can, as demonstrated in the original post.

Gender is related to traits, these are expectations/stereotypical traits attached to the variable.

I think I have identified the source of the disagreement/confusion.

Your reasoning based on the consequences of promiscuity, from either 'gender'.

The point I've presented, is based on the circumstances that cause the differential treatment of both variables, in light of the same action.

Your point is irrelevant to mine.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> What if your genes are crap and theirs are better?


There are 3 issues concerning this point,

1. How would one know that?
2. In which aspects would they be "better"? (health/intelligence/physical strength/etc.)
3. It would remain, to some extent, cuckoldry. (that would be a matter of ego)



> I'm saying there's nothing to indicate that female promiscuity has a disadvantage for the human race as a whole. If it did, there wouldn't be a need to suppress it because nature would have bred it out already. There's also nothing to indicate that female promiscuity has a disadvantage for individuals or their future families. The only problems seem to arise from men's paranoia (note, due to promiscuity, not infidelity).
> Single women shouldn't have to behave differently than single men, in order to ensure that one day in the future, a man who they haven't even met yet feels more secure about his paternity. If when the time comes it bothers him that much he can get a paternity test.


Social organization could be a factor (paternity/etc. can be an 'advantage' for social organization)

Also, "disadvantages" do not necessarily disappear/get fixed "instantly", nor is everything an "absolute" disadvantage; there is the concept of "trade-offs". Where certain "disadvantages" remain, due to their proportional influence on other aspects.



> Sexually monogamous or socially monogamous?


It was in reference to your implication that sexual promiscuity is "natural", to which I questioned what you thought about sexual/social (both can be inclusive) monogamy; is monogamy "unnatural"?



> I'm sure there were once similar questions about freeing slaves or allowing women to vote or ending child labour.


Freeing slaves, allowing females to vote, and ending child labor, could have had 'negative' repercussions on social aspects.

Hypothetically,

If freeing the slaves "negatively" impacted the economy; the "trade-off" would be between social liberty and economic stability.
If allowing females to vote "negatively" impacted 'X'; the "trade-off" would be between 'X' and social liberty.
etc.

What one may find "morally reprehensible", does not dismiss the presence of "negative" repercussions on certain aspects.

"Negative"/"Positive" are relative to one's goals.



> It's too difficult to speculate the numerous potential reasons behind the breakdown of a marriage, in order to discuss this.
> 
> Parents can raise children successfully without being in a relationship with each other.


You're referring to single parenthood?



> Changes are rarely good for everyone and everything.


Indeed, hence why, essentially, it becomes a dilemma/"trade-off" between advantages/disadvantages.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

All I have to say is...
Sex is natural, sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody shoooooouuuuuuld
Sex is natural, sex is fun
Sex is best when it's ONE ON ONE

I'm not your father
I'm not your brother
Talk to your sister
I AM A LOVERRRRRR
C-C-C-C-C-C-C-COME ON!!!!


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> There are 3 issues concerning this point,
> 
> 1. How would one know that?
> 2. In which aspects would they be "better"? (health/intelligence/physical strength/etc.)
> 3. It would remain, to some extent, cuckoldry. (that would be a matter of ego)


I think the very slim chance of the very slight 'cuckoldry' potential wouldn't justify suppressing all women's choices regarding their own sexuality. 



> Social organization could be a factor (paternity/etc. can be an 'advantage' for social organization)
> 
> Also, "disadvantages" do not necessarily disappear/get fixed "instantly", nor is everything an "absolute" disadvantage; there is the concept of "trade-offs". Where certain "disadvantages" remain, due to their proportional influence on other aspects.


With the effectiveness of contraception now and no doubt becoming even more effective in the future, there's no reason why paternity confidence shouldn't be as high, if not higher than it's ever been.



> It was in reference to your
> implication that sexual promiscuity is "natural", to which I questioned what you thought about sexual/social (both can be inclusive) monogamy; is monogamy "unnatural"?


Considering sexual monogamy is extremely rare in the majority of socially monogamous species and also taking into account the extreme measures used in the past to enforce sexual monogamy in humans (eg. being stoned to death), it would indicate sexual monogamy isn't natural for us. 




