Why can Guys sleep around, but girls get punished? Here's why..

[Shadylookin]

In my experience the first person to label a woman a slut is generally another woman. The label doesn't really seem to stop them from finding new men either.

 

[Ekolite]

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.

I don't consider it to be neccessarily immoral in itself, but in the cases that it leads to otherwise unneccessary abortions, and/or the spread of nasty diseases I do. This is usually due to carelessness or being too drunk to bother with a condom. I've just finished college and so I know of plenty of examples where this kind of thing has happened. One girl I know has had 2 abortions and a miscarriage (also accidental and unwanted) in the past 2 years. Use of contraception prevents this, but the best preventative is not to sleep around in my opinion.

 

[warpus]

This all makes sense in the context of sexual economics.

Here's an article I wrote about this for Newsweek once*:

The question of why promiscuous girls are considered sluts while their male counterparts get exactly the opposite treatment is best answered through the lens of sexual economics.

Sexual access to a human female has a lot of economic worth. Compared to sexual access to a male, it is far more valuable.

This is because men will screw pretty much anything. Anything disgusting you can think of that has a hole in it has been screwed before at some point in history, by a human male. Because of this, sexual access to a man has NEGATIVE economic worth.

Sexual access to a female has positive worth, for two reasons. One, there is always a risk of pregnancy. It might be almost nonexistent if she's careful, but it is always there. And two, there are always large groups of horny men wandering the streets. This increases the worth of sexual access to a female to highly positive levels.

When a male is able to secure sexual access to many females, he is applauded for turning something with negative worth into something with impressive levels of positive worth. This will be admired no matter what the situation; he made a good INVESTMENT.

A female who "sleeps around", on the other hand, is taking something that is valued highly, and disposing of it far too easily. It doesn't make economic sense; it's a bad investment.

So, you see, this is not a simple case of sexism. Sexual economics are at play here!

-Warpus

* it did not get published

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

It can lead to an increase in blahdy-blahdy-blah, it does not cause blahdy-blahdy-blah. One may as well declare eating immoral because it causes choking.

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.

Gender essentialism makes Traitorfish . Unseen tyrants are as toxic as the obvious, prescriptive behaviour as much a usurper as any Tsar, Kaiser or King you can point to.

Fascinating. And what do you call the standards men must live up to?

For the majority, chains. For the few, chains with a spiked ball attached, clubbing of the majority, for purposes of.

Patriarchy, as they say, hurts men too.

 

[warpus]

Holy crap Cheetah, where are you from? That is some sexist genderrole bullcrap

 

[Earthling]

That's an attitude typical of just somewhere in the US apart from large cities or a few exceptionally liberal states. Probably a majority of people I'd see everyday would strongly agree with almost all of that.

For the OP's question, I generally frown upon both men and women being overly promiscuous, and as others have said it's really only certain other subgroups of guys who will "congratulate" guys for such behavior.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

yet it remains part of the social psyche due almost entirely to religion keeping it going.

What religion approves promiscuity for men and not for women?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Narz]

It's evolutionary explained really.

BTW, why all the hating on Cheetah, he's just expressing his opinion/preference?

 

[civver_764]

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.

Use a condom.

And I don't see how harming yourself is immoral.

 

[cardgame]

This all makes sense in the context of sexual economics.

Here's an article I wrote about this for Newsweek once*:

The question of why promiscuous girls are considered sluts while their male counterparts get exactly the opposite treatment is best answered through the lens of sexual economics.

Sexual access to a human female has a lot of economic worth. Compared to sexual access to a male, it is far more valuable.

This is because men will screw pretty much anything. Anything disgusting you can think of that has a hole in it has been screwed before at some point in history, by a human male. Because of this, sexual access to a man has NEGATIVE economic worth.

Sexual access to a female has positive worth, for two reasons. One, there is always a risk of pregnancy. It might be almost nonexistent if she's careful, but it is always there. And two, there are always large groups of horny men wandering the streets. This increases the worth of sexual access to a female to highly positive levels.

When a male is able to secure sexual access to many females, he is applauded for turning something with negative worth into something with impressive levels of positive worth. This will be admired no matter what the situation; he made a good INVESTMENT.

A female who "sleeps around", on the other hand, is taking something that is valued highly, and disposing of it far too easily. It doesn't make economic sense; it's a bad investment.

So, you see, this is not a simple case of sexism. Sexual economics are at play here!

-Warpus

* it did not get published

that was fun reading

 

[classical_hero]

Use a condom and pills. Problem solved.

Not quite. People still have gotten pregnant while wearing a condom, so since sperm is bigger than a virus, so you can still get diseases even if you use a condom. Sure the chances are lower than without, it is not full proof.

 

[Shadylookin]

Not quite. People still have gotten pregnant while wearing a condom, so since sperm is bigger than a virus, so you can still get diseases even if you use a condom. Sure the chances are lower than without, it is not full proof.

Not really a good enough reason to not do something you enjoy. You could get hit by a meteorite and die going outside but you're still going to go outside right?

 

[Zelig]

If you do not want to get pregnant, do not have sex, it is your choice. You could wear a condom, it is not a full proof solution[...]

They do not prevent STDs. If women can get pregnant while having sex with someone using a condom, then so you can also get STDs. Really the only prevention from getting STDs is by making sure that the person you are having sex with is clean, and perhaps the best method is waiting until you are married and both are virgins.

