Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Girl having sex with 10 guys in a week is same as guy having 10 girls in one week? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Male-Male=Legend
    Male-Female= ****

    Female-Male= Player
    Female= Female= ****

    But women think the same about men. So we can't say it is male-female.

    but a woman thinking a man is a player isn't a good thing, it's not like "oh dude you're such a playa!" it's more like "he's a player and i couldn't trust him and he might be full of diseases"... that's what i meant before.

    i doubt there's many women who'd think a guy was a ledgend cause he got with 10 girls in a week.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black_mamba)
    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...
    I think otherwise.

    Thinking back to when we had just arrived on the scene, women were not hunter-gatherers, and had to rely on men to "help" them somewhat with food and protection. If it was uncertain that a child was their own, the defence/security of the female would be uncertain. So really, knowing that a child was your own meant that you didn't waste time on randomer's children.


    I have not studied human evolution at all however, and if you know that what I have said is incorrect, I apologise profusely and retract everything. It just seems logical that that is how things went down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    but a woman thinking a man is a player isn't a good thing, it's not like "oh dude you're such a playa!" it's more like "he's a player and i couldn't trust him and he might be full of diseases"... that's what i meant before.

    i doubt there's many women who'd think a guy was a ledgend cause he got with 10 girls in a week.
    That's what I meant.
    Sorry, I perhaps should have said:

    Male-Male= Positive
    Male-Female= Negative

    Female-Female= Negative
    Female-Male= Negative.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenorivers)
    And I apologise for reiterating that the fault lies with BOTH genders
    We're cool, goodnight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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 "****." A smaller section of men would think "free spirit/equivalent." Women on the other hand would quite universally I believe, think "****." 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?

    I agree completely with what you said. I think the two ladies aren't getting the point you want to put across.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    I think otherwise.

    Thinking back to when we had just arrived on the scene, women were not hunter-gatherers, and had to rely on men to "help" them somewhat with food and protection. If it was uncertain that a child was their own, the defence/security of the female would be uncertain. So really, knowing that a child was your own meant that you didn't waste time on randomer's children.


    I have not studied human evolution at all however, and if you know that what I have said is incorrect, I apologise profusely and retract everything. It just seems logical that that is how things went down.
    I didn't mean it in terms of who will look after the children, just in terms of having a better mixture of genetics will probably result in a bigger chance of the children having a wider variety of characteristics later in life. For example if all the kids were short and fat, and short kids grew up to be short fat waddly adults easily beaten down by some kick ass stone age leapord () then their gene pool is screwed. If the kids were a variety of heights/body shapes etc then more chance that some will survive.

    Variety is very very useful to evolution in general. Again same as you I don't know if this is accurate, but it's a good argument and makes sense to me at least.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black_mamba)
    I didn't mean it in terms of who will look after the children, just in terms of having a better mixture of genetics will probably result in a bigger chance of the children having a wider variety of characteristics later in life. For example if all the kids were short and fat, and short kids grew up to be short fat waddly adults easily beaten down by some kick ass stone age leapord () then their gene pool is screwed. If the kids were a variety of heights/body shapes etc then more chance that some will survive.

    Variety is very very useful to evoluntion in general. Again same as you I don't know if this is accurate, but it's a good argument and makes sense to me at least.
    What you describe is what I believe is called "gene diversity."

    I took Biology at A-Level, but can't for the life of me remember what I learnt about it. I normally would research it a little and get back to you, but I'm quite tired. I hope you don't think this is me ducking out, even though it sort of is. If you'd like to continue this at a later date, I'd be more than willing, just not right now :p:

    EDIT: But I can say something about it not really mattering though. Gene diversity can be achieved by having sex with someone different from yourself only, and then carrying that child through to birth. Having sex with many men would not increase the diversity of the child.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    EDIT: But I can say something about it not really mattering though. Gene diversity can be achieved by having sex with someone different from yourself only, and then carrying that child through to birth. Having sex with many men would not increase the diversity of the child.
    That's exactly why I said we replicate the behaviour that would give rise to gene diversity, but slightly modified for our own pleasures - the same argument behind why men sleep around and then defend it using the 'sowing their seeds' argument when they're not even getting all these women pregnant.

    I think it's all bullcrap anyway, for both genders. I think using evolutionary biology to explain modern day behaviours is stupid.

    To be continued.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black_mamba)
    That's exactly why I said we replicate the behaviour that would give rise to gene diversity, but slightly modified for our own pleasures - the same argument behind why men sleep around and then defend it using the 'sowing their seeds' argument when they're not even getting all these women pregnant.

    I think it's all bullcrap anyway, for both genders. I think using evolutionary biology to explain modern day behaviours is stupid.

    To be continued.
    Ok, I decided to reply immediately.

    It seems as though genetic diversity is not linked to evolution in the way you suggest. Firstly, suggesting that animals mate with the member of their species least like them is incorrect. It's likely that early woman selected her mate based on his physical strength. Genetic diversity means the amount of variation within a species, and it is an important thing, as the greater the diversity, the more likely a species is to survive a disaster (like disease lets say.)

    It is (from what I gather) a by-product of reproduction, not evolutionarily driven. So it seems to say having sex with lots of people in order to increase variation is insane, logically this is true unless all the people you had sex with were varied in their alleles. It is true that more sex = greater chance of conception, and it's possible that I'm overestimating the relationships of early humans, so perhaps it's not evolutionarily explainable. It may be however, so I'll bring it up. I do not think it's bull crap, it seems to make a lot of sense, and to say using evolutionary biology to explain modern day events is stupid I think is rather presumptuous, seeing as the behaviour of many animals is determined by exactly this.

