I think all sexism is stupid and only serves to harm, rather than help… Nonetheless, I am posting this because it makes a valid point.
Women complain that the term “slut” is used negatively against them when they “act like men.” They also have a general attitude that women are incapable of having sex for the very things the accuse men of having sex for. The general idea among women, it seems, is that they are “above all that” and never take advantage of men like men take advantage of women.
Some men like to have sex with a lot of people. Some men will lie to get into someones pants. Everyone in agreement here? Good.
Okay, try and stay with me for this one: Some women like to have sex with a lot of people. Some women will lie to get into someones pants. Some women will have sex for material items, for money, and generally for greedy, selfish reason.
When you try to bring this up in a conversation among certain ladies, they will become very offended and defensive and deny this, while turning the subject back on how horrible, selfish, and piggish men are.
You are likely to hear something like this in the conversation: “All men are the same!” Except they’re not. And it shouldn’t be assumed that all women are the same either. But just as you shouldn’t assume that an entire gender is all bad, you should also not assume that an entire gender is all good; and that, audience, is what certain feminists seem to be playing at.
tl;dr: If women actually started acting like men with regards to sex the term “slut” would lose all meaning. ”Slut” only has meaning because of “sexual economy”, the idea that women “sell” sex and men “buy” it, but if women stopped using sex as a weapon/tool/meal ticket the model would break down.
It relates to the theory of sexual economy, too. Because our culture sets women up as providers of sex and men as consumers of sex, the paradigm doesn’t *allow* for a man to function in a way that would acquire the label.
To use another example, say, televisions: If someone has fifty Zony TV’s, he’s rich and impressive. If everyone has a Zony TV, we think they’re cheap TV’s because everyone can afford one. The manufacturer is seen as prestigious by selling few at high prices, whereas the consumer is seen as prestigious if they can buy many at any price. (If everybody has a Rolex, we wouldn’t consider them special. If I have ten Rolexes, I’m very, very rich. Pick whichever luxury product you want.)
Apply it to sex, and male “consumers” of sex, and we see the problem. A man who has sex with many women is “rich” and thus prestigious (and one who has none is “poor” and thus poor), whereas a woman who has sex with many men is “cheap”, and thus not and a woman who limits her partners and successfully demands a lot from each is considered “expensive” and thus prestigious. Women are the only ones that can get the label because women and men aren’t even playing the same game. (The male equivalent would be “virgin-shaming”, which happens more than most might think.)
The other case is the one at the bottom of the photo. Because of the sexual economy, women have sexual privilege. That is, most women who are willing to have sex without some form of gain or difficulty on the part of the man can effectively have as much sex as they want, whenever they want. ”Sleeping around” is seen as misuse of this privilege.
If women stopped trying to use sex for control, monetary gain and other similar, the term “slut” would eventually cease to be meaningful. ”Slut” only makes sense in a paradigm with women as sellers and men as buyers. If people simply had sex for pleasure, and thus had relatively easy access to sex depending on their own sex drive the amount of sex they ended up having wouldn’t be considered important.
Rather than TV’s, it’s more like Coke. Pretty much everybody can buy Coke, and they can buy pretty much as much as they want of it. If I want ten bottles and the other guy wants two, nobody really cares because it’s about what we want, not what we can have. (You’ll note that there is no real provider in this example, because men and women are on the same field as consumers, the “cost” being the effort to go out and find a partner.) Sure, the guy with none might be seen as a little weird and the guy who’s got a fridge and pantry stocked with a hundred bottles a little obsessive, but for the most part (as mentioned) we just don’t care.
Which would you rather?
Feminists like to complain about the objectification of women by male-directed media, like men’s magazines and comics and the like. They talk about how it sets unrealistic expectations of women and girls, places undue emphasis on unattainable physical perfection, and they generally paint men as wanting a Stepford Wife/Fembot hybrid. Well, a little while ago I got curious, and decided to do a quick search for what men actually wanted, compared to what women wanted from their partners. See if the whole issue was as one-sided as people claim. What I found was rather eye-opening. Behold, the perfect woman versus the perfect man.
The thing that struck me the most was the emphasis on physical perfection. Not from the men — from the women. Heterosexual women apparently want a six-foot-tall, muscular, athletic, brown-eyed, stylish, clean-shaven, smooth-chested man with short, dark hair. That is a lot of adjectives, and all very specific, even down to precise height. Looking through the men’s lists? Not one mention of physical appearance, except to suggest that the perfect woman would be comfortable with her appearance and secure with both her assets and her flaws. That sounds reasonable to me, and like a good quality for anyone to have.
