A
female
age
30-35,
anonymous
writes:Hi!! The other day I was talking to my mom, and somehow she ended up telling me how she thinks that a girl that sleeps with all of her boyfriends is a whore. She didn't say strangers, or guys you have only known for a week or so, she meant real relationships, a real boyfriend. That's not really what I believe, but it made me think.Well, even though I have been dating the same guy (my 1st bf) for almost 2 years, and we lost our virginity together six months into the relationship, she stills thinks I'm a virgin, and I feel terrible for lying to her, but I don't see how I can stop lying because of what she said to me. I wanted to know what are your opinions on this, do you think a girl that sleeps with every boyfriend is a whore? and also, do yo think there's a way for me to stop lying to her? without her being angry or something.I almost forgot, I'm 19 years old and she is 43. Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, demeplev  +, writes (12 November 2012):
 Im a 44 yr old woman, and NO I dont think a woman is a slut for sleeping with all of her boyfriends...
and jeezzzzz while so much about evolution is true...today women dont NEED to rely on men for security and men dont have to hunt, but boy they sure do love promiscuous women that they dont have to commit too...bottom line women have to get stronger and demand a relationship when its wanted and needed. ...
without getting into a long winded response to this nuttiness..bottom line is NO, NO , NO.
whatever you feel comfortable in doing, whatever you believe in,
whatever resonates with your values is all you should care about, caring about what other people think about your personal choices when its not harming someones else is giving people power over your life, dont give your power away.
goodluck. Peace and love.
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): no,you're not a whore-if you love someone and you have sex with them,you're not a whore-and you have slept with far less guys than the average 19 year old these days,trust me
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): Sorry male anon, while I completely agree on the biological nature of men being seed spreaders you're misrepresenting the whole thing with pretty baseless knowledge.
"Modern civilization also means that men no longer need to have physically buff bodies to hunt food and fight off wild animals."
That for one is bullshit, simply because only up until recent times of prosperity in the West it was actually fat men, portly, physically unhealthy pale men that were considered the height of beauty. Even amongst ancient hunter gatherer tribes because it showed power and wealth. The most desirable men where those who did not have to work out in the sun so they were pale, they also had a hell of a lot of food so they were fat. The same thing is still true in many third world countries.
Male anon we never needed to be physically buff to hunt. Humans have adapted through cunning and intelligence not brute force. The use of tools, the use of tracking skills. You only have to look at hunter gatherer tribes or even many Indian labourers to see what kind of body that develops. A very skinny man, with wirey muscles that is short in height, were endurance based biologically not power based. we didn't wrestle animals to death we used tools, numbers and cunning to kill them.
Male anon hunters were the physical equivalent of marathon runners, not power sprinters. They ran for long distance and hunted meagre portions of food. So their bodies would have been very slim, small muscles to burn less calories during the hunt and the reason people get obese so easily these days is because our bodies are designed to store fat so efficiently which is still an evolutionary bi-product of the days where a hunter may not eat for a day or two and still need useful stored energy to be able to go hunt.
"No amount of reasoning with women is going to change that. Women are not going to apologize to men for continuing to desire an outdated trait."
I think I covered that, but it's a bullshit point.
"Most men are still more attracted to women who don't sleep around, birth control or not. Most men are much less attracted to promiscuous women especially for a long term partner."
This however is true and while people, especially feminists like to say it's a social construct maybe it is, maybe it isn't but it's certainly not wrong and it's not going to go away any time soon. It's been a biological imperative for our species for a long time both for women and men, it makes no biological, genetic, financial or any other sense for a woman to sleep around and risk having a 'bastard' child to a man who would make no contribution to its upbringing. Women weren't enslaved to domestic duties but they had to do them out of sheer necessity when you consider that washing clothes alone may take 2-3 hours work, preparing a meal the same amount of time, not mention mend clothes, child rearing, nursing a baby etc. Where would that woman's food, money come from if she couldn't say for certain who the father was? Our history is exceptionally long and female contraception is very young in that timeline. Is the female vote even a 100 years old yet? I'm too lazy to check.
Talk about male oppression all you want, it was natural social progression. Was a pregnant women going to go hunt for food, defend the village against neighbouring warriors or wild animal attacks? No. Can a man stay at home and nurse a child while the woman hunts? No. Our previous roles were a necessity and they still are in a lot of places. A "slut" brought great hardship to a family on a practical level, all the moral objections and complications only came out of that.