Well if you are going to preach the virtue of a condom, you have to also tell that they are not always effective and that people have gotten pregnant while still using protection, s if that can happen and considering that viruses are smaller than sperm, that you can still get diseases even if you use a condom. Sure it does help. but it is not 100% effective.

Not quite. People still have gotten pregnant while wearing a condom, so since sperm is bigger than a virus, so you can still get diseases even if you use a condom. Sure the chances are lower than without, it is not full proof.

We get it, condoms are full of holes that are bigger than any of the things they supposedly guard against.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I recall reading once that not only was HPV not stopped by condoms, the rate of infection even increased slightly. (Semen does contain some immune cells that are larger than the virus and could have more difficulty passing though pores in the material, so this is possible.) Of course, there is a highly effective vaccine against that now. I'm unaware of any other STD which are more communicable with condoms, but there are several other viruses that it does not do much to stop.

 

[classical_hero]

We get it, condoms are full of holes that are bigger than any of the things they supposedly guard against.

Of course they are.


The problem is that they are designed to be flimsy so that you can get the most amount of pleasure out of them, so naturally there is a chance of them not working properly. The main point is that there are still risks while having sex with a condom, so know the risks that you are going to take. When I am married, I know that not every time I have sex with my wife, that I want her to get pregnant, so I will use a condom to minimise the chances of her getting pregnant, until we want to have a child.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

IIRC, condoms have a >99% chance of preventing pregnancy while only about an 85% chance of stopping an STD infection.

 

[Yared]

Because teenage boys are horny bastards. So when someone manages to score several girls, he's hailed.

Girls, however, are expected to be like Cheetah wrote:

Women should talk, act, dress and behave like women. And of course: Not being promiscuous.

I think some guy wrote a few pages back why.

Of course they are.
<snip>

The problem is that they are designed to be flimsy so that you can get the most amount of pleasure out of them, so naturally there is a chance of them not working properly. The main point is that there are still risks while having sex with a condom, so know the risks that you are going to take. When I am married, I know that not every time I have sex with my wife, that I want her to get pregnant, so I will use a condom to minimise the chances of her getting pregnant, until we want to have a child.

I think you're exaggerating the fail rate.

Try not to get any air-bubbles inside and not store them in places that can get hot, eg your wallet.

 

[classical_hero]

So saying they can fail, is exaggerating the fail rate?

 

[Ekolite]

Use a condom.

And I don't see how harming yourself is immoral.

I don't consider it to be neccessarily immoral in itself, but in the cases that it leads to otherwise unneccessary abortions, and/or the spread of nasty diseases I do. This is usually due to carelessness or being too drunk to bother with a condom. I've just finished college and so I know of plenty of examples where this kind of thing has happened. One girl I know has had 2 abortions and a miscarriage (also accidental and unwanted) in the past 2 years. Use of contraception prevents this, but the best preventative is not to sleep around in my opinion.

And to say that only yourself is harmed is laughable. If you're sleeping around, particularly if you have multiple sexual partners at one time, you can spread diseases at an alarming rate. Condoms are not 100% effective, or used by all people 100% of the time. If you pick something up you're unlikely to know straight away as many such as Chlamydia are asymptomatic, this disease could easily be HIV (particularly if you're gay or live in a third world country), annd you are then putting at risk any subsequent partners, and all their subsequent partners before you find out that you have the disease and presumably stop sleeping around.

 

[Lord Baal]

Congrats on the little one!

Thanks! I hope you're talking about my baby here.

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.

I've been there. It's frustrating, yet satisfying.

Congrats on the baby.

Thanks!

Could you expand on why you think you were "wasting your time" and why one great girl is better than several girls?

"Several" isn't really a problem. 'Many' is. Nothing wrong with having sex because it's fun. It's having sex to keep a scorecard that I have a problem with. But if you find sex fun you're better off finding one or two people you enjoy having it with - believe me, being with the same girl for several months results in much better sex than being with a different girl every week - and doing it with them regularly. I could have had far more enjoyable sex with a few girls regularly in my life as opposed to having more sex that was less pleasurable with lots of women. Quality over quantity, even if one ignores the moral and health problems.

Use a condom and pills. Problem solved.

I used both 9 months ago. Look where I'm at now.

This all makes sense in the context of sexual economics.

Here's an article I wrote about this for Newsweek once*:

The question of why promiscuous girls are considered sluts while their male counterparts get exactly the opposite treatment is best answered through the lens of sexual economics.

Sexual access to a human female has a lot of economic worth. Compared to sexual access to a male, it is far more valuable.

This is because men will screw pretty much anything. Anything disgusting you can think of that has a hole in it has been screwed before at some point in history, by a human male. Because of this, sexual access to a man has NEGATIVE economic worth.

Sexual access to a female has positive worth, for two reasons. One, there is always a risk of pregnancy. It might be almost nonexistent if she's careful, but it is always there. And two, there are always large groups of horny men wandering the streets. This increases the worth of sexual access to a female to highly positive levels.

When a male is able to secure sexual access to many females, he is applauded for turning something with negative worth into something with impressive levels of positive worth. This will be admired no matter what the situation; he made a good INVESTMENT.

A female who "sleeps around", on the other hand, is taking something that is valued highly, and disposing of it far too easily. It doesn't make economic sense; it's a bad investment.

So, you see, this is not a simple case of sexism. Sexual economics are at play here!

-Warpus

* it did not get published

Should have won the Pulitzer. Great post.

We get it, condoms are full of holes that are bigger than any of the things they supposedly guard against.

Well, obviously. How else would you fit in it?