So everyone has talked (especially women) about this double standard that it's okay for a guy to sleep around but when a girl does the same thing, she is labeled a slut.
Now I want to make it very clear, I am not condoning this hypocrisy at all. I like sex as much as the next person and see no problems with a girl enjoying herself.
But I do want to give my idea as to why this double standard still exists (and why it probably always will), especially in a time where female sexual empowerment is so prevalent.
Now this really is all just speculation on my part so this post will be pretty short. It's brought on by a short subject we went over in my social psychology class which was: Women are choosier than men.
Or at least, in general they're supposed to be. I would suppose that this would be an evolutionary tactic to make sure the best of the best humans came out alive.
Men have one goal biologically and that is to impregnate as many women as possible. They want to create as many offspring as they can, ensuring that their genes will continue on. This would possibly also account for why men are known as the more promiscuous sex.
Women, however, have a slightly different goal. When a female becomes pregnant she has lost 9 months of her available procreation time. Women only have so many eggs and a limited time to use them (about 30 years), therefore taking away almost a year is pretty risky. Therefore women have a natural intuition: only choose the best mates. They want men who will not only create the healthiest and most prosperous offspring, but especially men who will be able to take care of them and the child as well. Women are naturally supposed to be choosy. Men lose nothing in sleeping around but women lose nine months of their ability to pass on their genes.
So what happens now? We have progressed to a time where women are no longer just the baby makers in a household. The world has opened up and we're now seeing women as the sexual being they are, among other important roles.
So then why does the double standard still exist?
I think what has happened is that even though we have progressed past this idea that a woman is defined by her man, we still, under nature's blindfold, see a women sleeping around as wrong. People see it that way because females should be naturally prone to being more selective of who they mate with. We might tell ourselves that it is unfair not to hold a man to the same pedestal but unconsciously, we see it as wrong because it shouldn't be in a woman's nature to sleep around the way men do. (So I guess in a way, a women sleeping around really is (under nature's law) wrong.)
True
Comments (72)
if only men had uteruses.
well if anyone sleeps with 5 different people in 1 night, they are a slut. Guy OR girl...and eww.
I agree with the ancestral human instincts theory. It makes sense.
Personally, I don't consider it wrong for a woman or a man to sleep around. Perhaps, I do think that unconsciously, but eh... perhaps, I also unconsciously think that everything is made of beer. That would be kind of awesome.
Hmm, you're onto something here. Makes sense to me.
biologically, this is true for procreation. selective females have greater fitness than their less choosier counterparts because their offspring will have more favorable genes. their male offspring, in particular, will be able to attract choosier mates. this sometimes referred to as the "sexy son" hypothesis.
however, this theory only holds for procreation. since humans have reached the point were sex is no longer just for makin' babies, it is no longer necessary for this standard to exist. yes, sex = pregnancy risk, but unless the woman is indiscriminantly having children (and thus passing on possibly poor genes) there is no more detriment to her than to a male doing the same thing.
sigh. old prejudices die hard.
We could also discuss how stereotypical it is of women to have this perception of men.
People are just as capable of thinking you're a whore when you sleep with ONE person. God forbid someone who doesn't know you or your life think of you in an undesirable light! Please.
And you know, that whole pregnancy thing, it's not the stone age. We all know where to find the various forms of birth control. Guys, buy condoms. Girls, condoms, pills, whatever, there's a lot out there. But blaming the loss of "nine months of their ability to pass on their genes" on the fact that you slept around is kind of retarded.
And who says guys lose nothing? Did STD's drop off the face of the planet when I was sleeping?
I think society still has the Victorian view on sexuality at times. It's ok for a guy to soe his oats but if I woman does the same thing, it's "dirty". I personally sleeping around like that is nasty, I hope people are responsible & use protection atleast.
Interesting.
mmmm
it's starting to work both ways now, hence the term manwhore
I see nothing wrong with it.
Its none of my business who a guy/girl hooks up with. Or when they do it.
