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

[fishmonger]

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

I think it's the other way around.

 

[cardgame]

You would be correct.

Lab tests show it's actually 98% effective at stopping pregnancy, but if you study it in the practical world it's about 85% --- so if you know how to use them you can raise your chances.

 

[Hygro]

that percentage, fyi, is over the course of a whole year having regular sex.

 

[Earthling]

Let me outline some basics:
1. By nature, most women want to be provided for or at least have the extra economic security a man can provide.
2. By nature, most men want sex. Furthermore, men value sex with a non-promiscuous woman more than with a promiscuous woman, assuming they're equal in other aspects.
3. Thus, most women are best served by appearing less promiscuous to make a man stay with them, and by trying to influence other women to be less promiscuous to make the option of leaving her less desirable for a man.

If you want to challenge (1) or (2), go ahead. I'll be out watching for flying pigs. If you accept (1) and (2), but think (3) does not follow, I would like to hear why.

Regardless of whether (1) or (2) is a correct premise in real life, THIS LOGIC IS WRONG

(3) should read "try to influence other women to appear MORE promiscuous"

If men value non-promiscuous women more (2), then if it looked like all the other women were "too promiscuous," the man would want to stay with the non-promiscuous one. Influencing other women to be less promiscuous would make it MORE likely a man leaves for another women.

 

[Zardnaar]

My theory is its a leftover from the old days of patriarchal society.

You get pregnant in a premodern society with no welfare state and no man you're screwed for the most part.

 

[Agent327]

​

Yah, errr, first off, boy, that´s a metaphor.

But to answer the question, girls get "punished" by bigotry and guys that sleep around are just guys that sleep around. I wouldn´t want to be married to any of those, and I´m not a girl. So basically, people that sleep around aren´t very trustworthy, be they boy or girl. Now what people think about it is ofcourse quite another matter... (For which I care little, as I like to do my own thinking.)

 

[Brighteye]

Your comments are mostly dated, and reflect the concerns of a previous generation, or certain religious subcultures.

Maybe where you are, but not in the hordes of visiting Americans I've met here, and nor in the students who come from all over the world.

Because of the great variations in human cultures, that has been necessitated by the different environments, and the small variation in expectations of the sexes, I find it reasonable to assume that what differences in expectations that there are, are grounded in our different sexual dimorphic biologies and is the product of our evolution.

Thus, I can not find it wrong to keep these expectations, though I'll readily agree that there is a balance to be found. Having women own property, having legal rights and being independent of their male relatives is not a bad thing. And there are plenty of human societies who has been that way and thrived. There are none that have removed all differing expectations of males and females.
...And seeing as they are the same all over the world, it is logically to assume that they must have their roots in human biology, and human sexual dimorphic biology.
...the male can't know if the offspring is really his! And if not, he would be wasting his resources on raising some other males offspring. As such, a male would be evolutionary smarter to mate, stay with and provide for a non-promiscuous female, who he can be more sure won't ****old him. Regardless of whether he also impregnate other females.

Humans can overcome biology. To an extent, then, it doesn't matter if patriarchy is culturally derived or biological. It's still bad.
If a man is unsure whether a woman will ****old him, then he clearly knows he's not really good enough, and is massaging his insecurities by controlling a woman. As someone else pointed out, we can now determine paternity. For both of these reasons, any instinct to desire fidelity from a woman should be squashed, not made the centrepiece of culture.

 

[aaglo]

I agree with OP, but only when it comes to locks.

 

[Abaddon]

Yah, errr, first off, boy, that´s a metaphor.

But to answer the question, girls get "punished" by bigotry and guys that sleep around are just guys that sleep around. I wouldn´t want to be married to any of those, and I´m not a girl. So basically, people that sleep around aren´t very trustworthy, be they boy or girl. Now what people think about it is ofcourse quite another matter... (For which I care little, as I like to do my own thinking.)

I even stated it is not my opinion, merely one to drive discussion. Also, I am not a "boy" tyvm.

Also, people can change. You don't have to sleep around all your life.

 

[BCLG100]

Yah, errr, first off, boy, that´s a metaphor.

But to answer the question, girls get "punished" by bigotry and guys that sleep around are just guys that sleep around. I wouldn´t want to be married to any of those, and I´m not a girl. So basically, people that sleep around aren´t very trustworthy, be they boy or girl. Now what people think about it is ofcourse quite another matter... (For which I care little, as I like to do my own thinking.)

Yah, first off sonny, everyone worked that out awhile back, thanks for restating the obvious though.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement though 'people that sleep around aren't very trustworthy,' why so? Could it be because they're whispering the secrets of others in their lovers ears? It's equivalent to saying those that have a lot of things are generally thieves.

 

[Cheetah]

Yah, first off sonny, everyone worked that out awhile back, thanks for restating the obvious though.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement though 'people that sleep around aren't very trustworthy,' why so? Could it be because they're whispering the secrets of others in their lovers ears? It's equivalent to saying those that have a lot of things are generally thieves.

I don't think trustworthiness as such is affected or evident by whether or not a person sleeps around. There is, however, statistics showing that the more sexual partners a girl has had, the greater the chance that she will get a divorce. Supposedly that could be seen as a form of trustworthiness perhaps?

Specifically, the study looked at stable marriages (defined as having lasted at least 5 years) and found that where the woman was a virgin, the divorce rate was less than 20%, where she had 1 previous partner it was around 40% chance and with 2 previous partners it was over 50% chance of having a divorce. By 5-8 partners I think it was greater than 80% chance. Mind you, the study didn't say (or I didn't read that part) why they got divorced, or if it was the guy or the girl who initiated it (2/3 divorces are initiated by girls, IIRC).

