A
female
age
26-29,
anonymous
writes:I just want to know why is it when men play around with 3 or more women its ok. Hes looked up to as the CHAMP. BUT if a female plays around with 3 men or more. She gets called a "HOE" : "SLUT" : A "WHORE". JUST about every name in the book. why is that? Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (8 January 2012):
 All these comments about women being sluts because it's easier for them to have sex are ridiculous. I don't know a SINGLE woman who wasn't called a slut long before she even went on her first real date, let alone had sex for the first time. Women are called sluts for having sex, for not having sex, for having certain hair colors, for hitting puberty early, for turning down a guy for a date, for associating with certain people, basically women are called sluts just for having a vagina. Being called a slut has NOTHING to do with her actions.
Second off, the double standard of promiscuity didn't appear once the bar scene started, it has existed pretty much since the beginning of civilization as a way to basically own and control women and their bodies. Female genital mutilation is an extreme extension of this same double standard. That some men are so extremely concerned with preventing women from having sex before marriage or cheating that they demand their future wives have their genitals mutilated so they either can't enjoy sex or experience excruciating pain. This is on the same plane as the slut double standard, just in a more extreme way. You think young girls are hurt because it's just easier to for them to get laid? You think women are stoned to death in Afghanistan for being raped or having sex before marriage because it's easier for them to pick up guys for casual sex in bars?
The notion that women are ostracized and punished for having sex because it's easy to have casual sex is ignorant and offensive.
A
male
reader, shameless +, writes (7 January 2012):
 A girl ask a guy:"Why when a girl had sex with more than one guy, she is a "SLUT" but if a GUY had sex with more than a girl, he is a lEGEND? The guy reply..:"If a lock can be opened by more than a key, it's a useless lock, but if a key can open many doors it's a "MASTER KEY".
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (6 January 2012): Wiseoldman, that is a fantastic answer and I couldnt agree with you more (from someone who couldn't get laid laid even if he tried) ;)
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (6 January 2012):
You're thinking of sex. Sex and gender are different. We aren't talking about physical differences we're talking about behavioral differences here.
Evolution also takes a heck of a long time, way longer than civilization has been around. Not to mention "society" has been changing constantly since it began, and the expected roles of people have changed greatly along with it. People evolved to be physically as we are a long while before society showed up. You want to explain to me how societal roles that only exist within a society evolved when there was no society? You do know that the entire field of evolutionary psychology is not recognized by any of the other branches of science and social science as a real thing right? It's actively mocked in fact. They don't use any actual science, they look at how things are now, interview some college students about what they think is hot, reduce everything to sex appeal, and try to make a claim that it has some evolutionary basis. For instance they tried to make a claim that we like a certain kind of car grill based on evolution.
Social norms and roles are different everywhere. There are and have been matriarchal societies. There are and have been societies where men do most of the childcare and housekeeping and women are responsible for feeding everyone. These roles are not biologically set in stone, they change huge amounts depending on where and when you are. Societal roles of every other kind even change depending on how you're raised and where you're raised, and change throughout a person's lifetime. The role a person plays in society can vary so widely it's incredibly silly to argue that this particular type of role is completely unchangeable and set in stone. Our brains change and adapt incredibly fast, much faster than our bodies evolve. To make the claim that because the gender roles were one way hundreds and thousands of years ago and are therefore completely inevitable has no basis in reality or science or history.
There are many women who have no "maternal instinct" and the vast majority of women work and are as good at pretty much every job as men are. Yes men have better upper body strength. Women have better endurance, cold tolerance, hunger tolerance, dehydration tolerance, and pain tolerance. Women can also run farther (just not as quickly). It's always perplexing when people use the reason that men are stronger as justification for the oppression of women, as though upper body strength is the only strength that matters. And nowadays, no one needs any kind of physical strength to be successful. In fact you need NONE of those things to do either parenting or do about 90% of jobs. There's breast milk substitute and neither being a nurse or doctor or teacher or lawyer requires ovaries or testicles, except on a social expectations basis.
