Ask Your Question today
Girls are always being called sluts for having sex with guys and guys get praised for it. Is it normal that I flip out because guys don't get called sluts?
Every single time a man sleeps with a lot of women, he’s called a stud. But if a woman sleeps with a lot of men, she’s called a slut, and people think this is unfair…
Nah. It’s completely fair, and I’ll tell you why, alright? Because it’s fucking easy to be a slut. It’s fucking hard to be a stud. To be a stud you have to be witty, charming, be well-dressed, have nice shoes, and a fake job. To be a slut you just have to be there.
(c) Jim Jefferies
Basically what I said...But I like how you didn't get the typical response I get for saying the same thing. Just goes to show, right? Lol.
And the second you commented on my post, it gets the first thumb down.
Amazing. There's not a lot you can do about your reputation, I guess.
Cause it's Jim Jeffries, the most lovable cunt of all time!
You're only the second most lovable cunt.
it's fucking bullshit. i personally love girls who are confident and slutty as fuck
Yes everybody should be treated as equal..reguardless of their sex! But the way things are in today's society, women always take the beating because of there sexual desires. If a woman has sex with more then one person she's considered a slut, which is sad!...but if a man has sex with more then one woman..? Yeah that's right..nothing is said of it! Theres no reason anything should be said about anybody for there sexual desires!
Well, the definition of "slut" is a woman that has sex with numerous people, so I don't see the negative about that label, but meh.
That said, a lot of people don't understand why this exists and it isn't a "double standard" because both genders don't work by the same standards in order to reach the conclusion which is to sleep with numerous people.
For a woman to gain sex she merely has to ask a few people and atleast half will accept on the requiest alone.
For a man to gain sex he has to have something of value or skill. A man will only be able to gain frequent female sex partners if he has achieved something famous (status) or skilled some form of attraction, such as charm and so on.
A woman gaining sex is easy, cheap, doesn't require anything. A man has to charm or have achieved some sort of status, so it takes more effort for a man to gain sex.
When something is easy and cheap to get and that is how they gain something, by having things handed to them, it's nothing great of an achievement, it's like handouts, something people wouldn't really respect someone for.
A man that gains a lot of partners is able to achieve something through the work required to gain sex.
So a woman would be called a slut for exploiting the easy access of sex men provide, a man would be called a slut for having to achieve sex without it being handed to him.
There is also a flipside double standard, too. A woman that does not have sex is not nearly as belittled as a man that doesn't.
There was also a social experiment done on Youtube about this, how a man asked around a hundred women for sex and had a 100% failure rate, where as the woman had a 50% success rate when she reached 12 people.
I personally don't care if women have sex with numerous men or if men do or if they don't have sex at all. I personally would not want a partner that has been around the town because I just doesn't feel like something I'd like in a partner, but others might.
So, that said, it's not really a double standard even if you don't like them being called sluts when you consider that men and women do not have to do the same things in order to gain sex, it's like comparing a person getting money from alimony and a person gaining money from work, just because the conclusion is that they both get money does not mean the standards are the same and that due to one being perceved differently than the other makes it a double standard.
Nobody likes it when I say this, but that's just how it is, I'm not here to spare feelings.
"A woman gaining sex is easy, cheap, doesn't require anything. A man has to charm or have achieved some sort of status, so it takes more effort for a man to gain sex."
Let me guess. It being more difficult for a man is all on women, but any man who sleeps with a woman who has to put out no effort...that's on her, too, right? He has no negative part in that equation?
It being more difficult for men to have sex is on women? Yes. The standards required to have sex with women is set by women.
Are men responsible for how easy it is for women to have sex? Yes, same reason as above.
Difference is, the choice of men make it easier for women to gain sex, the choice of women make it harder for men to have sex.
Men make it easier for women, women make it harder for men.
As a result of women making it harder for men and men making it easier for women, women are harder to get with, so it is an accomplishment, men are not, so it's exploiting the standard. This is a result of women making it hard for men to get sex, which is their right, but still the result of their standards, because if they lower their standards to that of men, then the standards would be the same, men would not have to achieve anything so it would not become something of merit because it comes easy, just as it does for women.
