It is the truth, that's why.
Not really, but what exactly are we meant to be discussing? It does not seem to be much of a discussion to be had.
Maybe there will be discussion if there comes an opposing opinion...
Anyways: Watch out! Double-standards coming through!
Or more like two standards. I have one standard I judge women by, and one standard I judge men by. In brief:
Women:
I think women should be feminine. That means gentle, kind, soft spoken, "girly" and nurturing. I think women should do what they can to look as good as possible (within reason: I'm not arguing that everyone should get plastic surgery, etc.). Smiling, having long hair and wearing dresses, skirts and high heels more often is good. Women should try to avoid swearing, and not binge drink or get into fights. Women should talk, act, dress and behave like women. And of course: Not being promiscuous.
Men:
Likewise, I think men should be masculine. That means being assertive, responsible, selfless, honourable, courageous and strong. Men should talk, act, dress and behave like men. Men should provide for and protect their wife/girlfriend and family. I did say women should avoid swearing, but I think that goes for men too when it would be in bad manners to do so. Men should be willing to lead. And men should give up their seat in a life boat on the Titanic to a woman or child.
Of course, there are overlaps. It's not like I will fault a woman for being responsible or courageous, or fault a man for being nurturing, but I demand it more of one sex as less of the other. Furthermore, there are many thing I consider important for both sexes. For both I think people should put effort into looking their best of course. Not dressing properly, having a bad hygiene, eating badly, lacking manners and generally not taking care of oneself is bad. I think both men and women should be intelligent, understanding, loving and respectful. Both should be good role models and take care of their children.
So, having briefly tried to state the standards I hold for men and women, I have some comments to previous posts as well:
There are multiple double standards regarding the sexes, this is one of them.
Another one is, men are not allowed to hug and kiss unrelated men without being called gay but its totally not lesbian for a woman to hug or kiss a good friend.
Well, to be fair, depending on the situation, in several cultures men also hug and/or kiss on the cheek when greeting each other or celebrating a victory, etc.
But of course, I see what you mean. If I see men acting like women, I would find it strange, and probably assume that they were homosexual. But then again, most homosexual men are just like other men. So I guess it would be one thing if there was two homosexual men out on a date or something, and a completely different thing if two men were acting like women just because. Yeah, I probably wouldn't like the men of the last example.
I always wondered.... how do guys other than me view a hot bisexual/lesbian chick that manages to get a lot of hot girls? <derogatory term> because she sleeps around or <respect> because she pulls a lot of hot girls?
Err... competition?
If she's hot and bisexual I might give it a shot of course, but other than that I suppose I wouldn't care much one way or the other. Would probably be a bit jealous if she is better than me in picking up girls of course.
You consider a girl who sleeps around a "perfect" girlfriend material?
If a guy does a different girl every week, he's a prick, not a legend.
This. I have no more respect for guys who sleep around than for women who do.
amadeus' 2AM corollary: the guys that think guys that sleep with different girls every week are legends are also pricks. I don't want to reward aspiring douchebags too.
Why?
Personally, I don't consider anyone who sleeps around as a "legend", but if he gets a lot of hot girls then of course I'd be jealous. And yeah, it would be great to be a guy who is that good at picking up girls.
But I really would like to know
why you think guys who sleep with lots of girls are pricks? Also, since you label such guys as 'pricks', would you tell me how you label girls who sleep around?
Why is there a double standard? Because society is extremely sexist on the issue. I'd imagine it comes from treating women as property for thousands of years, coupled with some genetic underpinnings. The only way to be absolutely sure a child is fathered by a given man he must be the only person sleeping with the child's mother. Thus to ensure ones genes are spread, men seek to exert complete control over women's sexual activity. One easy way of doing so is a social stigma against loose women.
It was probably a stabilizing factor on society long ago as it would prevent fights over paternity, inheritance and such. Nowadays any positive function it may have had is long outdated yet it remains part of the social psyche due almost entirely to religion keeping it going.
Well, it can be argued that people who sleep around are more likely to cheat when they're in a relationship. And very few men want to be ****olded. Thus, the standard is that sluts are not desired as girlfriend-material.
The whole key/lock analogy seems to draw on the old belief that sex is something which men achieve, and which women are subjected to, which is... Less than progressive, for either side.
So, no, not on board.
Sex
is something that most men must strive to achieve! On the other hand, most women can get sex anytime and anywhere they want (of course, not necessarily
with anyone though). Are you really disagreeing with this fact??
Heavily gender-normative, heteronormative, passive and above all compliant girls are "perfect". The dissenters, not so much.
Would you call that a pedestal? I'd call it chains.
Fascinating. And what do you call the standards men must live up to?
This is yet another topic where I seem to live in some alternative dimension.
Sure, I've heard about the stereotype, but I don't remember ever having heard it used in real life.
Some people sleep around, other don't. That is all.
I would argue that there are quite a few men who are less interested in getting into a relationship with a woman who sleeps around though.
I find myself wishing that it would be just as socially acceptable for a woman to persue me as I can them
but then again with a 30-0 Asked out/acceptance record its getting hard to care
It could make it easier of course. But that would depend on you being in the top tier of desirable men in the location. How many of those 30 girls were fat or otherwise ugly?
I love that phrase.
I think it's quite ingrained to judge that way. Though the numbers regarding men/women sleeping around and how judgemental society seems to get seems to be closing somewhat (i.e. Womens rising, mens falling).
Why do you think the mens' are falling?
Don't get me wrong I love women but everyone knows you have to test drive before you buy.
Of course. But if the car has been driven too much you would be more interested in buying another one.
I used to be one of "those" guys who did his best to nail a different girl every week. Fortunately, I grew up, realised I was just wasting my damn time, and started doing productive things. Like reading and failing miserably at learning the harmonica. I got even luckier and started seeing the girl of my dreams, culminating in having a baby with her last Tuesday. Trust me guys, you're better off finding one great girl to spend your life with than five thousand skanks to spend the night with.
All that said, the OP still made me laugh.
Congrats on the baby.
Could you expand on why you think you were "wasting your time" and why one great girl is better than several girls?
I don't see anything wrong with sleeping around, guy or girl. As long as it isn't rape or anything, why not?
I do to some extent. I do consider women who sleep around as cheap and less valuable as girlfriend material. But unless they would ever have a want to have me (or anyone else who think like me) as a boyfriend that isn't exactly a concern. So except for that part, there is no real problem with sleeping around.
Well it spreads diseases which can lead to infertility, among other things, it contributes to the spread of HIV/AIDS (particularly in third world countries), and it causes unwanted pregnancies which lead to otherwise unneccessary abortions.
And for these reasons it's immoral.
Huh? Waitwaitwait. If an activity may spread diseases and can cause unwanted pregnancies, it is immoral?
Then gathering in large crowds or traveling to far away places and interacting with the locals is immoral because it may spread diseases, and even married couples should only have sex when they want a kid, as it can otherwise lead to unwanted pregnancies and would thus be immoral??
I think your standard for what constitutes an immoral activity is a bit low.
