Girl having sex with 10 guys in a week is same as guy having 10 girls in one week?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by -Invidious-
Being a slut isn't challenging while being a stud is. Ergo being a stud means you gain much more respect than being a slut, because it shows you have social skills and the like to bag a woman.
As for the theory that men are "programmed" to be promiscuous it stands to sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Not too sure on the exact science but assuming it is correct then society would largely view men as just being good at their "job"; to spread their seed.
Just basically repeated what everyone else said lol and anyway at the end of the day double standards exist in both sexes and we just have to learn to live with it.
Im signing off now anyway since I have a law essay for tomorrow.
As for the theory that men are "programmed" to be promiscuous it stands to sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Not too sure on the exact science but assuming it is correct then society would largely view men as just being good at their "job"; to spread their seed.
Just basically repeated what everyone else said lol and anyway at the end of the day double standards exist in both sexes and we just have to learn to live with it.
Im signing off now anyway since I have a law essay for tomorrow.
aw man, if you shut up after the first sentence i would have agreed with you.
Original post by queenorivers
A guy is giving it up more easily because if a woman could have sex if she wanted to then surely there's always a willing guy...
no this is a point i do agree with, because most guys will sleep with anything if they just want sex, but girls are a lot more choosey, since we have standards, which makes it harder for guys. unless they are the sluttier girls who want to sleep with loads of guys... but they still then only usually go for hotter guys.
but if girls were just as slutty as guys in general, then we'd be equal and there would be no argument here.
Original post by queenorivers
Whether this is true or not it doesn't make a woman having sex any less moral.
no i agree, sluts are playas and playas are sluts.
the next question is, slayas vs pluts?
Original post by Bishamon
lol thats what they all say
lol too true.
Original post by queenorivers
It's not about who gains respect, it's about who LOSES it.. which seem to be women seeing as slut is derogatory... Which is wrong.. obviously and I won't just live with it.
Men AND women are programmed to want sex. Hence the clitoris, sexual urges etc. if women didn't want to do it they wouldn't... so why criticise them for doing so.
Men AND women are programmed to want sex. Hence the clitoris, sexual urges etc. if women didn't want to do it they wouldn't... so why criticise them for doing so.
My offer of a reason would be that to determine who the father of a child would be if the woman became pregnant.
Do not shout about condoms to me. Simply, the body does not know it has a condom on, or it would not "waste" semen. Chemicals are still released into the brain, ect. For a woman to be promiscuous has both sociological and evolutionary disadvantages.
I think in the future, the ideas behind sex will change. But only in the last sort of 50 years has sex become "safe" and generally free from the risk of pregnancy with the correct methodology. Give it time, and women will be given the same freedoms as men.
However, I think you're looking at this through very feminist glasses.
If a man has sex with 10 women in a week, a lot of men would think something like "legend." A much much smaller section of men would think "Man-whore/equivalent." What would a woman think? I don't know.
If a woman has sex with 10 men in a week, a lot of men would think "slag." A smaller section of men would think "free spirit/equivalent." Women on the other hand would quite universally I believe, think "slag." The problem is not with men only. You need to sort out affairs on your own side, before attempting to change our conceptions. I believe the fact that women would take this view is both evolutionary and sociologically grounded, perhaps they "take umbrage" with the idea that the woman has increased her potential of conceiving (again, chemically) or just that such acts are not befitting of whatever "women" are.
The argument that "ease" has a role, I think is one with some merit, but I think there probably is no one over-riding reason, so to look for one is futile.
Constructed well enough for you?
Original post by queenorivers
I'm sorry if I ever said that it was just men calling women slags but I am well aware that both genders are to blame for calling people sluts.
Determining the father of a child is easy, it's called DNA testing. Both people are responsible for a pregnancy unless there was a secret 'forgetting to take the pill' which is a whole different story.
Determining the father of a child is easy, it's called DNA testing. Both people are responsible for a pregnancy unless there was a secret 'forgetting to take the pill' which is a whole different story.
Bold is evolutionarily irrelevant. Anything that's become available in the last sort of few thousand years, generally is.
Look, I mean even I personally would attempt to be liberal about my conceptions of a woman who would do what we're discussing, but I must admit, if I heard about it, I would think "well, that's not very classy." Same as I would for a man actually.
