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

[Yared]

Of course condoms are the work of the Devil.

@HK, surely I can corrupt someone who is young enough.

No wonder you're so critical.

 

[Traitorfish]

And for some reason, we've been going from being a limited specie of simian descendants in Eastern Africa, to dominating this world and colonising almost every single creek of this globe, using precisely those rules.

Just as people, during our exodus from Africa and beyond, have tried to eat anything that they came over and kept with what was good and useful, tried to tame any beast they encountered and bred those that had potential to even better stock, and developing so many different languages, traditions and cultures do better fit with their environment, don't you find it interesting that those standards I posted seem to hold in almost all cultures and times?

Well, firstly, the rules are not nearly as strict as we like to think; European Christian culture simply holds to a particularly straight-laced form of the gender binary, one which is not universally echoed- some societies traditionally recognise third gendered, bi-gendered, transgendered or androgynous people, while others are gynofocal (albeit rarely, if ever, matriarchal). European (and European-derived) culture, you see, is in no way the base template for human society, simply a single, rather dull manifestation. The rather hateful little binary you prescribe is certainly a recurring feature, yes, but it is not the absolute which you suggest, either in terms of potential nor in actuality.
Secondly, since when was traditional precedent equivalent to absolute legitimacy? Traditional precedent would maintain despotism, aristocracy, slavery, and all manner of oppressive practices which, quite rightly, we now abhor. Why are the visible tyrannies of barbarity to be so openly scorned, but the invisible ones stubbornly retained?
And, finally, why are you so ready to deny the individual in favour of the collective? Why do you scorn individual fulfilment in favour of what is, essentially, a caste system based on what goolies you happen to have been born with? If the Enlightenment gave us one thing, it was the firm knowledge that the individual matters, and that society exists as a collective of individuals. Why so quick to forget this now that you find yourself in a position of social privilege?

The power dynamic is right there! Men would rather marry a "Madonna" than a "Whore" as you put it, but the great majority of men are more than happy with getting the sex from the "Whore" without having to marry her. As such, they are less likely to marry the "Madonna". Which is a problem for the "Madonna", who would then have to "lower herself" to the standards of the "Whore" to have proper chances in the mating game.

The opposite reaction is of course "good men" who dislike the "bad boys/cads/jocks/whatever". "Good men" do what they can to get an education, get a good job, be good citisens and a good potential mate. When "bad boys" who sell drugs, sleep around, don't do anything productive for society and generally being annoying, gets the girls, the "good men" are of course naturally upset. And it used to be that "bad boys" were kept in check by the threat from fathers, brothers, neighbours and society.

Now we're apparently too civilised to do anything like that. And I suppose you prefer the current situation and see no problems with it. The slut-shaming is still there, but with some more effort we can "civilise-away" that part too. That's surely gonna be a huge improvement for society and civilisation.

And being Alpha in the mating game isn't the same as being Alpha leader among men. The two are correlated, but not by causation.

When I said he's missing the dynamic, I meant that he failed to recognise it; it was, of course, painfully blatant. You're also right that the greater presence of sex in modern society means that women are often expected to adopt traditional Whorish behaviour, but they are still, as the example reflects, expected to maintain a properly Madonnaish detachment. It doesn't challenge the basic problem that the legitimate sexual agency of women is still denied, and full sexual agency denigrated as "slutty" should it appear.

The "Nice guy/Jerk" thing really isn't equivalent to the Maddona/Whore dynamic, because it describes, to an extent, the application of the Alpha/Beta dynamic to male-female relationships, rather than the dynamic itself, specifically, how Alphas and Betas, respectively, are expected to obtain the Madonna (and, in the short term, the Whore). The Alpha/Beta and Madonna/Whore dynamics are within each gender, rather than between genders. (It should also be noted that the Alpha/Beta dynamic is rather less strictly determined than the Madonna/Whore dynamic, so the Nice guy/Jerk dichotomy really isn't as binary as it is made to appear.)