Occams razor says that since other societal roles are very quickly adaptable (within a matter of months sometimes) gender roles are plastic as well. It also says that since women have adapted to fit every job that was opened to them, quickly, and some men have quickly adapted to fill some household roles and childcare roles, gender roles are EXTREMELY plastic. Not to mention the idea that women don't or shouldn't be in the workplace came about in the 50's, as an idea to support the men coming home from war. The only difference was women weren't permitted into elite jobs that men were allowed into. Women have always worked, including doing physical labor on farms, hunting, and gathering food.
And whether or not gender roles were necessary 500 years ago is totally irrelevant. Our lives today in no way resemble people's lives 500 years ago. There are only a tiny handful of behaviors that can really be shown to be biological/evolutionarily derived, and none of them involve any sorts of societal roles, all of them are tiny bodily functions like lip curling. People can overcome every "biological urge" we have, from sexual urges (highly religious people), to hunger (fasting and dieting), to holding it when we need to use the toilet, etc... But suddenly when it comes to societal behavior we KNOW doesn't seem to impact people's preferences, urges, or life goals suddenly we can't change them? That's just a ridiculous claim.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (6 January 2012): Person12345 Gender is not just a social construct it's a biological and psychological one too. Why did men emerge as the dominant gender physically? Why are women not as strong as men physically? Why are women able to get pregnant, lactate and feed babies and men not?
We have for the majority of our existence had natural gender roles whether you like that or not and it was a very natural evolution that led the men to be hunters and warriors and women to do the domestic work. We wouldn't have survived as a species if women in tribes decided they weren't going to do that vital work and decided instead they wanted to go out hunting instead of taking care of the children and preserving food for the winter. Who would have nursed the children for the first 4 or 5 years of their lives, when infant mortality was so high and you may expect to have 1 or 2 children in ten survive to adulthood. 10 years of constant work right there when they only could expect to live until about 40-50.
The simple fact is women played a vital role in our society and they naturally slotted into that role as a matter of necessity and survival. If women didn't prepare and preserve food, something that could take a day just to do something that takes us 5 minutes these days, then we would have starved. Keep their dwellings clean, free from disease and rats and make clothing etc. we simply wouldn't have been successful as a species. Of course it was natural and the only reason these conditions have changed is because of the things we have invented. The contraceptive pill, better maternal care, better cooking technology, better cleaning technology and various other conveniences that have made domestic life a lot easier.
Person12345 all of these innovations have only existed in any great number and cheaply for just over 100 years. We are still finding our way as far as defining gender roles, in relation to our new social situation and while you may feel it's not happening quickly enough, it is happening and it will happen but it's going to take more than 100 years and 3 or 4 generations to undo that. It wasn't a matter of oppression it was a matter of necessity. Irish Brehon law which were the laws of early medieval Ireland for example were exceptionally protective of women's rights in all areas of life. They could own land, property, they could divorce their husbands if they were sexually inept, they could divorce them if they spoke badly about them in public and domestic violence against women was punished very severely.
It makes interesting reading for any feminist or anyone interested in gender roles in history. It was only when the Christians arrived did we see wholesale oppression and suppression of women.
The thing brehon law shows in relation to this question is that women who were promiscuous back then were seen as poor quality women and with very good reason in relation to their circumstances. You can only expect 2-3 children out of 10 to survive to adulthood, and children were the most important commodity back then, they were precious as the only way a clan could compete and survive was to have lots of children. Status, honour and bloodlines were also very important so you couldn't have a woman in the clan who was promiscuous having your children or your status would be ground into dirt as paternity was impossible to judge.
Even in cases of rape, the law stated that the rapist had to take full responsibility for the child and that child was a full heir to all that belonged to that man and therefore the victim herself had all those rights too.