And then of course there’s the personality. Again, what I saw was women giving a detailed list of what the perfect man is like. Loves shopping, watches soaps, watches football, eats meat, good sense of humour, sensitive when you’re upset, loves his mother and calls her twice a week, the list goes on. First, how you’re going to find someone who watches soap operas and football is beyond me, and second, this is once again a long list of very specific traits. The men list a number of different “types”, but all of them are very general and understandable — independent, intelligent, makes you happy, loyal, straightforward, sexual, interested in real equality, etc. These are things that anyone would expect from a relationship, and are pretty much standard traits for any adult human to have.
The women also lay out specific abilities and qualities they’d like the perfect man to have, even deciding on his car for him (an Audi). He makes about $76,000 CAD a year, he can swim, he can bike, he can change a tire, he has a degree, he drinks beer, and so on. (I also find it interesting that one of the specific requirements is that he makes more than his female partner. Wage gap, you say? Hmmm.) The men list no such requirements for their partners.
Ultimately, I think these lists are very eye-opening. They clearly show that the objectification, the unrealistic expectations, the idealized physical perfection….all of that is coming not from the men, but from the women. A lot of this could be due to little girls being taught that they’re all “princesses”, and internalizing the idea that they deserve the perfect Prince Charming. Feminism too has begun inflating girls’ sense of what they deserve, promoting women from “princesses” to “goddesses”, and therefore demanding that their partners be gods.
I’ve noticed that the most accepting of flaws in a relationship is usually a man and the most critical and dissatisfied is usually a woman. The woman also often blames him for anything she doesn’t like and/or nitpicks and bullies him in public.
i’ve linked back to this article more times than i care to count but i think it explains perfectly and backs up the op
Let me start off making a claim that is supported fully by the scientific community: Women are choosier than men in sexual partners and sex is a female resource. Said differently, women control the supply of sex and men generate the demand for sex. Because of this - in normal heterosexual relationships, it is less damaging for the male to cheat than it is for the female. It isn’t black and white. To keep my argument grounded and supported, let me provide you with a link before I continue:
Now - to fully understand the argument I’m going to present, you would need to research the topic yourself and see all of the individual studies - but if you were to read that full article I provided, you would be given a solid foundation.
Men have to compete with one another aggressively for female attention and ultimately sex. Women set the standard requirements and criteria for men to reach in order to achieve sex. Then it’s up to men to fight each other in tests such as gaining wealth, power, dominance, social status in order to rank highly or go in front of the line for female attention. Men may have standards, but they are generally more flexible and dynamic than women’s. Said differently, the average female has much higher standards than the average male. It’s all fun and easy to say “men just want young women with big breasts” - but are you thinking below the surface? The only men who could afford to have such standards are the men who can have their pick of women - what types of men are these? Well, let’s explore. According to scientific research, women are attracted to dominance, social status, wealth, power, and charm. Of course described by a woman, these things are verbalized as “confident, funny, goals in life, etc.”. But changing their names do not change their definition - they represent the top 1% of men. Highly educated, affluent, and wealthy men are sought after by ALL women. This is your female equivalent of “men just want young women with big breasts” - well, women just want “doctors and lawyers and deep pockets”. These polarizing, outlandish statements mask the science really going on behind the scenes of courtship.
Let’s dive a little deeper - why are women choosier than men when it comes to sex? Well, it’s biology. Women bear the greater liability from sex - they risk pregnancy. Now obviously there are millions of means today to defer pregnancy, but how do you “defer” thousands of years of evolution? Women have a finite number of eggs in their lifetime, their reproductive window is much smaller than a males. A male has the ability to produce sperm through the span of his lifetime, and hypothetically could bear offspring throughout his entire life. Not that that would be a good idea today with child support laws - but you should be getting the picture now. If evolution is correct, and it truly is survival of the fittest - it is advantageous to men to reproduce their genetic material as frequently and with as multiple partners as necessary. And it is advantageous to females to be very selective, the liability is greater and they only want to share this liability with the strongest, most stable man who displays dominance - a signal that he is capable of providing for her and her offspring.
Obviously these are not terms men and women discuss before deciding on whether or not going on a date - but to think they are simply “deciding on whether or not to go on a date” is naive and a bit silly. There are gears in motion that perpetuate human sexuality and all sexuality on this earth.