I didn't mean that you had said that, what I mean is complaining that men are called legends and women slags for the same act is insane, when it is members of the same sex that deem this. Men call men legends, it is women who call women slags. To say it's not fair doesn't really seem logical. We're not the ones calling you slags (I mean we are too , but you could equally deem men "slags." )
Original post by Mann18
My offer of a reason would be that to determine who the father of a child would be if the woman became pregnant.
Do not shout about condoms to me. Simply, the body does not know it has a condom on, or it would not "waste" semen. Chemicals are still released into the brain, ect. For a woman to be promiscuous has both sociological and evolutionary disadvantages.
I think in the future, the ideas behind sex will change. But only in the last sort of 50 years has sex become "safe" and generally free from the risk of pregnancy with the correct methodology. Give it time, and women will be given the same freedoms as men.
However, I think you're looking at this through very feminist glasses.
If a man has sex with 10 women in a week, a lot of men would think something like "legend." A much much smaller section of men would think "Man-whore/equivalent." What would a woman think? I don't know.
If a woman has sex with 10 men in a week, a lot of men would think "slag." A smaller section of men would think "free spirit/equivalent." Women on the other hand would quite universally I believe, think "slag." The problem is not with men only. You need to sort out affairs on your own side, before attempting to change our conceptions. I believe the fact that women would take this view is both evolutionary and sociologically grounded, perhaps they "take umbrage" with the idea that the woman has increased her potential of conceiving (again, chemically) or just that such acts are not befitting of whatever "women" are.
The argument that "ease" has a role, I think is one with some merit, but I think there probably is no one over-riding reason, so to look for one is futile.
Constructed well enough for you?
Do not shout about condoms to me. Simply, the body does not know it has a condom on, or it would not "waste" semen. Chemicals are still released into the brain, ect. For a woman to be promiscuous has both sociological and evolutionary disadvantages.
I think in the future, the ideas behind sex will change. But only in the last sort of 50 years has sex become "safe" and generally free from the risk of pregnancy with the correct methodology. Give it time, and women will be given the same freedoms as men.
However, I think you're looking at this through very feminist glasses.
If a man has sex with 10 women in a week, a lot of men would think something like "legend." A much much smaller section of men would think "Man-whore/equivalent." What would a woman think? I don't know.
If a woman has sex with 10 men in a week, a lot of men would think "slag." A smaller section of men would think "free spirit/equivalent." Women on the other hand would quite universally I believe, think "slag." The problem is not with men only. You need to sort out affairs on your own side, before attempting to change our conceptions. I believe the fact that women would take this view is both evolutionary and sociologically grounded, perhaps they "take umbrage" with the idea that the woman has increased her potential of conceiving (again, chemically) or just that such acts are not befitting of whatever "women" are.
The argument that "ease" has a role, I think is one with some merit, but I think there probably is no one over-riding reason, so to look for one is futile.
Constructed well enough for you?
1. that is ridiculous, women still ovulate if the man has a condom on, the only way they don't is if they put a hormone into their body to stop eggs being released/fertilised. i'm sure if scientists sat down and had a think something similar could be done for men, eg. stop sperm production... that wouldn't really take off though because men would think it would take away from their "manliness" though.
2. player... not playa, but player... as in that is so not cool get away from me right now. personally. i certainly wouldn't be high fiving him (unless he was my best friend).
3. no they would think "where can i get her number"
4. this is true, never said it wasn't
Original post by Mann18
Bold is evolutionarily irrelevant. Anything that's become available in the last sort of few thousand years, generally is.
Look, I mean even I personally would attempt to be liberal about my conceptions of a woman who would do what we're discussing, but I must admit, if I heard about it, I would think "well, that's not very classy." Same as I would for a man actually.
I didn't mean that you had said that, what I mean is complaining that men are called legends and women slags for the same act is insane, when it is members of the same sex that deem this. Men call men legends, it is women who call women slags. To say it's not fair doesn't really seem logical. We're not the ones calling you slags (I mean we are too , but you could equally deem men "slags." )
Look, I mean even I personally would attempt to be liberal about my conceptions of a woman who would do what we're discussing, but I must admit, if I heard about it, I would think "well, that's not very classy." Same as I would for a man actually.
