Post: #1

http://dotheymissmeinchicago.tumblr.com/...0428221121

Post: #2

In some circles it's almost like the double standard has flipped now. Whereas female promiscuity is celebrated and recognized as being "liberated," men are constantly shamed any time their sexual drives become evident.

I'm glad I don't bother with circles.

Post: #3

As usual Bill Burr addresses the situation with his typical flair:
http://billburr.com/podcast/monday-morni...ast-1-7-13.

His girlfriend brings up slut shaming at around minute 59:00. He slaps her shit test down hard. The way he says, "Are you done?" is a lesson in and of itself.

Post: #4

(09-06-2013 02:19 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  In some circles it's almost like the double standard has flipped now. Whereas female promiscuity is celebrated and recognized as being "liberated," men are constantly shamed any time their sexual drives become evident.

I'm glad I don't bother with circles.

It goes completely against nature. Everything in that diagram in the O.P is 100% correct and a perfect way to sustain a healthy, productive population. Mass female promiscuity (alpha seeking) is probably the first thing I'd promote if I wanted a society to destroy itself.

Post: #5

But.... but.... that graph is misogynistic!

Post: #6

(09-06-2013 05:39 AM)Ensam Wrote:  As usual Bill Burr addresses the situation with his typical flair:
http://billburr.com/podcast/monday-morni...ast-1-7-13.

His girlfriend brings up slut shaming at around minute 59:00. He slaps her shit test down hard. The way he says, "Are you done?" is a lesson in and of itself.

good find

Post: #7

Excellent post. The kind that would make a feminists eyes bleed when she reads it.

Post: #8

I was always trying to articulate properly my pro slut shaming position.', your post did it perfectly. Good stuff man.

Post: #9

Not really a fan of these arguments because they are less about what actually is the case and more so about what ought to be the case.

Post: #10

(09-06-2013 02:42 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  Not really a fan of these arguments because they are less about what actually is the case and more so about what ought to be the case.

You have it backwards. These arguments are about what is the case but not what ought to be.

It's the famous "is-ought" distinction. Just because something "is" doesn't mean it "ought" to be.

Post: #11

Yes, there is a promiscuous male = player-promiscuous female = slut double standard, but there's also another double standard that no one ever seems to bring up; chaste female = highly valued-'chaste' male = loser.

...Also to the point that to fuck plenty of girls, a guy has to be adaptable, thick-skinned, skillful and attractive, and to not fuck a bunch of dudes, all a girl needs to do is learn how to say 'no', which the visual nicely covered.

Post: #12

Feminine girls I've met have even acknowledged that it is correct. The last girl I dated would say, "any half way decent girl can get sex whenever she wants. It's not the same for guys, they have to work for it."

Post: #13

(09-06-2013 03:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  You have it backwards. These arguments are about what is the case but not what ought to be.

It's the famous "is-ought" distinction. Just because something "is" doesn't mean it "ought" to be.

No. I'm not talking about that. Read it again.

Post: #14

I want to put this up on my FB and see what kind of responses it gets.


But then id have to log into FB..

Post: #15

Girls are the main drivers of the sexual "double standard", they just don't admit it.

The main reason "studs" get so much more praise than "sluts" is not just down to the difficulty associated with approaching and seducing women (we all know that any decent looking girl can get laid whenever she wants). This reality also stems from the fact that girls prefer men who are also preferred by other girls (the more, the better). This is tied to the PUA concept of pre-selection: the more you are seen to be objectively desired by other girls, the more girls you are able to attract.

What women want is a man who could get with many other girls, but eventually chooses to be with her alone (at least to her knowledge-a savvy player will often renege on this, but even a smart girl will still often make the effort to "change him" and gain his sexual exclusivity despite having no real shot at doing so).

This is the stud's biggest advantage: his ability to get lots of girls to sleep with him just gets him more appeal among the other girls he might run into. Other men praise him too because they envy all the female attention the stud gets and would love to emulate it (read: they dream of being in his position). Thus, the stud is idolized by both genders.

Sluts have things a bit differently. Men don't feel about sluts the way women do about studs. They aren't impressed by a girl's ability to attract other men (which makes sense, since so many girls have that ability-cute girls can run through men with ease if they wish). Men also want a woman who is sexually exclusive and loyal ONLY to them. This is best illustrated by the madonna-whore complex: he wants her to be madonna for everybody else, but a whore only for him, or a "lady in the streets and a freak in the bed". He wants to know that he has access to a side of her that no other man can have.