Also, the Alpha/Beta dynamic does not merely refer to the "mating game", but to society in general. It's just that the Madonna/Whore dynamic reduces women to the pure sexually, and so the Alpha/Beta dynamic is only able to parallel them in that regard. It should also be noted that, in this context, it's used to refer to a specific gender-based in-group/out-group dynamic, rather than a more specific dominance/subservience relationship between individuals (although that is obviously one of it's manifestations).

I kinda see your point about it being a bit of a stupid description. But if I were to try and make a definition, it would probably be something like:

Dressing somewhat unfashionably, in clothing, often minimal or tight-fitting, that promote, to a relatively extreme degree, female sexual dimorphic attributes such as breasts, ass and other parts of the female body that are attractive to males. Usually combined with what the surrounding society would label as too much makeup to, again, promoting female sexual dimorphic facial features.

One dresses like a slut if one dress in a way that is much more attractive to basic male desires than what is common for girls to do in the society.

Good enough answer, or do you have any corrections or addendum?

The problem with this is that it conflates any female assertion of sexuality as sexual promiscuity and, society being what it is, uses this as a basis of moral condemnation. You're making the leap from "revealing clothing" to "lacking proper womanly morals", which, again, denies women legitimate sexual agency. It's back to the old notion that sex is something men do, and that women experience, and that any woman who plays an active role in intercourse (or, indeed, a man who plays a passive one) is acting against their proper gender type.

Good thing then that only an unnoticeable few men actually hate, dislike or mistrust women.

"Misogyny" is properly understood as contempt, rather than hate, which is merely a manifestation of contempt, and referring to sexually active women as "sluts" most certainly constitutes contempt. That's not to say that any given usage represents a misogynistic speaker, but it certainly represents misogynistic activity, and a speaker who is insufficiently aware of this fact.

Do you live in 1910 or 2010? Men no longer hold a priviledged status over women.

In terms of formal legal privilege? True enough, despite the complaints of so many men. In terms of social privilege? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

(yes, I know I'm generalizing, Europe is a large place with very diverse groups of people, beliefs, and approaches to sexuality.. much more like in north america)

Now I am satisfied

 

[Lord Baal]

That is a good argument.

But tell me, if you could, would you wish you had never had sex with those other girls, and only with the long-term relationship girls?

That's a tough one. I certainly wish I hadn't had sex with as many of them as I did, but if I hadn't had sex with at least some of them I mightn't have realised what I was missing. I more regret not sticking with the "long-term" girls longer than I do having sex with the "short-term" girls.

I could almost be tempted to say "though luck", but from the little I can gather it seems that you're both happy about the end result.

I'm laughing on the outside. Crying on the inside.

They are bad because you can't dictate what a person should or shouldn't do based on their gender. "Oh, you're a woman, you shouldn't wear pants, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich" is pretty outdated form of thinking...

It's working prety well for me....

 

[Drewcifer]

Most people I know understand that women enjoy sex as much as men do and that it is common for both men and women to have multiple partners if they are not in a commited relationship. Usually when I have heard the word slut used it is in a funny teasing way.

Some of the opinions voiced here seem rather puritanical to me. The premise of this thread is not something I have experienced in real life since the 80's. That said I live in a bit of bubble, maybe I should get out more and see what the rest of the world is like.

 

[Hygro]

That's kind of true, Drewcifer, now that you mention it.

 

[Brighteye]

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

The outdated attitude to female sexuality is not solely religious. It's a central feature of our culture which would remain were we to eliminate religions entirely. The religious people are as unpleasant about it as others. It's merely that other people have no justification for disapproving of sluts, whereas religious people have the questionable assertions of their doctrine.

I find myself wishing that it would be just as socially acceptable for a woman to pursue me as I can them

Women hate this. When they do it they feel bad, and do it in the hope (typically) of eliciting chasing behaviour from the man, at which point, having kick-started the process, they can settle into the game they know best.
This I say from personal experience and from very frank discussions with a number of women about it.