I didn't mean that you had said that, what I mean is complaining that men are called legends and women slags for the same act is insane, when it is members of the same sex that deem this. Men call men legends, it is women who call women slags. To say it's not fair doesn't really seem logical. We're not the ones calling you slags (I mean we are too , but you could equally deem men "slags." )
that doesn't matter since we are talking about modern days, and now we can DNA test to find out the father.
though it's still near impossible if you don't know who you've slept with.
Original post by Bellissima
1. that is ridiculous, women still ovulate if the man has a condom on, the only way they don't is if they put a hormone into their body to stop eggs being released/fertilised. i'm sure if scientists sat down and had a think something similar could be done for men, eg. stop sperm production... that wouldn't really take off though because men would think it would take away from their "manliness" though.
2. player... not playa, but player... as in that is so not cool get away from me right now. personally. i certainly wouldn't be high fiving him (unless he was my best friend).
3. no they would think "where can i get her number"
4. this is true, never said it wasn't
2. player... not playa, but player... as in that is so not cool get away from me right now. personally. i certainly wouldn't be high fiving him (unless he was my best friend).
3. no they would think "where can i get her number"
4. this is true, never said it wasn't
1) Not sure you've understood my point. My point was from an evolutionary standpoint, I assume we still try and ensure that if a pregnancy occured any child would be ours. My point about ejaculation was simply to say that just because we know pregnancy will not occur does not stop the relevant chemicals being released into the brain.
2) Well there you go then, the problem is female-female.
3) I can assure you, I, (and the vast majority of my friends) would not think that at all. Most of us would think "Oh, so she's a slag?" I wouldn't want to anything to do with her really. If she was my friend prior to the event, I think even my opinon may change if I'm being honest. Certainly, it wouldn't have positive outcomes.
4) Hence why I didn't direct this at you.
Original post by Bellissima
1. that is ridiculous, women still ovulate if the man has a condom on, the only way they don't is if they put a hormone into their body to stop eggs being released/fertilised. i'm sure if scientists sat down and had a think something similar could be done for men, eg. stop sperm production... that wouldn't really take off though because men would think it would take away from their "manliness" though.
2. player... not playa, but player... as in that is so not cool get away from me right now. personally. i certainly wouldn't be high fiving him (unless he was my best friend).
3. no they would think "where can i get her number"
4. this is true, never said it wasn't
2. player... not playa, but player... as in that is so not cool get away from me right now. personally. i certainly wouldn't be high fiving him (unless he was my best friend).
3. no they would think "where can i get her number"
4. this is true, never said it wasn't
Fail.
Original post by queenorivers
Regardless, bold is now culturally relevant. Condoms should be used.
If condom fails and pregnancy goes on, DNA testing. Sex is very safe and any evolutionary issues such as not knowing the father of the child, getting pregnant and disease are no longer an issue in this discussion.
If condom fails and pregnancy goes on, DNA testing. Sex is very safe and any evolutionary issues such as not knowing the father of the child, getting pregnant and disease are no longer an issue in this discussion.
Of course they are, we're speaking of people's opinions. I'm suggesting that the root of these opinions are perhaps evolutionary, as well as cultural.
I'm not saying sex should be done without condoms. I'm trying to suggest that people's notions go a little bit further back than when Chantelle won Big Brother.
Original post by Bellissima
that doesn't matter since we are talking about modern days, and now we can DNA test to find out the father.
though it's still near impossible if you don't know who you've slept with.
though it's still near impossible if you don't know who you've slept with.
I'm suggesting it may be a reason. To say "no, because we have this now" doesn't make sense, evolutionarily. Culturally, you may have a point though, although, since DNA testing cannot be carried out until the gestation period has passed, not an all encompassing one.
Original post by queenorivers
LOL - yeah I understand but I'm saying that these ideas now we have the advances in safe sex are outdated and need to be replaced with more equal ideas.
And I'm saying that expecting such a thing to happen overnight may in fact be a ridiculous notion, if the issue is evolutionary.
Original post by RollerBall
Fail.
wanna expand on that?
Original post by queenorivers
But you said twice that a guy would say that a woman is a slag, second time you said that you wouldn't want anything to do with her. The problem is female-female and male-female.