This is sort of similar to the female dynamic I mentioned above in which girls desire the exclusive focus of a stud's sexual/romantic attention. The difference really rests in the way each sex treats sexual history: for the woman, sexual promiscuity can be a signal of value and therefore a plus so long as she can tame it and make that man exclusive to her at some point (women do not value chaste men). For a man, sexual promiscuity can be a negative insofar as it can signal her potential inability to satisfy the madonna-whore complex mentioned above by giving him full sexual exclusivity (men do not value promiscuous women).

Sluts, by definition, don't tend to offer sexual exclusivity to one guy-they spread it to several. Instead of being his whore and everyone else's madonna, she is everyone else's whore and nobody's madonna. That's about as uncomfortable for a guy as the notion of losing an attractive man (stud) whose exclusive commitment she thought she had to another woman could be for a female.

So, the double standard can be summed up as follows:

A: Girls generally don't favor guys that other girls don't like. That gives studs a massive advantage over less socially-dominant men with lower partner counts, since women tend to prefer them when given a choice.

B: Guys don't want girls that a whole lot of other guys (particularly guys they could know) have been with.

Women also aggressively shame girls who are seen to have been with many other guys. Why? Competition. As I said above, women want to be able to find a stud (the man that all of the other girls want) and gain his commitment and exclusive romantic focus. Sluts (especially the cuter ones) make that more challenging by providing a very tempting sexual alternative to these men that undermines any given girl's ability to lock him down. Women want their stud for them, not other women, and the slut poses the greatest threat to that bid for exclusivity.

Some women will also use slut-shaming to help their competitive odds with women who are not sluts. As I mentioned above, men have a madonna-whore complex. They want the whore bit to be exclusive to them when it comes to any given girl, something no other man gets to see. Sluts (by virtue of their tendency get around with multiple men simultaneously or within very short periods of time) threaten that ideal, and so men tend to be more hesitant to commit to them. This includes studs, who (true to the double standard) have the same madonna whore complex as any other guy. A slut, by virtue of being a slut, undermines her chances of gaining long-term commitment from a true stud. It isn't impossible, but it is harder.

Women instinctively understand this. They know that a high-value male could be turned off by any sexual history that could be viewed as a sign that she may not be 100% sexually exclusive to him (his whore, everyone else's madonna). This is part of why they are generally not forthcoming about their sexual histories and usual underestimate their "number" when asked (and/or just getting offended by the question). This is also why it is not uncommon for a young girl to shame another young girl she has a problem/rivalry with (maybe she's prettier, or maybe she's caught the eye of a stud another girl likes, etc, etc) by attempting to paint her as a slut (or a similar term like skank, whore, etc). She'll do this either by calling her those names outright or by making up rumors about a given girl's sexual promiscuity that have no basis in reality. Among young girls this can sometimes manifest itself as serious and at times fatal bullying.

The goal of this slut shaming? Undermine the girl's social capital. If the slut-shaming is successful, she'll receive fewer offers of commitment from the most attractive men (who, as I noted, are generally more wary of sluts for anything serious) and other girls (who, as I noted above, are threatened by sluts).

Here's a website that provides a good example of how women do this:

http://thedirty.com/

The site is essentially a rumor mill. There are valid stories there, but many of the female entries (females make up the majority of the visitors, commenters and submitters) are clearly tied to sour grapes and have no real basis in reality. They are just the result of one girl attempting to undermine the social capital of another girl who threatens her ego by associating her with a gossip website and publicly attempting to slut-shame her.

Thus, as you can see, sluts are shamed and manwhores are celebrated by both men and women. When will this change?

If you've seen the show Entourage, consider this: Eric vs. Vince. Who was the more attractive guy, generally, to women?

Obviously Vince. Guys like Vince (who play the field extensively and are known by the women they approach to be players) are generally preferred to less prolific men like Eric or Turtle. Those are good guys and it isn't like they were forever single (both had girls from time to time, Turtle had Jamie Lynn Siegler and Eric married one of the prettiest females ever to appear on the show), but the balance of power when it comes to the ability to attract females clearly leans toward players like Vince. That is just a fact.

The double standard will go away when that reality goes away, and men like Eric or Turtle are considered by the average woman to be just as attractive as men like Vince despite their less promiscuous histories and lower levels of charm/game. When that happens, the celebration of the stud will end: women will obviously not be favoring the stud and men (who only worshipped studs because of how many women they could attract) will cease their praise as well. The stud will be held in no higher regard than the slut. Why desire to be a stud like Vince when you can just be Eric and be on a level playing field? At this point there'd be no more double standard.