> Freeing slaves, allowing females to vote, and ending child labor, could have had 'negative' repercussions on social aspects.
> 
> Hypothetically,
> 
> ...


There have been negative repercussions due to placing high value on women's virginity. Honour killings, genital mutilation (intended to prevent promiscuity) and raping virgins (eg, to cure aids) are a few of them that come to mind. 
These practices are still occurring.



> You're referring to single parenthood?


Joint custody parenthood. 



> Indeed, hence why, essentially, it becomes a dilemma/"trade-off" between advantages/disadvantages.


The disadvantages seem to arise from paranoia, outdated attitudes and unrealistic expectations. These could be overcome by replacing them with realistic expectations and accurate information.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> I think the very slim chance of the very slight 'cuckoldry' potential wouldn't justify suppressing all women's choices regarding their own sexuality.


That is one of the three point; do you think that the two others justify it?



> With the effectiveness of contraception now and no doubt becoming even more effective in the future, there's no reason why paternity confidence shouldn't be as high, if not higher than it's ever been.


It can be higher, but not abolished.

The percentages can be seen here;
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattributed_paternity*



> Considering sexual monogamy is extremely rare in the majority of socially monogamous species and also taking into account the extreme measures used in the past to enforce sexual monogamy in humans (eg. being stoned to death), it would indicate sexual monogamy isn't natural for us.


"Natural" is a vague term, when considering what drives one to commit an act, but regardless,

You could also say that defecating in toilets, etc. is not "natural", yet, it is required for a certain social organization

Your standard might rely on the "natural" status of an aspect, while another standard might not regard its state of being "natural" as relevant to whether or not it must be controlled.



> There have been negative repercussions due to placing high value on women's virginity. Honour killings, genital mutilation (intended to prevent promiscuity) and raping virgins (eg, to cure aids) are a few of them that come to mind.
> These practices are still occurring.


Indeed.

The "trade-off" would be between this, or another repercussion.



> The disadvantages seem to arise from paranoia, outdated attitudes and unrealistic expectations. These could be overcome by replacing them with realistic expectations and accurate information.


The "date" of an attitude, does not render it invalid, and it is not an 'unrealistic' expectation.

It may require discipline, which is the "price to pay" for certain advantages.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> That is one of the three point; do you think that the two others justify it?


The other two questions can't really be answered, since it's not proven to exist in mammals anyway. It would mean far too much speculating.



> It can be higher, but not abolished.
> 
> The percentages can be seen here;
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattributed_paternity*


We're discussing promiscuity, which isn't infidelity. Most misattributed paternity is more likely due to infidelity and the man assuming the woman is only having sex with him. Slut-shaming increases the chances of a woman being able to get away with this, rather than reducing the chances. 




> "Natural" is a vague term, when considering what drives one to commit an act, but regardless,
> 
> You could also say that defecating in toilets, etc. is not "natural", yet, it is required for a certain social organization
> 
> Your standard might rely on the "natural" status of an aspect, while another standard might not regard its state of being "natural" as relevant to whether or not it must be controlled.



Using a toilet works with our nature, not against it. It easily removes the waste from our living space, yet is often conveniently placed within it. It usually offers more comfort and security than alternative options, which are things we naturally seek out. If they weren't convenient, then people would soon be sneaking off to crap elsewhere. Access is, at most, only temporarily denied. 

Also, people aren't expected to only crap in one toilet throughout their entire adult life.




> Indeed.
> 
> The "trade-off" would be between this, or another repercussion.


Like what?




> The "date" of an attitude, does not render it invalid, and it is not an 'unrealistic' expectation.
> 
> It may require discipline, which is the "price to pay" for certain advantages.


It's outdated because the only purpose it could have possibly served (paternity confidence) can now be served by other more accurate methods.
Of course it's unrealistic, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What advantages do women gain from paying this price?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> We're discussing promiscuity, which isn't infidelity. Most misattributed paternity is more likely due to infidelity and the man assuming the woman is only having sex with him. Slut-shaming increases the chances of a woman being able to get away with this, rather than reducing the chances.


I would argue that promiscuity is highly correlated with infidelity, although, that is besides the point.

My point remains, the confidence may be "higher", but it is not abolished.