That entirely misses the power dynamic behind the whole thing; the reason that women are more openly slut-shamey is because it's a major part of attaining Madonna status, which is necessarily defined in opposition to Whore status, which is necessary to retain the privileges endowed by the "benevolent sexism", as it is known, of patriarchal society. Your own experience is an example of this- women actively denying their sexuality so as to maintain Madonna status and the favour of men (as a society-wide collective). Men don't need to engage so actively in slut-shaming because they already hold a position of privilege over women, and have no collective interest in ensuring the privilege of some women over others; they merely need to define and rewards Madonna status, and let women duke it out for themselves. Instead, their interest is in affirming their status as men, which demands the blanket marginalisation of all women, whores and Madonnas alike, and as Alphas, which demands the marginalisation of other men.

I'd say something like "[/feminist rambling]", but, dammit, this thread needs a bit more of that!

Add to this that part of being a (pri)madonna is condemning sluts. Silence, as in so many walks of life, is taken to be approval or desire. So one must condemn or be condemned.

I really don't understand the concept of "dressing like a slut", common as it is.

Nor do I. Prostitutes dress in a way that men find appealing. When it comes to women, what men find appealing defines beauty. So a woman who does not choose clothes or make-up that are 'sluttish' is choosing to be ugly!
Of course, those who believe in the definition would distinguish between beauty and sexual appeal. Beauty involves the visual suggestion of reserve, reticence, passivity and all those other attributes that sexist want women to have.
But it's not just religion, or just men. I've discussed this at length with a number of women (via a friend who's a women's studies student) and they feel that this distinction is an integral part of womanhood. I really believe that if they had been brought up in a society mercifully free of such sexism, the women would have created it!

Yup. Women instinctively want great guys to stay with them, and they know that "free" sex offered from other women makes it more difficult for them to keep an attractive guy. Thus, shaming other women to not give away sex easily is a way of increasing their own chances of keeping an attractive, great guy.

The power dynamic is right there! Men would rather marry a "Madonna" than a "Whore" as you put it, but the great majority of men are more than happy with getting the sex from the "Whore" without having to marry her. As such, they are less likely to marry the "Madonna".

Only men are not less likely to marry a 'madonna' after sex with a 'whore'. They are much more able to separate sex from emotion, and many men cheat, but of these a vast majority really would prefer to be with their wives. The 'madonna' does not lose her man entirely if 'whores' exist: she just loses complete control of his sexual life. Even if the man remains faithful, the easy access that surrounds him puts pressure on her.

"Misogyny" is properly understood as contempt, rather than hate, which is merely a manifestation of contempt, and referring to sexually active women as "sluts" most certainly constitutes contempt. That's not to say that any given usage represents a misogynistic speaker, but it certainly represents misogynistic activity, and a speaker who is insufficiently aware of this fact.

And a lot of the time the speaker is a woman. I have known a great many female feminists (self-professed, rather than identified by an exam on gender theory) who support the rights of women because that frees them from sexual pressures, and who dislike promiscuous women because they're setting a bad example and undoing the 'good' work the feminists are hoping to achieve.
That is, there seems to be a big branch of feminism which aims to make all women into 'madonnas' rather than destroying the concept entirely.

 

[Rhymes]

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.

Anyways about 80% of canadian have hpv so it's passed the point where we should actually care. Now it's: either stop having sex completely, or accept that you are going to get hpv one day or the other.
HPV isn't that bad, except the few types that may cause cancer in women.

 

[Arwon]

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.


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.

I'm not sure why there needed to be 4 pages of posts after this.

 

[warpus]

Well, that's kind of how our society is structured guys.. Men chase after women. Sure, there are exceptions, but that's kind of the dynamic..

 

[Yared]

No. There are hot guys out there too, whom girls hit on.

 

[warpus]

No. There are hot guys out there too, whom girls hit on.

That's how the guys chase women, by being hot and aloof! They chase girls by setting traps and reeling the girls in, don't you know how this works?

 

[Brighteye]

But girls won't chase, or ask out. A girl's idea of hitting on a man is starting a conversation with him in order to provoke him to ask her out.
It's a very rare woman who goes any further: 'it just feels wrong'. Which of course is how it will feel if society frowns apon it, men call it unattractive and you get a bad reputation for doing it.