I think your comment runs under the idea that it is still a double standard, which has already been explained how it isn't, it's two seperate standards, and a standard from one party could gain them blame from both standards depending on what the second standard is due to the difference in the standards nd how that effects both parties.
"which has already been explained how it isn't"
My bad. I forgot you're the only authority on everything ever.
Nah, actually, just fuck you, Charli.
Sick of having to explain the whole concept of "If you think I'm wrong, show me why". Apparently it is just too hard a concept to grasp for most in the IIN community.
You have the floor and rather than explain why my explanation is wrong, you'll just assume I am closing off any discussion and saying "and that's it" because it would be easier to paint me off as that rather than address the point I'm making.
I just have no idea why people choose to be so stupid. If you have reasons for disagreeing, then show those reasons. If those reasons can be refuted then just accept it and add it to your beliefs rather than thinking truth has to bend to you rather than you have to bend to truth.
I already stated that when you have two groups that require different standards to reach the same conclusion, then it's not a double standard for the groups to be seen differently when they reach that conclusion. Oh, that's just too wacky for Charli, nuh uh, ItDuz is just trying to be the authority again Heuheuheu.
I'm twenty one for fuck sake and I'm having to talk to people older than me like they're children.
Apparently you dont understand that just because you have an opinion, doesn't make it fact. That was my point. But you didn't see it.
You are childish, a bully, self centred and disturbed. You cannot comprehend that someone else has any differing opinion. You assume that just because people disagree with you, the fault is with them. You have no introspect, and you are often emotional over logical.
There is no point "debating" you because you have a childish hissy fit. That's why people thumb you down instead of "debating". And don't give me the "I admit when I'm wrong" shit. You don't.
Did I not just explain how the standards of men and women to the opposite sex differ, therefor not making it a double standard but two seperate standards made by the groups themselves, as in they set their standards?
If you want to disagree, then fine. Just explain to me why what I stated was wrong.
"I personally don't care if women have sex with numerous men or if men do or if they don't have sex at all"
Then why write several walls of text justifying slut shaming and painting males as drooling sex-crazed neanderthals? If you really believe people in general shouldn't be judged for their personal sexual decisions then you'd show it by clearly saying that and only that. Instead you choose to post thinly veiled sexist idiocy.
Just because something is offensive does not mean that it has reason in it. Hense why I will admit that it is reasonable without taking part in it, simply acknowledging it.
Who's painting males as drooling sex-crazed neanderthals? Men like sex, women like sex, just because we like to do something frequently does not make us primitive.
It's not sexist idiocy, it's rationality. I'm not treating women differently unfairly here, the requirements are different for each to reach the same conclusion so the two genders can't be treated the same if the requirements to reach the same conclusion is not the same. Expecting me to say women's conclusions should be the same as men's conclusions even though the process for them is different, just so they can look the same as men withouth having to do what men have to do, would be sexist.
You are taking part in it by attempting to rationalize judging people's personal lives. There's no logical reason to do that. Whatever your intent is, all you end up doing is insulting and perpetuating a stupid attitude about sex. Why bother?
"A woman gaining sex is easy, cheap, doesn't require anything"...in other words, you're saying men will fuck anything with a pulse. Men have no standards. Women own sex. It's women's responsibility to keep sex within moral boundaries. Sexist. And just wrong.
"requirements", "process"...those words do not belong.
Sex happens when 2 people want it to happen. No need to judge or attach all sorts of artificial "reasoning" and silly rules to it. NO. REASON. Seriously, if you go on again to try and build up a case to rationalize continuing this attitude then just ask yourself "why am I really doing this?". If you really don't care to judge then stop judging.
By "it" at the start do you mean slut shaming? If so, understanding it does not mean taking part in it.
As for judging, yes, we judge people around us, you do it, I do it, we all do it, and it isn't a bad thing. We judge people for bad behavior, we judge people for good behavior, we judge people for accomplishments and we judge people that aren't accomplishing anything. It makes us understand types of people. Do people judge others too quickly? Sure, but that doesn't mean that when judging someone is done properly that it is bad alongside when someone makes a bad judgement or a quick one.
When it comes to sluts, I personally do not care, as I don't think most do. I think people typically find it impressive and therefor when calling someone such a thing they call them unimpressive in that context, not that they are a bad person for being a slut.