Male-Male=Legend
Male-Female= Slag
Female-Male= Player
Female= Female= Slag
But women think the same about men. So we can't say it is male-female.
(edited 13 years ago)
I would consider both to be slags, tbh.
(I mean, that's more than 1 person a day!)
(I mean, that's more than 1 person a day!)
Original post by queenorivers
Not overnight, just saying this is how I feel, this is what I think should happen and I hope we see it more in the future.
I agree.
I think many people would like to see this.
You do realise however that many people will still think "I don't want anything to do with her" though? You may be better off hoping that it becomes less glamourised for men to do it.
Original post by queenorivers
whatever the feelings are, if slag is in the equation for one sex and not the other it's an issue
One that is the "fault" of females though. I know you haven't said this, and I had incorrectly assumed you had, so I apologise for re-iterating a point that had no real relevance.
At first I found you annoying with all Your questions and negations but I'm starting to find it quite endearing (jk, I'm just teasing ya).
If I recall correctly, the question that OP put forward wasn't regarding 'fairness', OP simply wanted to know if it's the same thing, maybe implying she'd like to know the causes.
Fact is, I may not approve of it but it doesn't bother me enough to speak against it, there are many more important causes that I'd have to look towards before this
.
Surely this is more immoral than the girl there, so therefore if anyone's being a slut (lowering standards, not caring about the person) it's the guy?
Guys lower their standards because they have less choice. Simple as that. Whether it makes them slutty or not is for you to decide but has nothing to do with the current general public opinion.
I understand, one must generalise at times in order to make any argument about a large group (i.e. a gender)
I'M not just generalising for arguments sake. When OP asks whether it's the same thing, I think she meant to ask whether a girl would generally be seen as a slut rather than a guy would.
That's why I'm not bringing emotions and opinions into the matter, it's about what people generally seem to think.
I'm not sure how fond I am of your language. Makes a woman feel like it's something to 'give away' as opposed to 'something to do when comfortable/happy' it feels too predatory. Again insinuating that if this were the case, a guy seems sluttier. Also I wouldn't say girls just have to 'wait' for a guy to approach, for a woman it's more in the body language, but a move is still being made.
Right that didn't come out as it should have, I realise it seemed rather crude.
What I meant to do, is emphasize the fact that girls don't set out and look for a guy that they will later on approach. They wait for a guy to approach and then have to play their cards accordingly. The guy tends to lead the way at first.
So it's not THAT easy for a woman to have sex then... unless she's super attractive?
Right I realised the loophole in that argument when I posted it. Replace 'attractive' with 'not ugly'.
It seems that there tend to be more single guys at clubs than there are "approachable girls" (which still represent the majority of girls). By approachable I mean girls who are single and who would attract guys.
That's not necessarily true, but I see where you're coming from.
I know that many things I said aren't necessarily true. However in my experience, people tend to think that. I'm basing my hole argument on what a majority of people would think.
If that were true then regardless of how easy or difficult it is, why is the woman instantly under a derogatory name for having sex? Whether it's a conquest or not, just because it MAY be easy for a woman doesn't make it wrong. On that logic rich people shouldn't buy a top from h&m because it's more difficult for them to buy a top from chanel.
I agree, but people don't tend to go into detail. Most people just prejudice without analysing the situation. It is how it is, I'm not saying it's right but that's how things are.
I do not accept this as fair. For the reasons I stated above
As I said, you need to detach emotion and opinion from the argument in order to get an objective point of view. Regardless of how fair it is, people would generally see the girl as a slut and the guy as a player. You asked for an in depth argument and I gave you one, but because we are discussing general opinion, the argument has to be based on general opinion.
There is no apostrophe in playas.
Given that it's a misspelled, American version of the word 'players', I don't think it matters. Furthermore, my Google Chrome spell checker accepts it with apostrophe which allows me to avoid the annoying squiggly lines :P
If I recall correctly, the question that OP put forward wasn't regarding 'fairness', OP simply wanted to know if it's the same thing, maybe implying she'd like to know the causes.
