What is so wrong in today's society with being a 'slut'?

Monogamy is when you have one partner at a time. It is not "a man and a woman staying together long enough to raise offspring". You don't know the basic terminology.

And even if the mis-labeled "monogamy" you describe is not a recent development, it still doesn't preclude the concept of polygamy and/or successive partners also existing in historical societies.

citation needed. why exactly do you feel that i dont know what im talking about? what made you think this?

and childish writing is even more tiresome tbh. do you really think that makes you look smart? are you a troll? or are you so simple that you look like a troll when you really are being serious? did your degree teach you that writing like an inelegant 14 year old is cool?

i understand what you said full well, the thing is i did not ask you to rewrite it as a question only in a more retarded way. lol. i just told you to explain why

Lmao @ people really believing in that key analogy. I mean it's a cute theory but c'mon xD

yeah, but they didn't.

Its all very well you saying "oh this could have happened" or "monogamy could mean this", but all we're getting from you is that you have never studied this and you're just guessing.

oh what, and it's ok for a guy to do this? please - grow up.

It is a genuine shame that women also take part in 'slut-shaming' and it's not equality when a girl is criticized unless she acts in a 'pure way' (to quote the op) yet a man who takes part in this kind of activity isn't labelled any of the same things.

the even sadder thing is that many of the people in this post [and in society in general, including women] are brought up in a society where this is drilled into us that any other way of seeing things (i.e. a girl should be treated the same way as a male is she does these kind of activities - in other words not being called a 'slut') is just incomprehensible.

By the way, where did the negative post rating go? we need it back.

From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, it is advantageous for men to have sex with as many women as possible, disperse their seed as far and wide as possible, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing a lot of offspring. The more attempts at procreation they have (particularly, but not exclusively with females displaying signs of high fertility), the more healthy offspring they are likely to produce. It is also advantageous for them to value women who are not sexually promiscuous, because otherwise they are competing with many other males in the race to be the one who actually gets her pregnant.

On the other hand, for women it is not particularly advantageous to have sex with as many different men as possible. Unlike a man who can theoretically have as many women as he wants carrying his children all at once, a woman only has one uterus, with a very limited capacity for the number of different men's children it can house. Unlike men, who produce millions of sperm every day, even into their old age, a woman's reproductive system is very limited in the number of children it can produce, and it stops working around the age of 40-50. It is therefore more advantageous for them to value virile men who are likely to produce the most healthy offspring, and to restrict their sexual activity to select men of the "highest quality" they can get, so as to give their few attempts at procreation the highest chances of being successful, rather than waste them on any old person. It's also advantageous with them to be in a relationship with a male who looks like he's going to stay around and help provide for, and protect her offspring, giving it the highest chance of survival.


The "key and the lock" analogy does not need to be solely about the physical resemblance to anybody's anatomy, which is purely coincidental. You could just as easily think of it as a combination safe, and the code used to open it. Or an exclusive club with a guest list, and a swarm of people trying to get in, most of whose names are not on the list.

The point of the analogy is that, the lock is protecting something rare or valuable from being accessed by anyone other than a select few; just as women are instinctively predisposed to do, with their few chances at procreation. There's supposed to be a filtering mechanism in place to make sure only the "right" people get through. But it's not a great filtering mechanism if it can be bypassed by just anybody. Whereas the purpose of a key is to allow the holder to gain access to these rare and valuable things. The most useful key is the one that opens the lock that is guarding the most valuable stuff. But on top of that, the key is even more useful if it is able to open more locks than just that; just as men are predisposed to want to mate with, not only the highest quality females, but also a high quantity of females.


These predispositions carry over into society today, where men are thought to be "successful" in having sex with many women, because it's a sign of being a "high quality" male that so many women are willing to have sex with him, and consider him adequate enough to spend one of their precious attempts at procreation on him. He's also perceived to have got something that he wanted, but was difficult to achieve.

On the other hand, women who are promiscuous are seen as "unsuccessful". It is assumed that they want to get a man's commitment, but are unable to do so, and therefore end up with different partners all the time, which is a sign of a "low quality" woman. The trait of having had multiple sexual partners is also less valued by their potential suitors.

I never said it was okay for guys to sleep around either but you go ahead and sleep around and get every STD under the sun in your convoluted bid to stick it to the patriarchy.

that's lovely that you understood my question, what with us both speaking the same language and all. Now would you like to have a go at answering it.

I am merely defending the null hypothesis, it is not up to me to provide evidence or reasoning as to why this is the case.

I don't think it is necessary to explain things in a way which is so complicated and ridiculous that the meaning is lost.

I think you have reading comprehension issues. please go back to my posts and read properly.

and if it is not up to you to explain your unfounded failure of a statement, then it is not up to me to answer anything when you can't even explain something you're clearly unable to backup.

again, i told you to explain, not for a retardedly written question. if you can't explain then don't reply. i don't need a stupid question, but if you must know i think the door analogy is fine if you're not dumb enough to take it literally. "everday security mechanisms", ****ing lol.

Before we met, her business is her business.

Would you be concerned if your boyfriend took place in gang bangs and whatever it is you mean by "degrading and humiliating activities"?

amen to that

I get the whole "before we met" thing but what I'm wanting to know is how those images of her would make you feel(thinking about them and all)?

I sort of briefly explained what I meant by "degrading" activities. Say she got off on being treated like the lowest of the low-so things such as being p*$$ed on,pimped out idk eat from a toilet?Literally the worst things you can possibly imagine. How would pictures of your wife, doing those things ,flickering through your brain make you feel?(I'm not asking if you'd judge her or not.I'm curious as to what kind of feelings you'd get if you were exposed to that).

I might be concerned if a potential boyfriend did that in the sense that he might want me to do it. But as a general thing I'm okay with different expectations as far as sexuality goes for both men and women. Kind of like i'm okay with different expectations as far as height or social status(etc) might go for the two sexes

This is an interesting theory, but it simply makes no sense for these double standards to exist in the 21st century. When people use form of contraception in the majority if their sexual encounters.

How can you be okay with these different 'expectations'. It isn't fair. This is a matter completely up to what the woman enjoys sexually and she should not be judged differently to a man doing exactly the same thing.

I'm okay with them.
Btw sweetheart before i even try and explain why, mind telling me how old you are? Idk if you're doing it on purpose or not but you sound about 13-ish.
(i'm only asking so that i know how to address my point)

AKA: you don't have an answer

I agree that you have a point. However, our technological innovations occur at a much faster rate than evolution, so our evolutionary characteristics don't really have time to catch up.

Many of our hereditary characteristics are remnants left over from when life was very different. For example, does it make sense for a black person to have dark skin protecting him from the sun's harmful rays, if he lives in a cold country where there's hardly any sun? Well, not really. But if he's only moved there within the last few generations (and this has only really been possible within the last few generations) then he'll still be carrying the traits that his long-gone ancestors were using to adapt to their own environments - and they probably lived in more sunny countries.

To a great extent, whom we are attracted to isn't a logical choice that we consciously decide to make. It's just whomever our in built instincts direct us towards. This will be governed more by the types of societies that we evolved to live in, rather than the one we live in at this moment.