What I intend to do is to show the reasoning behind things, which I believe I am doing. What you want me to do is to not consider reason because it may offend people, and that is the type of mentality which my intent is opposed to, to stop people from thinking reasoning comes second and feelings come first because that is not how the world should be. For example, you aren't showing my why my reasonings are wrong, simply that it is insulting and therefor reasoning should be thrown out on that alone, which isn't going to happen. Reason>feelings. Ofcourse there is no need to intentionally be offensive when putting reason over feelings but if it is imposible to not make some people insulted by the reasoning, then that is just what has to happen.
"In other words, you're saying men will fuck anything with a pulse."
I get the feeling you are strawmaning me or simply do not understand.
There are more men than women that would accept sex with nothing else required, does this mean all men? No. Does this mean that men have "no" standards? No, it simply means that they have lower standards when it comes to people asking them for sex and accepting the proposal, which having lower standards is not always a bad thing, it can actually be a good thing.
"Women own sex".
Well, on average I would say that they do? Ofcourse, this doesn't apply to all women or all men, but on average men have to prove themselves to women before she will have sex with him, again. Men are more free about who they will have sex with, they will accept having sex with people of different types more so than women would, so they give up their position of power of sex by being more accepting of who they will have sex with, women are less accepting of that and therefor men moreso have to prove themselves, therefor women have a higher position because they are less accepting in this subject.
"It's women's responsibility to keep sex within moral boundaries."
Not sure what you mean by this. We're talking about sex, not morality, even if being a slut is seen as bad I don't believe it is seen as bad due to a lack of morality.
""requirements", "process"...those words do not belong."
Except they do...Otherwise people would not pick to have sex with one person over another.
"Sex happens when 2 people want it to happen."
Yes, but the process of making both people have sex with one another is not as simple. Example, would you have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you without knowing them moreso than you would want to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you after spending time to get to knowing them and find out you like them?
There is reasoning to everything, S.I, trying to say otherwise is ridiculous. If my reasonings are wrong, then show me how, you can't alter reasoning by saying that there shouldn't be reasoning, that simply will never work, because even then you have to use reasoning to explain why reasoning should not be used, so you're using what you think shouldn't be used to make sure it isnt used, and so on and so on.
Why am I doing this? I think a part above explains why. This is less to do with the subject and more to do with putting reason over feelings and how people with reason should "shut up" because of "feelings".
OK, I get that however I don't believe the reasoning is sound. Much of your reasoning is artificial or just false.
Both men and women enjoy sex. Attraction and arousal is involuntary. So, either gender acting on those involuntary responses should be treated equally, right? But you add a bunch of rules, requirements and a process that's completely unnatural. That's why I disagreed with your use of the words "requirements, process"...because it's artificial. It's not pure like a basic "requirement, process" of attraction and arousal. Women are shamed based on these fake rules. It's not right to defend that.
Most sex happens out of a genuine pure desire whether you're male or female. You build it up to be this big game where men win and women concede. That's just wrong. By the same token, a lot of sex doesn't happen because women fear the shame they will face afterward. Can you put yourself in that position please? "I wanna have sex but I can't because of how others will react" It sucks.
It's not insulting because it's an offensive "fact". It's insulting because it's ignorant and accusatory. It sort of feels like being wrongfully accused.
Even the dictionary, a source which you usually respect, describes the word "slut" as derogatory. I mean you don't have to agree with the dictionary definition but you can take it as evidence that the word is almost always meant negatively when used by other people. It's more than a description; it's a description with a powerful connotation.
I don't think it's that much of an achievement for a man to have sex either. I certainly don't think the any of the times I have had sex when I've been single were accomplishments of some difficult task. The idea that you need some sort of well-planned "game" is a myth. On the flipside going up to a man and sincerely asking for sex, especially when a lot of abuse is directed at some women for being promiscuous, must take a bit more balls than you give it credit for. I don't see how that's a whole lot easier than it is for a man. It's pretty easy for anyone who loosens up and loses their inhibitions and pretty hard for anyone who doesn't, whether you're a man or a woman.
Also, random sex encounters are ultimately meaningless and are nothing worth congratulating anyone on unless they've chosen to attach artificial importance to sex.
I'm just skipping the top one because I want to get to bed and the point I made on that was pretty irrelevant. I think claiming the title would have the whole "nigger" effect, but meh.
