Ask Your Question today
Why is it still a thing? How come only women can be sluts? And why is being a slut bad? Why do people feel a need to make arguments to try to validate judging men and women differently for the same behavior? Instead of trying to justify it, why not just let it die??
is it normal to wonder why we are still shaming women for their personal sexual choices?
The thing to remember is that many women also encourage this double standard.
So perhaps the question to ask is... why do women slut-shame?
In my opinion the answer is because some women need to put others down in order to feel better about themselves, or because the other woman is getting more attention.
LOL. "Patriarchy" is in my opinion an attempt to just blame all men for one's troubles, no matter how one has to twist it.
If a man upholds double standards people act like it's because of his gender that he does this.
But when a woman does it they claim it's because she's "brainwashed" by men.
Perhaps the real answer is that people need to be responsible for their own actions vs blaming it on generic group.
This has come up before and there are rational reasons for it.
I personally don't have a problem with it. That being said, I would not find it appealing for a long-term partner. Just my personal preference, as I am sure other men and women have in regards to the gender they are attracted to.
However, there are reasoning to it, it isn't a double standard because men and women are not similar in terms of capability and how easy it is to do so.
For men, men have to be skilled in some form to get frequent sex from females, be it charm, etc. It can also be done by being someone of wealth and status. Men have to put in work to gain sex on a frequent basis.
Women, however, do not. They only really need to ask for sex and they will gain it, there is no charm needed, there is no seduction needed (unless they are wanting the guy to make the first move).
An example could be when a man and a woman both made a social experiment on Youtube on who would get sex when offering. The man, going on to one hundred offers, got a 100% rejection rate, the woman got 50% rejection rate, a lot of which was because the people she asked had girlfriends already.
That in itself shows that there is a large difference in men and women on this subject to try pass them off as the same.
Men and women are too different in terms of who they are attracting, the standards required to attract the opposite sex, the work needed to put in to gain frequent sex, and so on.
This, however, could change, and it can change by something "women" do. If women were to be like men in this subject it would stop it. If women were so easily to get in to bed as men are with women in general, not just a select type of person with highly attractive qualities, then they would be working in the same standard as men. If they had sex for sex reasons just by an offer, no need to charm, have moderate to above attractive traits, and so on, then they would be the same as men in the subject of casual sex, and if the standard still stood once it was a normal thing women done aswell as men, then it would then be a double standard.
Most people will not agree with this, I don't think they look in to it too much, and I suspect this would get thumbed down, but that is how it is. The genders are nowhere near the same in regards to sexual activity, the frequency, the capability, the easy-access, and so on, to act as if they are the same in it enough to say that it is a double standard, because it's not.
The way to solve this is for women to be easy to bed without need of charm or other highly attractive traits just as men are in regards to women.
Most people don't want to give up their moral highground in admiting there can be reasoning in why negative things happen, but hey. Just you casual anti-PC person here offering a different perspective with what I see as valid arguments that most likely won't be stated from others on here.
Ofcourse, this is open to debate if you wish.
You only address half the issue, so this is only half an answer. You explain why you think bragging about sex is okay, but you barely address the issue of shaming and you don't conclude on whether you think shaming is right or wrong.
Because that is the standard made by women in general. When women have sex for sex reasons regardless of the qualities and just do it for the sex they are deviating from the standard women in general have, which is to have sex with no charm needed, etc.
It's the same reason why a guy that doesn't go out looking for sex frequently or rejects sex is called "gay" or is called a list of insults, because the male standard in general is that if sex is on the table, you take it, and if a guy deviates from that standard, he is then branded as something negative or someone says something with negative intent to that person.
Do I agree with shaming? Meh. I don't do it because I don't care much about it. Doesn't effect me, so I don't care. Do I understand the shaming involved? Yes. Would I take part in that shaming? No. The way the female standard is right now, which is upheld by most women, by that reasoning, yes, it would be accurate to describe a woman doing something like this topic is about a slut, that is the standard they made, so that is the standard they have to go by until it changes.
The definition of a double standard is judging groups of people differently for the same behavior. The behavior in question is promiscuity. The ease in getting laid really has no relevance here.
You say women as a gender set their own standards. Explain, please.
The definition is, copied and pasted: "A rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups."
I believe I explained why such things are not "unfair".
I believe men and women have both set their own standard. Ofcourse, this standard can be unfair for some of each gender, some may deviate from what the people in their gender make the standard in general, much like myself. I am not one to "chase tail", as it's put, I have rejected sex and I don't really seek it out. The male standard is that if sex is on the table, you take it, otherwise you are gay or some negative label (females do not have to deal with the negatives of that standard just like males don't have to the female standard).
Females in general are not going to have sex just for sex in the general sense of proposal = sex without needing to be charmed or the person having above average attractive qualities, where as men are.
That standard is set and upheld by women in general (there is nothing wrong with that, ofcourse) but when someone deviates from that standard, any standard, then it is considered a negative thing.
For example, a Youtube video demonstrating the male and female success rate of proposing sex just for sex between men and women. The guy went to a 100 proposal with a 100% rejection rate, the woman got 50% rejection rate.