    It may turn out to be a social reason, but if it is a social reason, I'm quite sure you'll be able to trace it's roots back to evolution, for instance, I'm quite inclined to change my theory of evolution doing this, to it being a result of social engineering inspired by evolution:

    Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.

    I also quite like how girls always seem to be angry at this, when it is rather their own problem, if girls thought that promiscuous girls were "legends/eqiuvalent"
    the problem would be balanced.

    One website I found with some quite good ideas behind the reasons for this is: http://therawness.com/why-its-worse-...-sleep-around/

    A raft of information/speculation from that website I suppose:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. It requires a combination of social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women to rack up a lot of partners, however, it pretty much only requires a vagina and a pulse. So one reason a man whoring it up and a woman whoring it up are treated differently is because for a woman, getting lots of partners requires absolutely no challenge, hence no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. When men get lots of sex partners, it’s respected more because for men it’s a challenge. This is just human nature: people gain respect for those who accomplish challenging feats while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak or flawed.

    Second, women do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He’s definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around with these multiple partners. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage. If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it’s a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn’t his, he’s investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn’t carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint. Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or raising another man’s child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it’s no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it’s a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don’t believe me. Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.

    Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are “hard-wired” to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies. So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn’t mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven’t evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.

    Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She’s the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risktakers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.

    These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we’re up against centuries of tradition here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals or anything. Understand that I’m just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way.

    Now a lot of people are going to read all this and dismissively think Oh this guy is just being a typical man and trying to justify every man’s dream: cheating and polygamy. But honestly, I don’t really think male polygamy is all it’s cracked up to be. Despite what most people assume, polygamy actually may benefit women more than men. Most dudes think a society of widespread polygamy (specifically polygyny, where one man can have several women) would just be a utopia of every guy sleeping with every woman under the sun. Some economists think otherwise though. The basic argument is that in a world where polygamy was acceptable, most of the women would be hoarded by the most successful men.


    I feel I should add, I don't agree with the social hypocrisy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    many people are going to ask this question

    "why is it seen acceptable for men to sleep around with ++ girls while its seen as ****gy for women to do the same it's so unfair!!"

    and the real answer is this --> men are suited to having multiple partners, dating wayyy back from evolution where men constantly had 10 or even 100/1000 + partners, and they chose the best out of the pack, it didnt change back then and it hasnt changed now

    as for the other gender, women have to be much more considerate when it comes to sex, where as men can result in possible STI if they're having a lot of sex with new partners, women have the issue of a pregnancy possibility as well as the STI, thus meaning they should really be more careful in who they sleep with

    can it be possible for one girl to sleep with 10 men in one week? it all depends on how she's feeling, if she has control of her life, if the men have high-self esteem and are good "mates", etc, but i see no reason for it not being acceptable other than some possible ugly side effects

    edit: that being said, at any class, any age, any gender group, a woman claiming to have slept with 10+ men in one week is going to cause her social status to shoot to flames, its just how it works.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Just remember, anal sex doesnt count towards your tally.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As long as they're both using protection and she's taking the necessary steps to avoid pregnancy (in a situation were she can't know and trust a guy then that's her responsibility unless she wants to get caught out). But they're both rather odd.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A key which fits into many locks is a useful key. I lock which fits many keys is a useless lock.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2508/...033dc4bf_m.jpg
    Promiscuous!
    "A 2008 US university study of international promiscuity found that British people are the most promiscuous in the industrialized world. The study measured one-night stands, attitudes to casual sex, and number of sexual partners."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    morally, socially etc.

    yes or no?
    Yet another of these threads. Funny how females always want to discuss this double standard and not the tons of double standards that go against men - because there are a lot more double standards against men than against women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    That's what I meant.
    Sorry, I perhaps should have said:

    Male-Male= Positive
    Male-Female= Negative

    Female-Female= Negative
    Female-Male= Negative.

    I disagree. If one of my mates slept with 10 girls in a week I would assume he was having some kind of early mid-life crisis/mental breakdown and needed to up his dose of happy pills. I certainly wouldn't be impressed (probably because I'm not 15 years old).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think people just have to accept that these gender differences exist, and yes it's not fair but it's just the way the world works. I don't think it's right either way, however I would probably be more shocked at a female doing that just because we're wired differently to men and are not ruled by our crotches (well the majority of women anyway).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I disagree. If one of my mates slept with 10 girls in a week I would assume he was having some kind of early mid-life crisis/mental breakdown and needed to up his dose of happy pills. I certainly wouldn't be impressed (probably because I'm not 15 years old).
    I too wouldn't think very highly of him, I'm just putting across the generally accepted viewpoint.

    But you raise a good point, it may not be "OK" for a guy to do this anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yvonnay)
    I think people just have to accept that these gender differences exist, and yes it's not fair but it's just the way the world works. I don't think it's right either way, however I would probably be more shocked at a female doing that just because we're wired differently to men and are not ruled by our crotches (well the majority of women anyway).
    I don't see why we just have to accept it at all. It's completely bigoted and sexist. You may not have a problem about that, but I'm not willing to accept it for a minute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, for the guy that's an achievment
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.