I don't think it is much of an achievement either, nor do I think it was an achievement for my experiences but that's due to me not caring about it, the reasoning for it is still there on why a guy would be praised for it.
I never said a "well-planned" game, I said skill in charm and other methods to woe. You make it sound like I was meaning they have a spreadsheet and everything.
I never claimed that it was easier or harder to ask for sex or that you would get a 100% success rate as a woman doing it, just that you would have a far larger success rate than a man would. A woman wouldn't typically be burnt at the stake for asking, though. Only a small minority would do such extremes.
You say that a lot of abuse is thrown at women for being promiscious, but the same would be for men when being forward about it, slaps, drinks, etc, etc.
You're talking about the process of requesting sex not the success rate of the request. Two different things.
And, I would agree. I'm simply stating that's how many others are that get caught up in this and that even if I don't care much for any of it, I can still see the logic in it.
You can think of it a bit like the word "nigger", if you want. It's a word some people use in fun to describe themselves and their allies, but use beyond that context is almost always meant to put down other people. It's not as if the word "nigger" has no negative connotations just because some black people use it with camaraderie. Same goes for "slut".
I know you never claimed it was easier for women to ask for sex. I was making a counter-point, to explain why the proposition that women would have a higher success rate *if* they did ask isn't a good argument for saying that women acquire sex more easily. My point was that the success rate of a request for sex just isn't relevant, since it's reasonable that in the real world most women are not comfortable making that request to a stranger.
It's also reasonable, as you rightly say, that most men do not make that request. Which means there was no point you using it as evidence in the first place, since in the real world no-one (men or women) makes out-of-the-blue sex requests to strangers. It's not realistic. "If" isn't relevant if no-one *does*, especially if it's entirely reasonable that they don't.
Yes, but if they used it for a long enough time and it spreads, then it may lose that negative connotation. Perhaps a better example would of been cuss words like bitch and so on. Many people use it when talking to others for light hearted conversation that it doesn't pack a punch anymore. If the culture used the word as something else then it would change.
I was stripping it down to bluntness. Basically, given that women can merely "ask" people for sex and gain it, she can show interest without simply "asking" for it by doing the whole dance of engagement and she will be able to attract a sexual partner far easier than a man would be able to.
All she has to do is show seual interest in a man and her sexual advances are far more likely to be accepted than if the genders were reversed.
You're looking at it as if "Well, this method is rarely used so it isn't easier for women" and I am looking at it like "Well, this method is rarely used but it demonstrates that a mere proposition for sex from a woman will result in success, so if she looked for a sexual partner in any way, not simply by asking, then her advance would be accepted".
As for your last paragraph, the point above would fit in with that. As for guys, it would be different as to why they do not ask, and I am sure you can figure out why but if not just say and I'll explain.
Yes, women can be less blunt; they don't have to bluntly ask. But when you accept that it isn't as simple as just asking, immediately things start getting less easy and much more complicated: how does she show her interest without either being too blunt or too subtle? Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention. Women need the confidence to present a "feminine" image. To me that sounds no easier than it is to flirt as a man, which requires the confidence to present a "masculine" image.
All this means that if women do have it easier, it's only because they have the assurance that comes from the myth that men are "drooling, sex-crazed neanderthals" - this is the point that SecretIdentity is talking about.
Wow, what an novel idea; "guys and girls should be treated equal". How long did it take for you to come to that conclusion? Perhaps they should give you the Nobel Peace Prize, this year. A deep thinker, this one.
The problem is that slut-shaming often comes from OTHER WOMEN.
And it's not always because some girl was sleeping around.
Quite often - ESPECIALLY at Is It Normal - some girls do it because they're JEALOUS. The other girl is prettier, or has more attention, or is dating the man that the jealous girl wants.... so the jealous girl lashes out and starts calling "slut!"
So the real issue should be... people should grow the fuck up
I knew a guy that used to get called a slut, he slept with everyone. He's gone now, contracted AIDs and died.
guys have to put up with other problems when it comes to sex such as the size of our dicks and how long we could go for without cuming and theres nothing we could do about it its all genetics
plus i think girls get labled as sluts because most of the time it is the girls decision weather or not she we wants to have sex with the guy or not. no means no and what not