With infant mortality rates being so incredibly appalling all the way up to the century before last even a married couples who were each other only sexual partner may only have 2-4 out of 10 children survive into adulthood and contribute to the family. So the average woman would 10-12 minimum, years of her life pregnant just to be able to provide a couple of children, and if she was lucky not have become infertile or died on her first/second/third attempt. Where was she going to find the time to hunt, fight wars in all that? Should we have let pregnant, hormonal women 7 months in make our leadership decisions too? Then lets get rid of maternity leave altogether then, seems it's necessary if they could still do all those things. Which is also why rich men took on many partners especially when you consider a son was worth far more to the family unit as a provider.
The 'slut' therefore not only risked giving a man the wrong child, burdening her entire family with a child without a male provider but she also risked an STD, which frankly meant certain death in most cases, she also had a high risk of infertility from a child with no father and also could die. It was always a biological and social imperative. We would not have survived the early eras of our civilizations if we attempted to do it in any other way and if "sluts" weren't a very real burden.
Male anon is correct, it's going to take many generations for the whole slut concept to die down. It's going to take as long for it die down as the attraction most women have to power and wealth in a man.
60 years of sexual liberation isn't going to change things over night especially when it's women who "slut" shame far more than guys ever did. We love easy lays, we love to have emotionless sex, sexual liberation played right into our hands. We get to have our desires fed by promiscuous women and then have "pure" women to be our wives. We're still not the ones who can get pregnant really from one single little mistake or lapse in judgement, or failure of contraception.
The OP's mother's opinion may be outdated but it is very relevant and not one to ignore. Do I agree with her? No. But in her own way it's her protective mechanism. An unwed mother was a very vulnerable member of society if the boyfriend turned out to be a dick, left etc. In the not so distant past when women didn't have the protection they do now, assuming they even have protections like that where she's from.
Even in Ireland amongst the Traveller community girls are wed only once. They're wed usually at 16-18 and they can't even be seen to be alone with a boy or they're "scandalized" and cast out of their community. For them that protective mechanism still exists and their community, culture and ethnicity wholly depends on those traditions.
Hate it all you want. Feminism is simply a prejudiced concept used by certain women to try and create a matriarchal society by ignoring the realities of human nature to suit their own needs.
I really don't know that many promiscuous women who did it for "good" reasons. I know abuse victims who became sexually detached and slept around because it was the only way they knew how to be close to anyone, it was all they knew. I know women who suffered break ups that slept around try and deal with the pain and regret it. I know women who were too scared to get emotionally attached to any one man out of fear of being hurt because they didn't trust men, they too regret it. I know some women who do it for "good" reasons too who are party girls and just can't settle. I also know others who did settle and then lost their boyfriend/husband once he found out what she was like. I know promiscuous women who have three kids with three different guys and are too emotionally unstable to have stable relationships. I know plenty who just love sex too, one or two with STD's.
So hate it all you want, try and change it too. But sexual freedom and promiscuity still carries far more risk and is far more detrimental to women than to us men than only having sex in loving relationships. Is it unfair? It's how it is, it's going to take a long time for that to change if it ever really does. Funnily enough a bi-product of all this is something feminists truly despise and it's the growing movement among young girls to sexualise really young. To explore their sexual freedom and be promiscuous, to exercise that right and even have it as a badge of honour that feminists work so hard to promote it as. Did they really thing it wouldn't travel down like that?
...............................
A
female
reader, shrodingerscat +, writes (11 November 2012):
 To the male anonymous poster who said:"Please don't expect the majority of men to change 50,000 years of natural preferences overnight just because the circumstances have changed in the last 50 years. It's not going to happen because its not realistic. Women would be no better at making such an abrupt change in something so deeply programmed into them."Your thinking is flawed. The beauty standards of males and females have GREATLY varied over the last few thousand years and vary greatly from culture to culture. Evolutionary psychology is a good theory, but there is too much variation in male and female beauty standards to base your beliefs on.Cultures absolutely do change, and the culture of slut-shaming didn't come from evolution, it came from patriarchal culture, the division of people into different classes, and religion. Slut-shaming didn't stem from evolution, it came from society, and just as society can be quickly altered, so can our ideas about how a woman "should" act.
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares  +, writes (11 November 2012):
 Anon male, do you think that 50000 years ago men were buff and athletic ? Do you see them like Hugh Jackman types, with a sexy leopard loincloth over powerful thighs ? Sorry, it is not so.
Just to quote ONE example, the " man of Flores ", a male skeleton of 18000 years ago found in a cave in Liang Bua, Indonesia, was around 3.4 feet tall and looked like the hobbit.
Development and distribution of muscles was quite different from what it is now. Bow legs, hollow chest and sloping ,narrow shoulders were more or less the norm.