Original post by queenorivers
Well.. thanks I'm glad you did
That's a shame, if you're unhappy about something I'd say it's a good idea to express this and perhaps more would follow suit and change things
That's a shame, if you're unhappy about something I'd say it's a good idea to express this and perhaps more would follow suit and change things
Fact is, I may not approve of it but it doesn't bother me enough to speak against it, there are many more important causes that I'd have to look towards before this
.Surely this is more immoral than the girl there, so therefore if anyone's being a slut (lowering standards, not caring about the person) it's the guy?
Guys lower their standards because they have less choice. Simple as that. Whether it makes them slutty or not is for you to decide but has nothing to do with the current general public opinion.
I understand, one must generalise at times in order to make any argument about a large group (i.e. a gender)
I'M not just generalising for arguments sake. When OP asks whether it's the same thing, I think she meant to ask whether a girl would generally be seen as a slut rather than a guy would.
That's why I'm not bringing emotions and opinions into the matter, it's about what people generally seem to think.
I'm not sure how fond I am of your language. Makes a woman feel like it's something to 'give away' as opposed to 'something to do when comfortable/happy' it feels too predatory. Again insinuating that if this were the case, a guy seems sluttier. Also I wouldn't say girls just have to 'wait' for a guy to approach, for a woman it's more in the body language, but a move is still being made.
Right that didn't come out as it should have, I realise it seemed rather crude.
What I meant to do, is emphasize the fact that girls don't set out and look for a guy that they will later on approach. They wait for a guy to approach and then have to play their cards accordingly. The guy tends to lead the way at first.
So it's not THAT easy for a woman to have sex then... unless she's super attractive?
Right I realised the loophole in that argument when I posted it. Replace 'attractive' with 'not ugly'.
It seems that there tend to be more single guys at clubs than there are "approachable girls" (which still represent the majority of girls). By approachable I mean girls who are single and who would attract guys.
That's not necessarily true, but I see where you're coming from.
I know that many things I said aren't necessarily true. However in my experience, people tend to think that. I'm basing my hole argument on what a majority of people would think.
If that were true then regardless of how easy or difficult it is, why is the woman instantly under a derogatory name for having sex? Whether it's a conquest or not, just because it MAY be easy for a woman doesn't make it wrong. On that logic rich people shouldn't buy a top from h&m because it's more difficult for them to buy a top from chanel.
I agree, but people don't tend to go into detail. Most people just prejudice without analysing the situation. It is how it is, I'm not saying it's right but that's how things are.
I do not accept this as fair. For the reasons I stated above
As I said, you need to detach emotion and opinion from the argument in order to get an objective point of view. Regardless of how fair it is, people would generally see the girl as a slut and the guy as a player. You asked for an in depth argument and I gave you one, but because we are discussing general opinion, the argument has to be based on general opinion.
There is no apostrophe in playas.
Given that it's a misspelled, American version of the word 'players', I don't think it matters. Furthermore, my Google Chrome spell checker accepts it with apostrophe which allows me to avoid the annoying squiggly lines :P
Original post by Mann18
For a woman to be promiscuous has both sociological and evolutionary disadvantages.
Actually being promiscuous and mixing up the gene pool of your offspring is a positive thing, evolution-wise. Contraception means we can replicate this behaviour without actually getting pregnant, just like men sow their invisble seeds by shagging around more but not actually doing so to make women pregnant.
Anyway, good luck queenorivers. I've been arguing the case you're arguing here in this thread but the only argument some guys had against me were to make stuff up about me. I gave up in the end. It's just pointless. Most people are so judgemental about female sexuality. Sad but true...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Why are some people in denial about the importance of looks?
- Do you get fed up if you are not one of the good looking people
- Boyfriend follows naked women on insta
- After she orgasms...
- Why are guys so horny??
- I am not sure how to approach my crush at my college
- Is it me or is sex overrated for a guy?
- Are you still a virgin?
- Girls find only 20% of guys attractive
- I'm not gay but sometimes I get off to gay porn?
- Is it rude to admit it's all about looks?
- Do the most attractive girls feel overwhelmed?
- body count
- No one will go out with me
- Boys if you have any questions for us girls we will answer
- whats the normal amount of sex i should be gettiny at 17
- Normal body count
- What's the craziest thing that's happened at your school?
- Does it bother you if your gf/bf slept with so many..
- Work Experience Week 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