Let’s zoom back out. Now we are looking at two average people - 1 average male and 1 average female. The definition of average in this case is as follows - the female is not Cameron Dias, but she is also not Roseanne. The male is not Brad Pitt, but he is also not the 50 year old mexican janitor at your kid’s middle school. There are some broad assumptions we can make about these two average individuals. The female is presumably looking for two things, commitment and as close to Brad Pitt as she can get. Will she ever get Brad Pitt? Of course not, that is why I said “as close to Brad Pitt” as she can get. What does this mean exactly? She wants a man who is confident, attractive, stable, high achieving, and dominate. Brad Pitt - and the other 1% of all men, are benchmarks for these qualities. Her goal is to get as close to those qualities as she can. What does she have to trade? Her wonderful kind personality? Uh oh, we’ve come full circle. Are the Donald Trumps and Brad Pitt’s of the world settling for a good personality? Here is where the “all men want is young women and huge breasts” argument comes in - the top of 1% of men want that, because they can get it.
That brings us to the average guy in our story. We can assume that he is looking for a couple of things too - hot women, and great sex. His benchmark? Cameron Dias. Is he going to ever get Cameron Dias? lol. I don’t think so. So down the ladder he goes, just like our lady friend we talked about earlier. Is it this black and white? Does the man not care about personality, humor, charm, ambition, etc. at all? Of course he does, he just ranks those qualities lower than the woman does. What does this guy have to trade to win over Cameron Dias? Not much, certainly not as much as Brad Pitt has to offer. So logic dictates that instead of continuing to aspire for celebrities, athletes, doctors, etc. - these two average people make like the rest of the population, and settle for one another.
The above paragraph leaves out a key point. Have you ever heard the saying - “A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that is opened by many keys is just a bad lock”? This explains the double standard that you often here women complain about - which is, “why are men praised for multiple sexual partners, and why are women scorned”? The reason is simple, it’s easier for a woman to find a male sexual partner than it is for a male. A females sexuality is valuable, where as an average males sexuality is not valuable. Brad Pitt’s sexuality is valuable, but only because of supporting factors. A females sexuality is always valuable, maybe not to the 1% of men who can have their pick - but what about to the remaining 99% of men? Proof of concept? Try creating an ad as a female requesting the attention of a male on Craigslist. Then create the same, except this time make it a male requesting the attention of a female. What ad do you think will receive the most replies? Let’s examine another proof of concept. Prostitution. Is prostitution a world wide male epidemic or world wide female epidemic? Why is female prostitution profitable for women, but not men? If men love sex, and that’s all they care about - wouldn’t heterosexual prostitution be a dream job? It can’t be, because women have higher standards for who has sex with them. The asymmetry list here is endless, I’m sure you get the point.
And so, now that we know some of the little gears, mechanics, wires, and lights that power human sexuality - let’s look at why a man would possibly cheat. Considering the economic implications of all we have talked about so far - we can draw the conclusion that male sexuality does not have inherent social value like female sexuality does. Let’s go back and highlight the main exchange again that is taking place - a male is trading his social status, dominance, confidence, wealth, and attention for the females sexuality (not that he doesn’t enjoy his girlfriend or wife’s personality, but they are just ranked lower than their sexuality - sorry, science isn’t into making friends or being politically correct). If a man cheats on a woman, what is he “giving away” and what is the woman worried about losing? Is it his sexuality? Ask that question to bored housewives and you’ll enjoy a laugh. No, they are worried about him potentially leaving them for another woman. What would the woman lose if the man were to leave her? His social status, dominance, attention, wealth, commitment, etc. That is what is being threatened. Give the man enough time and the green light - and he’ll happily share his sexuality with both of you, but that’s a much harder deal when you ask him to share his wallet.
vSo in here lies the dilemma. Are you really upset that he’s screwing another woman? Or are you upset that you’re not getting the attention that this other woman is getting? Having sex is not the same as “leaving you”. Leaving you would mean he would have, well, left you. He’s not though, he’s still with you, but he is “cheating”. He is sharing his sexuality with another woman, but has not indicated that he wants to leave you, that’s why he is cheating to begin with. So he can have both. Because his sexuality is worthless, what do you care that he is having sex with another woman? Assuming that he is being safe about it, and not risking disease or pregnancy. The bottom line is that his sexuality is not what is important to you - it’s his commitment. Men can separate sexuality from commitment. They can masturbate, have sex with multiple people, and still be married to just one individual.