Personally, I think people need to grow up, and mind thier business.
Its not like anyone else has to deal with the outcome(s) of thier sexcapades.
@RazorBladeParade@xanga - I think you misunderstood the part about men "losing nothing." What I think the author is trying to say is that before things like STIs and birth control were even a part of life, the very basic idea was that men don't undergo any major physical changes after sex, whereas a woman, should she get pregnant, endures 9 months undergoing constant changes to her body, which may affect her sex drive as well as some other factors. The author wasn't criticizing or stereotyping men out of personal opinion, but speaking from a general standpoint based on beliefs stemming from psychology.
I personally think this double standard is dissolving, but it's still there among certain individuals.
... interesting
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
I 'm right. It's all about genetics. Dating, love, all that bullshit, is nothing, because there is only one true purpose, and that is to pass on our genes.
People try to disguise it as other things, but...they're full of it.
I haven't noticed that this double standard still exist, but maybe I lead a very sheltered life.
i disagree with this post.
Very interesting... o.0
LOL wow.. you guys are all seemng to miss a few key notes in all this.. first of all.. while that whole 'biological' part WAS true.. everyone seems to neglect the fact that the catholic church is the one who made sex 'dirty' sex used to to be an open and free activity. it was worshipped and celebrated and considered and amazing thing. then the catholic church came along and made the most deadly of sins? (as a catholoic myself i hate this view of sex) i personally dont beleive in or put up with the double standard in my life. if ppl wanna cal me a slut i just turn around and tell them to shut up and stop being jealous of my experiences that you will never have.. im safe and aresponsible about it and dont let people judge me..
so basically what im saying.. the double stand DOES still exist.. but only for those who let it be a part of their lies. i dont accept it and im a better woman for it. :)
Pace y Amore..
Ciao!
I know all about why women evolutionarily should be more sexually selective and whatnot, and I don't particularly like the double standard, but I can't help but think that it's ingrained in me by nature and that I can't change it. When I read the comic about the guy, I thought "Well..all right typical asshole.." and when I read the part about the girl, I immediately though "Slut." >.<
However, sometimes I think some women are incapable of being viewed as sluts, the ones who are full of confidence, knowing that they're hot and can fuck any guy they want, and they go about fucking guys to satisfy their sexual appetites, then go on with their lives. Most of the time, though, the girls who have tons of sexual partners are the one with low self-esteem, and I view them as trashy, slutty, etc. Somehow I just can't imagine a guy (even with low self-esteem) being a slut.
When men sleep around they're labeled as womanizers...which is a bad thing.
Did you just forget that, or what?
Where's the double standard?
wow, that was interesting. I had never thought about it from a scientific point of view. but that completely makes sense.
<3
Sure have sex and have fun. But be safe when you do it. Five people in one night is intense!
lol
It's got nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with sociology. It's harder for men to win over 5 pussies as opposed to a girl that really all she needs to do is yell "I'm horny for some penis!" It's a matter of degree of difficulty in getting sex. If a man tallies up a high score, that is a testament to his amazing skills in breaking the female defense systems. There is virtually no difficulty for a woman to get laid, thus, she is not rewarded with congratulations. And the terms, "whore" and "slut" are invented by catty women and men that have no chance at getting in on some of the action and so they need to put the girl down to make themselves feel better. Most hetero men actually love sluts!
It's easy for a girl to sleep with a guy. All they have to do is spread their legs and guys will come running. However, it's harder for a guy to sleep with a girl. They have to show they are the "best mate", which can be shown through a combination of factors like good looks, money, or air-tight game.
I think that's why when a guy sleeps with a lot of women, guys are like, wow, you're a pimp. Because, in general, guys want to sleep with lots of women, but not all of them are capable of doing that, only the best ones. However, it's easy for any half-decent girl to sleep with a bunch of guys, so it's no big accomplishment, thus it's not really worthy of praise. If anything, people will just think you have low standards to subject yourself to letting so many guys penetrate you.