The way you speak is that we men somehow oppressed women by giving them these domestic gender roles, to raise babies and to work in the home. But it was literally the most important role in our society at the time, we would have had no more children and we would have starved to death, died from disease if the home wasn't properly attended to which was an all day job. Indeed there were laws to ensure that a man could divorce a woman who didn't perform these duties and even a law where a family could take in another wife if the first wife found herself disabled or unable to do these tasks. You can argue against it all you want but you can't ignore mortality rates and the ability to nurse children, is a natural consequence of biology. If men were able to lactate and feed children then yes maybe things would have been different, if both genders could get pregnant and bear children the yeah maybe it would have been different but that wasn't the case.
It was a simple biological necessity that women had to stay at home and it was simple biological necessity to ensure your wife was carrying your child and your heir and not off shagging everyone else and destroying the success of your genetic heritage by having children that weren't yours.
It was the Christians then that came into Ireland and said women were filthy sinful scum that need to be controlled and purified and they're the ones who built a culture rejecting scientific advances, the very scientific advances allow women far greater freedom and they are the ones responsible for trying to keep women in an oppressive role. It's no coincidence that women are starting to assert themselves in a greater way as religion in Ireland is dying. It's ironic though because statistically women in Ireland are the most religious and they're the ones who view women who are promiscuous in a far darker light than most men.
As a Catholic country condoms were banned here up until the 60's, the church still wants them banned. Abortion here is illegal too but the general population is moving away from religion and as we become more secularized the terms slut etc. are far less common and have far less of a profound meaning. Then again a hell of a lot of the women I know still don't like the idea of promiscuity, neither for themselves nor others. In fact of all the women I know who were promiscuous or are still promiscuous none of them are happy about it and not always from the stand point of dirtiness or purity. Simply because what they seek is long term commitment and love and what they get is sex. So those girls then don't like being promiscuous and don't like girls who are because they're creating a situation were promiscuity is becoming the norm and girls who aren't free and easy about sex are becoming more and more cast down as prudes.
We then have a situation where women who wish to keep sex inside of long term relationships, don't want many partners but want to find a profound love with someone they want to share their lives with are looked down upon even more than the women who are promiscuous. The pressure on teenage girls to become sexually active young is more intense now than it ever was, you know that. So instead of achieving a happy balance we're going in the opposite direction so in essence you girls just can't win and we guys still have the pressure to be "studs" while young women put pressure on each other to fulfil roles of being sexually active but then being cast down by each other for being sluts. Being a virgin these days is as bad as if not worse than being a slut. Try and work that one out.
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (6 January 2012):
Of course there are gender differences. Gender is a social construct and is not natural and certainly not inevitable. If gender was biological it would be the same across all cultures, and it varies immensely.
You're taking the incredibly lazy way of thinking about this. Basically, everything is the way it is, so that must be natural and inevitable (by the way, natural does not mean inevitable) and there's no point thinking about it or trying to change it, even if it results in the oppression of HALF the population. Doesn't matter though if you don't belong to that group I guess?
...............................
A
male
reader, wiseoldman  +, writes (6 January 2012):
I'll spare you the political rubbish and give you an answer.
The double standard exists because an average looking woman with an average body can sleep with pretty much any guy she wants to sleep with, if she's brave enough to ask him, if she doesn't want him for more than one bonk, and if the guy in question thinks he can get away with it if he happens to be already involved with someone else. That's the power she has. She can even negotiate dinner into the bargain.
If a guy walks up to a girl he doesn't know and simply asks her to sleep with him, no matter how handsome he is 99.9% of the time she'll either scream and run or punch him in the face.
Moral or not, that's why it's an accomplishment if a man can be promiscuous.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (6 January 2012): I hate wars and violence. But I am not going to argue that mankind's violent nature is a myth just because I don't approve of people acting that way.
The sexual "biological imperatives" of men and women are real. Its senseless to argue that there aren't significant gender differences just because you aren't happy about it.