As for pot bellies, at the times must have been a very desirable evolutionary trait, because in a hunting -gathering society the guy who manages to store fatty deposits has a bigger chance to survive and reproduce in period of famines or shortage of prey, and also to face the rigors of winters without central heating :)
Fast forward to a little over 2000 years ago, say, around Julius Cesar times, for instance. They weren't that big and buff even then. The real macho guys, I don't know, gladiators for instance, ... were in average around maybe 5.6 , 120 -130 pounds... but that if you were really a hunk :) . Well, of course 5.6 is tall if you are much shorter, but , you see, population was more physically homogeneous then than now, due to diet, life condition , susceptibility to diseases being much more similar among individuals even of very different social classes- and minor chance of cross breeding of course.
But let's jump to modern times, Renaissance for instance. The physically desirable type, the ideal so to speak, was not the tall buff guy, but a way more genteel, more androginous figure. Leonardo da Vinci was 6'4 and he was considered a freak of nature, - and maybe that's why we know so little about his romantic life- probably he did not have much of one, being weird and gross both in the eyes of ladies and gay gentlemen.
All this- that has very little , in fact nothing, to do with the OP's question, - forgive me please, OP- just to say that when we look closer there is really very little of authentically DNA-embedded , authentically " natural " and " evolutionary ". Most of the things relative to sexual and emotional behaviour of men are heavily cultural, and powerfully influenced by social , psychological and intellectual traits of any given society.
So, before inevitably christening any costum or mental attitude with " it's biological, it's evolutionary ", let's go very slow. Often one finds out that naturel took a severe beating by cultural.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): Modern civilization also means that men no longer need to have physically buff bodies to hunt food and fight off wild animals. But lots of women still find those shapely male bodies more attractive. Lots of women still are less attracted to men who aren't tall and slim and have potbellies. No amount of reasoning with women is going to change that. Women are not going to apologize to men for continuing to desire an outdated trait. Most men are still more attracted to women who don't sleep around, birth control or not. Most men are much less attracted to promiscuous women especially for a long term partner. Please don't expect the majority of men to change 50,000 years of natural preferences overnight just because the circumstances have changed in the last 50 years. It's not going to happen because its not realistic. Women would be no better at making such an abrupt change in something so deeply programmed into them.
...............................
A
female
reader, shrodingerscat +, writes (11 November 2012):
This is to the anonymous male who stated:"Agree in principle, but I must point out that males have the inherent biological advantage of enjoying the "sexual freedom" to be indiscriminate in their choice of female partners because they have the ability to walk away from unwanted pregnancies. Nature places the physical burden of reproduction on the female, that is why from a male POV I would consider females to have much more at stake and therefore much more reason to exercise caution in copulation."Birth control methods today are fantastic at preventing STIs and unwanted pregnancies. A hormonal birth control such as the pill, shot, patch, or IUD can be used along with condoms and the chances of an unwanted pregnancy would be next to a miracle. Not only that, but Plan B and abortions are legal here in the US and in most First-World countries. Unwanted pregnancies are no longer holding women back from enjoying sexual freedom due to the advances in medicine and social freedom and human rights.
...............................
A
female
reader, Ciar  +, writes (11 November 2012):
 From what you've said, your mother's statement was not directed at you personally.I think you have to apply some context to the comment. If the girl in question had a new boyfriend every 3 weeks and slept with each one of them, most people would agree with her. You probably would too. It's this sort of woman I think your mother was referring to. She didn't spell it out because she probably thought you understood her.I don't see the point in telling your mother you've been having sex with your boyfriend. Just because we don't vomit out every detail of our lives, does not mean we're lying. If you're a grown woman, in a stable and healthy relationship then there is no reason to share this information with anyone else.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): "this helps me understand the way she thinks a bit more"I'm the anon male, and glad you got my point as intended (although sad that my speculative hypothesis seems to apply).One phrase I use repeatedly (and to little effect) is "I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking you to consider my point of view."I believe you have accomplished that regarding your mother and so you have taken the first step to coming to an understanding with her, which is quite different than coming to an agreement with her, which is quite unlikely in the foreseeable future.Also wish to retrospectively amend previous advice after considering Cerberus's point of view: Your sex life is your own business, perfectly appropriate for you to practice the art of selective omission and NOT discuss your sex life with your mother given your quite incompatible (but for understandable reasons) viewpoints.Your mother is well intentioned, just misguided for very understandable reasons. She only wants what's best for you, no matter how miserable she's making your life in the process (nod, nod, wink, wink). But as you get older, you'll be amazed at how how much smarter she'll suddenlybecome. Only thing worse would be a mother who doesn't fret about your love life.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): Your mother needs to check her way of thinking.If this man is your man then why not have sex with him.It doesn't make you a whore. You should've asked how many boyfriends have she had and was she a whore.I am not disrespecting but somethings are better seen then heard!