> Using a toilet works with our nature, not against it. It easily removes the waste from our living space, yet is often conveniently placed within it. It usually offers more comfort and security than alternative options, which are things we naturally seek out. If they weren't convenient, then people would soon be sneaking off to crap elsewhere. Access is, at most, only temporarily denied.
> 
> Also, people aren't expected to only crap in one toilet throughout their entire adult life.


This convention is a "social construct", and is a form of social organization; to "remove the waste from our living space".

Being monogamous can also be argued to "work with our nature", it is a "disciplinary" action that can be argued to benefit our social organization. 

Your standard seems to imply that if it is "natural" (which is still vaguely defined), then it is "good"/"acceptable".



> Like what?


It influences culture, such as mate selection; it shifts standards, which also causes other factors to adapt.

Some aspects may be regarded as "positive", while others may be regarded as "negative".



> It's outdated because the only purpose it could have possibly served (paternity confidence) can now be served by other more accurate methods.
> Of course it's unrealistic, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> What advantages do women gain from paying this price?


Paternity is not the only purpose it could have served.

I've proposed the idea of an "arena", which uses virginity as a prize to elevate the stakes/contest, and causes optimal mate selection.

How is it 'unrealistic'? Are you implying that females have never succeeded at having one partner throughout their life?

It not being common/widespread in a certain culture, does not imply that it is 'unrealistic' to achieve. 
It would require discipline, but it is not non-achievable.

Countries that are 'heavily' influenced by Islamic regimes, would be my primary suspect as to where these are the most common.
(rape does not count, as it is not an active engagement into sexual intercourse)

Females' "advantages" could be that their price/value is higher, if they remain virgins, and thus, can couple with the "better" males, which could also provide a "better" environment for their offspring to grow, etc.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> I would argue that promiscuity is highly correlated with infidelity, although, that is besides the point.


So does male promiscuity highly correlate with infidelity? Or only female promiscuity?



> My point remains, the confidence may be "higher", but it is not abolished.


It isn't abolished through slut-shaming either. So how is slut-shaming beneficial?



> This convention is a "social construct", and is a form of social organization; to "remove the waste from our living space".
> 
> Being monogamous can also be argued to "work with our nature", it is a "disciplinary" action that can be argued to benefit our social organization.
> 
> Your standard seems to imply that if it is "natural" (which is still vaguely defined), then it is "good"/"acceptable".


I'm saying what works with nature is a more realistic expectation than what works against it. 

So what's wrong with men applying the same discipline to themselves?



> It influences culture, such as mate selection; it shifts standards, which also causes other factors to adapt.
> 
> Some aspects may be regarded as "positive", while others may be regarded as "negative".
> 
> ...


Why not an intelligent woman? Studies have shown that childrens intelligence is more dependant on the mothers intelligence than on the fathers. 
So for reproductive potential, an intelligent woman who is able to bear children is inherently higher value than a virgin. The only value that virginity has is superficially placed on it. Being a virgin doesn't mean a woman is healthier, smarter, more fertile, more resourceful, more capable or more nurturing than any other woman. These are traits that indicate a a potentially good or successful mother, not virginity.

Virginity means men can feel as though they achieved something that the next man hasn't. So the expectations are placed on women to suppress their sexuality in order for men to feel better about themselves. Any paternal confidence is also superficial, since being first doesn't guarantee you being the last.



> How is it 'unrealistic'? Are you implying that females have never succeeded at having one partner throughout their life?


Some women and some men have successfully had no sexual partners throughout their life, does this make it a realistic expectation to apply to everyone?



> It not being common/widespread in a certain culture, does not imply that it is 'unrealistic' to achieve.
> It would require discipline, but it is not non-achievable.
> 
> Countries that are 'heavily' influenced by Islamic regimes, would be my primary suspect as to where these are the most common.
> (rape does not count, as it is not an active engagement into sexual intercourse)


One point I already made is that when value is placed on virginity, rape absolutely does count, honour killings have occurred due to rape. Women have died because of their perceived worthlessness, which directly resulted from men placing value on something that a man took without her consent. 



> Females' "advantages" could be that their price/value is higher, if they remain virgins, and thus, can couple with the "better" males, which could also provide a "better" environment for their offspring to grow, etc.


Once her virginity is gone, what is she worth? 
No more than the next woman, because the 'value' had no value beyond the ego boost that the man obtained from being the first.