However a biological basis for something does not justify doing it. Violence and wars are bad for us. And cheating is wrong, man or woman.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (5 January 2012): Thanx for the info and Everybody who replied to my question.
...............................
A
female
reader, PerhapsNot +, writes (5 January 2012):
 P.S. There are plenty of women, who do not like man whores either. I would be surprised if a grown woman would be thrilled to hear that her SO has slept with a shitload of women. The typical conclusions are:
1. They're more liable to be cheaters
2. They're more likely to have an STD
3. They're playboys who are not ready to settle down
I have yet to meet a woman who goes after men, who have slept with a bunch of women because they think it's "cool". That's teenage BS and you'll grow out of it.
...............................
A
male
reader, Danielepew  +, writes (5 January 2012):
 It's called "See, I have this double standard: I want to have sex with as many as I can, but I want you to be a virgin, because I want to feel you would never cheat on me and I believe your past sex life is an indication of your likelihood of cheating".
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (5 January 2012):
Patriarchy, that's why.
There is no reason other than traditionally men have wanted to control women and their bodies. The whole thing about biological necessity is total hooey. People have been trying to use biological reasons to oppress groups of people since the beginning of civilization, with every oppressed group in history, in every instance.
Here's a website to help you out.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/what-is-slut-shaming/#double-standard
...............................
A
male
reader, Dr.LanceMerryweather +, writes (5 January 2012):
 Ultimately, discounting rape or any forced sex, it is the woman who says "yes" or "no" to sex.
Most men find it difficult to say "no" when it is "handed on a plate" but - it is always the woman's choice wether it takes place at all.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (5 January 2012): It's tradition OP. Biologically OP we guys can can make 5+ babies a day, women can only make 1 every 9 months. A woman that sleeps around then is a negative because she can't then know who the father of that child is and no guy can know whether he is the father or not. This is the tradition. You see bloodline used to be a very important thing, to ensure the child was of your bloodline you had to marry a virgin. A woman who was easy sexually then could not be relied upon to carry on a guys bloodline. So a woman like that was looked down upon and scandalized more so by other women than by us men ironically, which is still the case.
This dynamic changed with the invention of the contraceptive pill which gave women the same freedoms we guys have always enjoyed which is the choice to have sex without conception. I say it's a choice men have always had because we've always had the choice of pulling out. The thing is attitudes aren't changing as quickly as come would like. While I personally don't see anything wrong with a promiscuous woman nor do any of my friends, very few of them would consider that girl as good for anything other than sex. Girls don't like sluts because they're direct competition and while they are trying to make a guy earn sex from them and prove themselves first this girl is then taking all the guys by giving it to them freely without any such tests. Guys will take the sex from a "slut" but most will not want to date a girl that has been done by almost every guy they know. Mostly guys want girls with few sex partners, the same as girls want a guy with relatively few sex partners before them.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (5 January 2012): "I just want to know why is it when men play around with 3 or more women its ok."
From a man old enough to be your grandfather: It is NEVER OK for a guy to play around with more than one woman, or even play around with the affections of one woman, and it is NEVER OK for any guy to call any female any of the names quoted in your post.
ALWAYS be true to yourself, don't let guys or female friends pressure you into doing anything you don't want to do or feel uncomfortable about doing.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (5 January 2012): Because traditionally, in most cultures women were to hold their virginity until the prospect of marriage so they were 'pure' and had to dilligently hold onto their purity until they conceived a child. Although men at such a time did not value their own virginity so much and went with 'sluts' or whores and played around.
The double standard has not faded, even in a sexually free country like America, a promiscuous male is always considered 'cleaner' than a woman who is just as promiscuous or even not as much. I guess it is due to male expectations and tradition mixing with contemporary societal values.
...............................
A
male
reader, TrancedRhythmEar  +, writes (5 January 2012):
 Men can be egotistic and more competitive and also, aggressive.
...............................
|