The numbers do sound a bit initially, but considering that 50% of all US marriages ends up in divorce, I suppose it is plausible. Unfortunately, I have never seen a study on divorce linked to the number of the guy's previous sexual partners. I'd assume however, noting how men and woman are different, that one wouldn't find the same correlation.

 

[Yared]

I think it's worth mentioning that sleeping around doesn't necessarily mean cheating.

Unfortunately, I have never seen a study on divorce linked to the number of the guy's previous sexual partners. I'd assume however, noting how men and woman are different, that one wouldn't find the same correlation.

I might be completely wrong now but I think that most guys who like to sleep around are way more reluctant to be in a marriage. So I'd expect fewer divorces.

 

[Brighteye]

I don't think trustworthiness as such is affected or evident by whether or not a person sleeps around. There is, however, statistics showing that the more sexual partners a girl has had, the greater the chance that she will get a divorce. Supposedly that could be seen as a form of trustworthiness perhaps?

Specifically, the study looked at stable marriages (defined as having lasted at least 5 years) and found that where the woman was a virgin, the divorce rate was less than 20%, where she had 1 previous partner it was around 40% chance and with 2 previous partners it was over 50% chance of having a divorce. By 5-8 partners I think it was greater than 80% chance. Mind you, the study didn't say (or I didn't read that part) why they got divorced, or if it was the guy or the girl who initiated it (2/3 divorces are initiated by girls, IIRC).

The numbers do sound a bit initially, but considering that 50% of all US marriages ends up in divorce, I suppose it is plausible. Unfortunately, I have never seen a study on divorce linked to the number of the guy's previous sexual partners. I'd assume however, noting how men and woman are different, that one wouldn't find the same correlation.

It sounds interesting. However, the study doesn't allow one to conclude that a woman who has slept around is a worse marriage choice. I'm unsure whether 'partner' means a husband or someone with whom she's slept.
Either way, it could be that once a woman finds true love she's a good marriage choice, but that some women find it harder to find.
It could be that the ones who were virgins make for poor marriages, but stick with a nasty life anyway, having not known anything better, and therefore although you have a worse time, you do get fidelity. If there's a huge cultural pressure from Christian friends and family (it's the US, so I'm having a guess), then you might be just as likely to end up in an unhappy marriage but less likely to end an unhappy marriage.
Guys who look at the study knowing that they want a woman to remain faithful must bear in mind that that's all that they're getting, and that prolongation of misery isn't necessarily better.

 

[Cheetah]

I think it's worth mentioning that sleeping around doesn't necessarily mean cheating.

Of course not. For a personal anecdote, I sleep around when I'm single, but I've never cheated when I had a girlfriend.

I might be completely wrong now but I think that most guys who like to sleep around are way more reluctant to be in a marriage. So I'd expect fewer divorces.

Possibly. But wouldn't the same be true for women? If they like to sleep around they wouldn't get married either?

Or would do you think social pressure/the biological clock make them rush into marriages just to have some "security", and breaking up/divorcing when they can't handle it anymore? Wonder how the cheating-numbers would be on this dataset...

But these were "stable" marriages, i.e. had lasted 5 years. One would think people who really don't like being in a marriage would have broken it up by then.

Actually, when I think about it, I've heard a lot of the divorces initiated by women happen roughly seven years into the marriage.

It sounds interesting. However, the study doesn't allow one to conclude that a woman who has slept around is a worse marriage choice. I'm unsure whether 'partner' means a husband or someone with whom she's slept.
Either way, it could be that once a woman finds true love she's a good marriage choice, but that some women find it harder to find.
It could be that the ones who were virgins make for poor marriages, but stick with a nasty life anyway, having not known anything better, and therefore although you have a worse time, you do get fidelity. If there's a huge cultural pressure from Christian friends and family (it's the US, so I'm having a guess), then you might be just as likely to end up in an unhappy marriage but less likely to end an unhappy marriage.
Guys who look at the study knowing that they want a woman to remain faithful must bear in mind that that's all that they're getting, and that prolongation of misery isn't necessarily better.

'Partner' was any type of sexual partner IIRC, so both one-night stands and previous marriages counts I suppose.

And yeah, the study - if correct, I only think I've seen one - only indicates actual divorce numbers, and not how happy the marriages are. It could be argued that less than happy marriages would have a great chance of ending before 5 years though, so one could also interpret this as "women with more sexual partners are less willing to put effort into making their marriage work". Though again, it would be very interesting to see if the same correlation can be found among guys. And anyway, 1/3 of those divorces are initiated by the guy. Anyone have a list of "most popular reasons for divorcing", preferably by gender?

Should see if I could find this survey again...

 

[Yared]

Of course not. For a personal anecdote, I sleep around when I'm single, but I've never cheated when I had a girlfriend.

Possibly. But wouldn't the same be true for women? If they like to sleep around they wouldn't get married either?

Or would do you think social pressure/the biological clock make them rush into marriages just to have some "security", and breaking up/divorcing when they can't handle it anymore? Wonder how the cheating-numbers would be on this dataset...

But these were "stable" marriages, i.e. had lasted 5 years. One would think people who really don't like being in a marriage would have broken it up by then.

Actually, when I think about it, I've heard a lot of the divorces initiated by women happen roughly seven years into the marriage.

'Partner' was any type of sexual partner IIRC, so both one-night stands and previous marriages counts I suppose.

There's also the remote possibility that the girls who tend to have 5-8 partners are simply horrible at relationships, e.g. they rush into things, they are more superficial and end up with douchebags, etc.

Maybe they're just so used to breaking up with a guy that they have become less reluctant to do it and to fight for their relationship.

There's a lot of maybes with this

 

[Abaddon]

5-8? At what age?

 

[Lord Baal]

5-8? At what age?

I'm more concerned about whether these 5-8 partners are one-at-a-time or all-at-once.