What makes the "better" males better?


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Eska said:


> It can be argued that yes, they are scrutinized for the same act, based on their age.
> 
> "_You shouldn't be [...] at that age._"
> "_It's illegal to [...] at that age._"
> ...


I think age roles (ie. "you're too old to do X that would be appropriate - not just forgivable or understandable but fundamentally appropriate- if you were younger") are also a double standard, at least if the same acts are considered more or less acceptable directly because of the actor's or patient's age and not because it can be reasonably assumed than an older or younger person doing X will have different consequences. When I mentioned being systematic in treating people of certain age groups a certain way I meant in terms of predicting how capable they are of exercising sound judgment, strong critical thinking skills, wisdom, impulse control etc. There's a huge difference between expecting a 15 year old or a woman to be a certain way in the sense of literally expecting them to be that way and 'expecting' them to be that way in the sense of wanting them to fit into certain roles because they are young or female. There's a difference between literally expecting females not to be initiators or to invest a lot of effort into mating and criticizing them for being initiators or for having sex even in scenarios that required a lot of effort on their part.



> Not all 16 years old are incompetent at 'x', but it remains the "rule of thumb", hence why I've stated, multiple times, that the idea I've proposed is based on the general perception/stereotypical expectations/"rule of thumb" of dating interactions.
> 
> What is the main variable/'pivot point', in that context? "Gender".


A 'stereotype' is just a literal expectation (an irrational one in that, unlike a mere generalization, it doesn't distinguish between correlation and causation or consider people as individuals), stereotyping women isn't tantamount to holding them to different standards. Saying matter of factly "we expect women to play the passive role in mating rituals and men to be the initiators and to invest more effort (which isn't one and the same, initiating sex with some people is relatively easy)" isn't the same thing as criticizing a woman for being an initiator or sexually promiscuous when *relevant* circumstantial variables are the same as in a situation when man who is commended or at least tolerated for his promiscuity is promiscuous.





> Which implies that two different standards can be compatible, in a given context.
> 
> Not to confuse "compatible" with "identical".


No, it doesn't. I don't know why you would say that. A and B are two fundamentally different things with distinct natures. Because they have fundamentally distinct natures you cannot consistently regard both as intrinsically good - good by nature - because this is simultaneously claiming that they are the same (good) despite being fundamentally different. What can make them both intrinsically good if they have nothing in common? The nature of A has nothing to do with the presence of B. If A is intrinsically good, it's good whether it's paired with B or not.

Different values-goals can be 'compatible' in the sense that they can be accomplished or expressed at the same time but they can't be commensurable. You can simultaneously maximize happiness and respect everyone's right to autonomy at the same time in at least some scenarios but they are two fundamentally in-commensurable goals which is why they are incompatible in at least some other scenarios. Even just saying that X action was good in that it helped to accomplish one goal but neutral in that it didn't frustrate or advance a fundamentally different goal is a contradiction.





> It is not irrelevant, as I've pointed out in the first part of this reply.
> 
> It is the generalization/expectation/stereotype on which the idea I've presented, is based.


It is because perception doesn't necessarily match with reality and there just being a literal expectation of women not having to invest effort into mating (which still would only address not glorifying them for sex rather than actively shaming them. There are things that most people consider to be shameful that require a lot of effort and the people who do them aren't commended for it just because it was hard work) doesn't justify holding them to a different standard when they do invest as much effort as any given male does yet are judged differently for it because they are female.





> Therefore, you are targeting the consequences of such promiscuous acts.


I don't know if you're just pointing out that I'm concerned with the consequences of promiscuity or claiming that utilitarianism can justify treating male and female promiscuity differently but utilitarianism cannot take into directly consideration the status or any aspect of someone's identity when judging a decision. To reiterate ; a utilitarian would judge the male being promiscuous positively and the female being promiscuous negatively in a situation when the male being promiscuous caused 20 points of happiness (whether it's his own, his partner's or anyone else's. I don't accept aggregating the happiness of separate people and when there are cost-benefit trade offs to be made I would compare the most disadvantaged person to the most advantaged but that's another matter) and the female being promiscuous caused 20 points of pain but *(s)he isn't judging the former as being more acceptable than the latter because the promiscuous person is a male. (S)he's judging the former as more acceptable than the latter because it produced more happiness and less suffering. If the situation were reserved, and we can clearly imagine many 'hypothetical' scenarios when it could be, then the female being promiscuous would be judged more positively than the male being promiscuous. Gender has nothing to do with it, sexual pleasure doesn't have more or less value when it's experienced by a man or a woman and suffering isn't more or less dis-valuable when it's caused by a man or a woman.*