Of course, we all know this will never happen. Why? Because women love studs and always will. Give 100 women a choice between the chance to start a sexual relationship with Vince Chase the stud (whose promiscuity is well known and whose commitment they know they are VERY unlikely to obtain beyond a superficial level) and Eric the good guy (who isn't as handsome or famous but will actually stick around) and the 80-90 of them will take their chances with Vince.

This isn't changing and, as a result, the double standard will remain with us.

Post: #16

The problem with the image in the OP is that it assumes that all sex is with the intent to reproduce.

This has not been the case for over a thousand years.

Post: #17

Athlone, you're a genius.

Post: #18

(09-06-2013 06:24 PM)Vicious Wrote:  The problem with the image in the OP is that it assumes that all sex is with the intent to reproduce.

This has not been the case for over a thousand years.

I'd disagree. Though forms of contraception have existed for centuries (longer still if you include the rhythm method), the true separation of sexual intercourse from reproduction didn't come about until the advent of the pill.
Prior to the pill even the most effective methods of birth control could give you a 25-30% risk of failure, and that was assuming you did everything right. There really wasn't much hope for sexual intercourse without incurring a significant risk of pregnancy, as even the most effective methods could leave you with a 1/4 chance of impregnation.

The pill, of course, changed all of this by providing a method that works 99% of the time if properly used. This is a new thing.

Furthermore, the availability of birth control really has little impact on our actual hardwiring. We may have had some form of birth control for many centuries, but aside from the fact that said pre-pill methods were not that effective the truth is that we've been around for much, much longer than that (200,000 years to be more precise, several hundred thousand more if you count the direct predecessors to the homo-sapien). We spent that inordinate amount of time with no understanding other than sex = reproduction because, frankly, there was no other option. Our wiring is still based on that understanding.

You do not overcome several hundred thousand years of biological programming in a millenia. You certainly don't do so in half a century, which is as long as we've had truly broken links between intercourse and reproduction (the pill).

Cultural and geographical variation must also be noted here. Modern contraception has made it possible to break the links between intercourse and reproduction, but modern contraceptives are really only available to a minority of the globe's population and not all of those with access to it make use of it. It can be reasonably inferred that earlier forms of contraception probably varied in their availability as well. Some cultures, probably due to environmental conditions, likely had a greater tolerance for larger families than others and some probably made greater use of contraception than others (I'm quite willing to bet that western Europeans were among the lower large family tolerance and greater contraceptive use side of this equation; other humans are a different story).

This reality regarding the spread of contraception combined with its lack of effectiveness prior to the middle of the 20th century would result in a fairly limited evolutionary force acting on our innate biology, which still understands that sex = reproduction. Overall this is still how humanity is generally hardwired to think, and there's not been much to force an evolutionary shift to the contrary. Again, this may be less true for western Europeans than others (my personal theory), but it still generally applies.

Post: #19

(09-06-2013 08:25 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:24 PM)Vicious Wrote:  The problem with the image in the OP is that it assumes that all sex is with the intent to reproduce.

This has not been the case for over a thousand years.

I'd disagree. Though forms of contraception have existed for centuries (longer still if you include the rhythm method), the true separation of sexual intercourse from reproduction didn't come about until the advent of the pill.
Prior to the pill even the most effective methods of birth control could give you a 25-30% risk of failure, and that was assuming you did everything right. There really wasn't much hope for sexual intercourse without incurring a significant risk of pregnancy, as even the most effective methods could leave you with a 1/4 chance of impregnation.

The pill, of course, changed all of this by providing a method that works 99% of the time if properly used. This is a new thing.

Furthermore, the availability of birth control really has little impact on our actual hardwiring. We may have had some form of birth control for many centuries, but aside from the fact that said pre-pill methods were not that effective the truth is that we've been around for much, much longer than that (200,000 years to be more precise, several hundred thousand more if you count the direct predecessors to the homo-sapien). We spent that inordinate amount of time with no understanding other than sex = reproduction because, frankly, there was no other option. Our wiring is still based on that understanding.

You do not overcome several hundred thousand years of biological programming in a millenia. You certainly don't do so in half a century, which is as long as we've had truly broken links between intercourse and reproduction (the pill).

Cultural and geographical variation must also be noted here. Modern contraception has made it possible to break the links between intercourse and reproduction, but modern contraceptives are really only available to a minority of the globe's population and not all of those with access to it make use of it. It can be reasonably inferred that earlier forms of contraception probably varied in their availability as well. Some cultures, probably due to environmental conditions, likely had a greater tolerance for larger families than others and some probably made greater use of contraception than others (I'm quite willing to bet that western Europeans were among the lower large family tolerance and greater contraceptive use side of this equation; other humans are a different story).