 

[warpus]

Some women will ask a guy out, but you are right, the accepted dynamic is that the guy makes the first move..

 

[Traitorfish]

Add to this that part of being a (pri)madonna is condemning sluts. Silence, as in so many walks of life, is taken to be approval or desire. So one must condemn or be condemned.

Very true- in both the Alpha/Beta and Madonna/Whore dynamics, membership of the favoured group must be constantly reaffirmed in opposition to others, which means the constant assertion of power other anther (although, in the M/W case, this power is gained indirectly, through men).

Nor do I. Prostitutes dress in a way that men find appealing. When it comes to women, what men find appealing defines beauty. So a woman who does not choose clothes or make-up that are 'sluttish' is choosing to be ugly!
Of course, those who believe in the definition would distinguish between beauty and sexual appeal. Beauty involves the visual suggestion of reserve, reticence, passivity and all those other attributes that sexist want women to have.
But it's not just religion, or just men. I've discussed this at length with a number of women (via a friend who's a women's studies student) and they feel that this distinction is an integral part of womanhood. I really believe that if they had been brought up in a society mercifully free of such sexism, the women would have created it!

An interesting point. There's certainly a discussion to be had about this issue, but it may just suffice here if we agree that women (hell, people) should not be obliged to adhere to standards of appearance which they do not find fulfilling, in whatever direction).

And a lot of the time the speaker is a woman. I have known a great many female feminists (self-professed, rather than identified by an exam on gender theory) who support the rights of women because that frees them from sexual pressures, and who dislike promiscuous women because they're setting a bad example and undoing the 'good' work the feminists are hoping to achieve.
That is, there seems to be a big branch of feminism which aims to make all women into 'madonnas' rather than destroying the concept entirely.

True enough- when the dichotomy has been so deeply internalised- and for women, this is far more the case than men- it can sometimes be hard for people to break out of it, which is why it so important to publicly recognise this sort of thing, so we don't just default to it. Thank god for sex-positives and the Third Wave, that's all I can say.

But girls won't chase, or ask out. A girl's idea of hitting on a man is starting a conversation with him in order to provoke him to ask her out.
It's a very rare woman who goes any further: 'it just feels wrong'. Which of course is how it will feel if society frowns apon it, men call it unattractive and you get a bad reputation for doing it.

Additionally, because the active role is the traditionally masculine one, many men find being pursued in this manner as emasculating, and so that kind of female assertiveness is far more likely to meet a negative reaction than the corresponding male assertiveness. In terms of social prescriptions, that may even be a large factor, given how deeply invested so many men are in both their privilege over women, and the public image of masculinity which affirms Alpha status. While playing the active role is seen as inappropriately masculine for a woman, playing the passive is seen as inappropriately feminine for a woman, and men are more self-policing and quicker punish in regards to that behaviour (especially given that, these days, many people will at least theoretically support women adopting a degree of "masculine" behaviour- masculinity is traditionally power, so female masculinity is empowering, which is dimly understood to be desirable- while the male adoption of "feminine" behaviour is seen as necessarily dis-empowering).

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Very true- in both the Alpha/Beta and Madonna/Whore dynamics, membership of the favoured group must be constantly reaffirmed in opposition to others, which means the constant assertion of power other anther (although, in the M/W case, this power is gained indirectly, through men).

You sound like an academic from a Women's Studies department.

 

[Arwon]

You mean he sounds like someone who actually studies and understands this stuff in some sort of depth? Well how about that.

 

[Lord Baal]

You mean he sounds like someone who actually studies and understands this stuff in some sort of depth? Well how about that.

If he understands women, he's a witch.

 

[Arwon]

No, if he floats after being thrown into a pond, he's a witch.

Duh.

 

[Lord Baal]

No, if he floats after being thrown into a pond, he's a witch.

Duh.

Understanding women requires far more supernatural powers. He's either a witch or Bill Murray.