It's in my opinion that if women were more like men in the general sense on this subject, this problem would go away, like I explained on my initial comment. If they were like men and this still happened, it would be a double standard for sure, however I do believe if it became the norm, the original standard originally held by women would no longer exist, so the deviation of that standard would then become the standard, in which then, ofcourse, they'd most likely have to deal with the "You rejected free sex, you're weird" crap, but we'd still be the same in the standard.
I'm afraid reaching the same conclusion as a group that is completely different and has a different challenge in the subject just won't happen.
Like I said, I personally don't care what someone does with their time aslong as I am not effected, but that doesn't mean I can't understand the issue in which I don't care enough to act on in my daily life.
I disagree that it's fair. I mean, people have sex because they want to. It's not productive to complicate it beyond that basic fact. Whether male or female, they simply chose to have sex and there's no reason to bash anyone for that decision or apply some twisted logic to it.
" The male standard is that if sex is on the table, you take it, otherwise you are gay or some negative label (females do not have to deal with the negatives of that standard just like males don't have to the female standard)."
Whoa! Not hardly! Lots of negative things can happen when a woman says no to sex. Sometimes the guy does nothing but here's what others do:
Persist, nag, beg
Get visibly upset, name call (bitch, tease, dyke, prude...)
Say they had sex with you anyway, start rumors
Coerce...from laying a guilt trip to refusing a ride home unless you have sex, etc
Some get forceful, scary and even physically violent
Then there's the worst which is rape
In my experience most guys don't take no for an answer. Most don't go too extreme with their reacion but still, it's not cool!
ItDuz..Want to play a game of the "soggy biscuit?" Loser has to eat the biscuit.
My response to these kind of topics is always the same "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
I do not believe anyone should be slandered or called a derogative term for being sexual, however, I am not a fan of promiscuity. When people have a lot of sex, they tend to make children, and a lot of those children are unwanted. What pisses me off more than anything are those women who want to have a lot of sex, then they wind up pregnant and either have the child of someone who does not want to take care of it or they don't know who the father is then they're ready to play the victim role. Too many women are not willing to hold themselves responsible for their own actions. It may not be fair but, fact of the matter is, women get pregnant. If you're not ready for the possible consequences, I don't recommend you be a "slut".
I completely agree with you. Judging someone for who they choose to have sex with is very bizarre. I can almost guarantee some people in this thread will try and justify it - this sort of thing always happens - and they will definitely be making themselves look whiny and stupid.
It is bizarre. I find it really bizarre when people try to rationalize it. Is it just me or does it seem analagous to rationalizing racism? How someone can honestly think they can explain it away as OK is beyond me. Why bother to justify it rather than squash it?
I read an article from AskMen that tries to validate the slut/stud thing. I get his point but I disagree and I also fail to see the connections in his examples (how does ease of getting laid correlate to sluttiness, for example, and why do men who have an easy time hooking up not get judged based on that like women do). What do you think? I will post a link to the article in a seperate comment as links sometimes cause comments to be censored.
I read the article and it makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe there's just something that women don't understand about the competitive nature of men.
http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/austin_600/662_double-standards.html
I think that article completely avoids tackling the main issue; the issue that shaming women who have lots of sex with lots of different people is bad. He mentions it at the start, but then talks about something entirely different for the rest of the article and never once goes back and says why he thinks it's okay or not okay to shame "sluts". All he does is say why he thinks it's okay for men to brag about sex - which it is, even if it is annoying and arrogant, so long as they're not sexist about it by holding men and women to opposing standards. But if he thinks a woman has never behaved in such a way to make a man interested in her who was not previously interested in her (i.e. "a woman picking up a man"), he clearly has no self-awareness of why he finds certain women attractive and others not :P
Men like that author who talk about "having game" (whatever that even is) are massively over-analyzing the simple, completely natural process that is having sex. The article relies on the sexist assumption that men all want sex all the time, and that women never want sex unless a guy consciously shows off and impresses them. The "male-female dynamic" stuff is obviously based on nothing but the author's prejudices, and exists purely to put people into unrealistic, socially constructed categories that only serve to limit them. In other words, it's worse than pointless.
It seems very obvious to me that girls have to work to attract guys. They have to behave in a certain way, dress a certain way, talk in a certain way. They have to present themselves attractively, just like he's saying guys have to. It only takes a little bit of empathy to understand that girls have to work just as hard as guys (which isn't actually very hard at all, but I digress :P). I think the guy who wrote that article shows a very low ability to step into other people's shoes and understand a worldview beyond his own limited experience.
You wanna know why? Its because men go around trying eveygirl they can so if you are smart enough not to go for everyguy that comes your way less guys will have sex and people will have fewer sexual partners which is cool considering what is out there...
because in the end its the girl that says yes or no to the sex if the girl says no then it means no but if she says yes to every one shes a slut
guys actullay have to work to get sex spend money this and that you know what i mean and a girl can get what ever she wants if she has sex with the right guys
i proply could have worded this all better but you get what i mean right
And then there are the feminazi's that say they want equality but then say that all men shuld die.
I think males and females are born with different psyches. If you give little boys dolls, they play "crash up dolls, or "Barbie the barbarian sniper". Because of this, cultural messages of conquering with productivity, and having a fearless military personality " stick with little boys.
Cultural messages that stick with little girls pertain to nurturing and care. Since we are all grownups, lets just say, "What the fuck. Ladies, please enjoy men with your own personal style."