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): Hi!! I´m the op, I just wanted to make clear that I do not think the way my mother does, I have my own believes and I´m not going to stop having sex with my boyfriend because of what she thinks, I just wanted to know other people´s opinions before judging my mother. I appreciate your help and all of your answers, especially this paragraph:"I may be reading too much into the situation, but I find it interesting that you shared your "mom's" opinion but not your "dad's" which leads me to consider the possibility that your bio-father is out of the picture, and if that is the case then perhaps your mother is bitter and/or misguidedly trying to prevent you from becoming pregnant by the wrong guy and being stuck as a single mother with no husband and no prospects for one."My situation is quite similar, and this helps me understand the way she thinks a bit more.And thank you all for answering!! :)
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): "The other day I was talking to my mom, and somehow she ended up telling me how she thinks that a girl that sleeps with all of her boyfriends is a whore."
Your mother is incorrect. What she should have said is that she thinks that a girl that sleeps with all of her boyfriends is a slut. Whores get paid, sluts don't. By her line of reasoning (not saying I agree with her, just nitpicking her semantics in deciphering her logic) what she "should" be telling you is that a whore will have sex with any guy she calls a john for money, while a slut will have sex with any guy she calls a boyfriend for nothing.
"do yo think there's a way for me to stop lying to her?"
Yes, by starting to tell her the truth.
"without her being angry or something."
No, because you previously lied to her. Own up to it or something.
I may be reading too much into the situation, but I find it interesting that you shared your "mom's" opinion but not your "dad's" which leads me to consider the possibility that your bio-father is out of the picture, and if that is the case then perhaps your mother is bitter and/or misguidedly trying to prevent you from becoming pregnant by the wrong guy and being stuck as a single mother with no husband and no prospects for one. Again, just speculation based on what you HAVEN'T said.
Schrodingerscat: "Girls should enjoy the sexual freedom that men have enjoyed for decades now without fear of being condemned unfairly."
Agree in principle, but I must point out that males have the inherent biological advantage of enjoying the "sexual freedom" to be indiscriminate in their choice of female partners because they have the ability to walk away from unwanted pregnancies. Nature places the physical burden of reproduction on the female, that is why from a male POV I would consider females to have much more at stake and therefore much more reason to exercise caution in copulation.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 November 2012): No OP, a whore is someone who sleeps with people for money or gifts. That's that. To me a man or woman who only marries a person for their money is a whore. People who trade sex for gifts etc. that's a whore.
To me there has to be a material element, treating it as a service.
But I don't see any negative connotations to any of those to be honest. If men and women want to trade sex for money or materials then that's their business, I don't see anything bad with being a whore, their lives and a mutual decision.
Your second part OP, your sex life is none of your mothers business, you don't have to tell her anything. I mean are you going to tell her what the last bow job you gave was like? Would she tell you that's she's taken it up the ass by 5 guys? No OP, you're allowed to have your privacy, you're an adult and if she wants to believe you're a virgin let her off.
...............................
A
male
reader, tamperingtampaguy +, writes (11 November 2012):
With all due respect , your mother needs a vocabulary lesson. A whore is someone that compromises personal values for financial or material gain. Those values are usually sexual but can be other things as well. The word your mother is looking for is slut. Slut is one of those words that is a matter of subjectivity and certainly not absolute.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl  +, writes (11 November 2012):
 Depends on the lenght of these relationships. Any relationship that hasn't lasted for at least a year is not to be considered a serious relationship.
As for your mother, you need to make up your own opinion on what you believe in, and what your own morals are. If you agree with your mother you could stop having sex with your boyfriend.
...............................
A
female
reader, shrodingerscat +, writes (10 November 2012):
The number of sex partners a person has in no way reflects their worth as a human being. Period.
Girls should enjoy the sexual freedom that men have enjoyed for decades now without fear of being condemned unfairly.
Slut-shaming is wrong and merely perpetuates the patriarchal oppression that women have suffered with for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Rise above the system! Don't condemn people for their own expression of sexual freedom and don't allow others to condemn you! Enjoying intimacy and pair bonding is a healthy and beautiful expression of a mature sexual person, and doesn't lessen their worth as a person at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
...............................
|