There's a huge difference between saying "don't be promiscuous because it will cause suffering" and "don't be promiscuous because it will mean you're a dirty slut" or even "because it shows low self-respect" (I've always wondered, how does wanting to experience pleasure show that someone has a low opinion of themselves?). You can apply the same reasoning to doing dangerous drugs, overeating or doing anything that might be imprudent but doesn't mean someone deserves to be disrespected because of it.



> It can, as demonstrated in the original post.


No, it can't. If you only care about suffering depending on the status or identity of the person who suffers then you don't really care about suffering per se, or at least you're being inconsistent. If you only respect effort based on the status or identity of the person who demonstrates it then you don't view effort as inherently admirable, or at least not consistently. I do not understand how you can't see this. If you're really here claiming that effort can reasonably be regarded to be more admirable when it's shown by a man rather than a woman, that's got to be one of the boldest things you've said in this thread (in response to any of my posts or that I've read).



> Gender is related to traits, these are expectations/stereotypical traits attached to the variable.


Gender is not directly related to any of the psychological traits that correlate with it. A vagina, a uterus, breasts that are due to puberty and not just dietary fat, ; these are intrinsically female characteristics, no one who was born with a penis can be considered unambiguously female (not biologically) but a woman who has 'male' psychological traits is still 100% woman.

In my opinion, you're still confusing literal expectations with gender roles that people are pressured into adhering to. I can expect someone from Iraq to be a Muslim but I'm not going to criticize them for being Christians, Hindus or atheists instead just because I think Iraqi people are supposed to be Muslims.



> I think I have identified the source of the disagreement/confusion.
> 
> Your reasoning based on the consequences of promiscuity, from either 'gender'.


Yes, but that's not crucial to my argument. You can't justify the double standard with any coherent ethical first principle. If you're concerned with consequences then gender isn't directly important because X consequence is the same X consequence and gender doesn't change the nature of that consequence. If you're considered with actions then gender isn't directly important because the gender of the actor still has nothing to do, directly, with the nature of the action. If you're concerned with virtue (ie. effort, self-control etc. ) then same reasoning.



> The point I've presented, is based on the circumstances that cause the differential treatment of both variables, in light of the same action.


Yes and my basic counter to this is that gender is not related to the variable (action, consequence or virtue) that is considered intrinsically valuable and the two being paired together can't make it such.



> Your point is irrelevant to mine.


I don't think so, what point do you mean?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> So does male promiscuity highly correlate with infidelity? Or only female promiscuity?


I would argue that both are, although, it may vary depending on the culture.



> It isn't abolished through slut-shaming either. So how is slut-shaming beneficial?


Slut-shaming can be reasoned to increase the chances.

It would be similar to gambling,

Would you rather have 30% chance of winning, or 50% chance of winning?

It is a method that can be favored over paternity tests, etc., due to its lack of needed resources (it is a cultural attitude, it does not directly require material, etc.).

Although, that does not mean that they cannot co-exist.

If you impose slut-shaming, and paternity tests, etc., it may multiply the chances, and thus, confidence.



> I'm saying what works with nature is a more realistic expectation than what works against it.
> 
> So what's wrong with men applying the same discipline to themselves?


Although, that does not prevent imposed discipline, to withdraw certain benefits.

I did not address males, although, the typical female standard does not seem to frown upon male promiscuity; it may even be a preference. 

Analogously speaking,

Why is beard frowned upon on females, if it is not frowned upon on males?

The opposite sex impose their standards, and that sex tries to fit them.

If females do not mind promiscuity when evaluating a mate, then it would not have the same effect on the opposite standard.