This reality regarding the spread of contraception combined with its lack of effectiveness prior to the middle of the 20th century would result in a fairly limited evolutionary force acting on our innate biology, which still understands that sex = reproduction. Overall this is still how humanity is generally hardwired to think, and there's not been much to force an evolutionary shift to the contrary. Again, this may be less true for western Europeans than others (my personal theory), but it still generally applies.

I'm going to side with Vicious a little bit here. Orphanages, abandonment of children, and inducing abortions isn't anything new. I've read historical accounts of women in Roman times who would figure out ways to induce an abortion, or how they would throw their babies in the trash if they didn't want them.

Also, there were cutlures like the Spartans who openly practiced infanticide.

Of course, none of these cultures exist anymore so obviously this shit doesn't work, but the idea that America is new in their 'progressive' stance towards birth control isn't true. Plenty of cultures have embraced death for their young, and all of those cultures are dead.

I think America's claim to fame is that they have made infanticide so effortless for the vast majority of women, which is definately cultural suicide on a level never before seen in history.

Post: #20

Athlone, I'm really impressed by your post here.

Another thing is, despite contraception, a womans body does not know there is contraception present here. It is like, if you have ever bungee jumped, that your body doesn't know that you have some rubber strings tied to your feet - you really do feel like you are going to hit the ground. And then, even if her body really knew the contraception was there, there is also that failure rate.

Post: #21

Even if you take reproduction out of the picture, I would say the same points remain at least on the male side. Females still want to associate with high-status men and many will choose to share a high-status man rather then be given exclusive access to a beta. Alpha males provide other benefits to females besides their genetics.

Post: #22

The evolutionary psychological aspect is definitely true.

I also look at it on a basic anatomic and hygienic level. The orifices of the human body are exponentially less clean than the extremities. Hell, since joining this forum I no longer wash my hair, use deodorant, or use soap on my entire body. But you better believe I brush, floss, and rinse with mouthwash that bacterial cesspool I call a mouth every damn day.

The vagina is no different. It's an area that requires proper and thorough maintenance or else it smells like a homeless guy sleeping in a fish market. Getting filled with dick and multiple men's semen is not exactly conducive to that end. I wipe my shit off with a wash cloth and I'm good to go. I could probably just get in the shower and let water splash on it and I'd be OK. Yet women get yeast infections just from wiping their puss in the wrong direction. Do you wipe your dick after you piss? No, you just give the little (relatively speaking, of course) bastard a shake and go about your day.

Now for uncircumcised males there's obviously slightly more work that goes into it but not nearly the same lengths of care required by the mouth or vagina.

Post: #23

(09-07-2013 12:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I'm going to side with Vicious a little bit here. Orphanages, abandonment of children, and inducing abortions isn't anything new. I've read historical accounts of women in Roman times who would figure out ways to induce an abortion, or how they would throw their babies in the trash if they didn't want them.
Also, there were cutlures like the Spartans who openly practiced infanticide.

Of course, none of these cultures exist anymore so obviously this shit doesn't work, but the idea that America is new in their 'progressive' stance towards birth control isn't true.

I'm not saying that the modern west's stance on birth control is new. I'm saying that the effectiveness of birth control is new. Sex, prior to the pill, was still linked to reproduction. The pill made it possible to actually break that link in a way that simply couldn't be done before, meaning that one could have intercourse and almost guarantee a lack of impregnation if so desired.

This point about that link is important because we're discussing human prerogatives in the mating game and how closely they're linked to an inborn drive for reproduction. I posit that this link is strong because there has been nothing else to really act on it. Sex has, for the most part in human history, been linked strongly to reproduction. That is the reality that the human body has adapted to, and modern changes to that reality are too recent and too limited to have impacted this.

Hence, I posit that it is reasonable to operate under the general assumption that the desire for sexual intercourse is driven by base reproductive instinct, as the diagram in the OP does. Vicious disagrees with the OP's close and consistent referencing of the reproductive instinct in describing human mating behavior since not all sex is intended for reproduction, but I think that this referencing is justified for reasons mentioned above (our hardwiring is focused on breeding).

Quote:Plenty of cultures have embraced death for their young, and all of those cultures are dead.

Nothing to disagree with there.

Post: #24

Yeah, the intentions of why we have sex probably aren't conscious but are geared with the outcome of producing children. Otherwise there wouldn't be billions of us.

Post: #25

OP and Athlone, top posts! I'm interested in your views about what's going on with slut-walks and all the go-grrrrl sexuality we see nowadays. How do they feed into a woman's desire to capture a man by appearing to be (relatively) chaste?