> Why not an intelligent woman? Studies have shown that childrens intelligence is more dependant on the mothers intelligence than on the fathers.
> So for reproductive potential, an intelligent woman who is able to bear children is inherently higher value than a virgin. The only value that virginity has is superficially placed on it. Being a virgin doesn't mean a woman is healthier, smarter, more fertile, more resourceful, more capable or more nurturing than any other woman. These are traits that indicate a a potentially good or successful mother, not virginity.
> 
> Virginity means men can feel as though they achieved something that the next man hasn't. So the expectations are placed on women to suppress their sexuality in order for men to feel better about themselves. Any paternal confidence is also superficial, since being first doesn't guarantee you being the last.


There are 2 issues with your point,

1. Paternity remains a factor; whether the female is intelligent or not, cuckoldry remains a risk.

2. Virginity, in a given social context, is an indicator of certain behavioral traits, and thus, may reflect intelligence. 

Ex;

If you have a lot of sexual partners --> indicator of emotional instability or lack of commitment --> untrustworthiness --> not an ''ideal'' skill for motherhood --> not likely to fulfill the duties that are expected of her (fidelity/loyalty/raising offsprings with X values/etc.)

In a context, certain behaviors are indicators of traits; in the same way bullying/psychopathy/etc. are related to certain personality traits, and thus, expected behavior, etc.



> Some women and some men have successfully had no sexual partners throughout their life, does this make it a realistic expectation to apply to everyone?


It can, as it has been proven to be done, and there are no 'reasonable' factors that render it ''impossible''.

It may require cultural indoctrination, and/or discipline.



> One point I already made is that when value is placed on virginity, rape absolutely does count, honour killings have occurred due to rape. Women have died because of their perceived worthlessness, which directly resulted from men placing value on something that a man took without her consent.


That is a particular context you're referring to, which is based precisely on virginity, not promiscuity.

Promiscuity, in its consensual form, is the main topic of discussion, and thus, virginity by choice is its sub-categorized point.


> Once her virginity is gone, what is she worth?
> No more than the next woman, because the 'value' had no value beyond the ego boost that the man obtained from being the first.
> 
> What makes the "better" males better?


The ''better'' males would be the byproduct of the ''arena''/evolutionary competition I've suggested.

The standards would form themselves based on the opposite sex's expectations and needs.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ubuntu said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a 'pivot point'.

Again, my point in the original point does not address "shaming" of females, it addresses why males are glorified, while females are not.

Not being glorified, does not equate being shamed.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to be confusing "compatible", with "identical".

Standard A = Blue, red, green and any other color

Standard B = Blue, red, green and purple

Standard A can fit into standard B, even though they are not identical.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The idea I've proposed is based on the typical perception.

'Outlier' cases are irrelevant.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The context does not allow for the variable to be disassociated.

The two variables are "males" and "females"; if male promiscuity = 20 points, and female promiscuity = 5 points : the utilitarian perspective would encourage male promiscuity, over female promiscuity. 

In that context itself, the variables assessed are the "genders", not individuals; thus, the data is inevitably generalized and stereotyped.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to be misunderstanding the point.

Males are expected to spend more effort, than females, when engaging in the "courting ritual".

Therefore, based on a general/typical perspective; males spend more effort.

If one values effort, and presents a hierarchical standard by which it is judged (meritocracy), then the variable associated with "_more effort_", will be more more glorified, on that basis.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In your analogy; my point stops at "_I can expect someone from Iraq to be a Muslim_".

Gender is associated with specific traits, in the form of stereotypes/expectations.

In the same way "Iraq" is associated with religious expectations/stereotypes.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gender is tied to the act.

The act is not separated from the variable it is attached to.

The judgement is based on the combination of both the variable, and the act.

Ex;

Killing an innocent individual.

VS

Killing an intruder that attempts to murder your family.

The act is killing, but the "who" and the circumstances of each individual committing the killing, can justify the "double standard".

An act has not been treated the same, due to the variable attached to it.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This point was responded to in the quotes above, in 2 segments,

1. Gender is associated to expectations/stereotypes (using your example of Iraq and Islam)

2. The act is tied to the variable, and thus, can influence its judgement (using the example of murder vs self-defense murder)



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to be making a point from an ethical stance, condemning the standard based on your value judgments.

I have presented an idea and a standard by which that "double standard" can be justified; unless you can logically invalidate it, your value judgments do not invalidate that standard.


----------

