Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A common stereotype is that men who have lots of sex are champs while women who do the same are sluts. Many find this to be unfair and feminists believe it is merely a socially constructed ideal created by men. However, while I agree it's perhaps a bit mean to call women who have lots of sex "dumb sluts" I don't agree with the logic these people use, because they fail to factor in a number of things that help explain male disdain of sexually liberal women (as well as woman's own generally conservative view towards sex) that may not really have anything to do with cultural values and may instead be the result of evolution and natural selection.
For starters, they utterly ignore that women can become pregnant with babies while men cannot. This alone means that a women is taking a much greater risk by having sex than a man is, which almost instantly explains at least a part of the reason for why women are much more likely to be far more selective (and thus less likely to have sex) about which males to bed. For the majority of human history there were no condoms after all, and even today the male still has the option to just ditch the women if something goes wrong while the woman is stuck with the baby.
Secondly, the idea that all men are horny devils who bed anyone is extremely misleading. Yes, most men would probably have sex with a women if given a chance, but it's extremely important to remember that the entire reason for this is that women are naturally conservative about whom they bed in the first place, and thus chances to get laid for the man can be few and far between. Just ask yourself, how many men do you personally know that actually go around sleeping with a million women? None? That's what I thought. This is the reason men who have lots of sex are viewed as champs. Because accomplishing it is ****ing hard. Men only accept most offers of sex from women because said offers don't actually come very often. Male willingness to have sex with almost any women if offered it is a male reaction to female sexual conservatism.
Thirdly, we need to understand that male and female sexual promiscuity come with a different set of social consequences that are not the result of mere social values. For example, let's say that man is able to bed many number of women. What negative relationship or social-economical affects does this have for him in the long term? Nothing. A women will not find it hot if the male actually mentions he has slept with lots of women, but nobody forces him to actually do so.
Now compare this to what lots of sexually promiscuity can mean for women: Unwanted pregnancies from many different mates. Fiscal problems as a result of having to raise so many children alone. Dependance on others like the government for benefits...
Besides just making life more generally ****ty for the woman, those things can also make it MUCH harder to actually find a proper mate. Most men don't like it when a women already has another guy's child. It's just instinct and you can see this all over the animal world (some species of apes actually murder the offspring of their rivals). And they also don't like it if they know the women could become a fiscal burden, which single mothers can easily become.
When you factor in these things, men actually have a very logical reason to not feel attracted to women that they know are sexually liberal (not outside the bar anyway).
Whenever I point this out, almost instantly the first thing some people like sjw's and feminists say (assuming they don't just skip straight to the insults and personal attacks) is that my argument isn't legit because "it's not fair that women cannot have lots of sex without risking these problems".
And they are right. It's not fair. The fact that a women is taking 90% of the risk when having sex because only the women can become pregnant is not fair. But it's still a fact. Saying this is not fair is like saying it's not fair that it's raining. Sometimes the universe just gives some people the short end of the stick, and male Vs female sexuality is a good example of this.
I don't think it's healthy for people of either gender to be sexually promiscuous. I know I avoid men who sleep around. Everything you mentioned goes both ways, there are a lot of women here who won't date single fathers.
I have always found this to be absolutely insulting! But then again, around the turn of the Century, it was ILLEGAL for women to drive, vote, or own property. Back in the day... women were PROPERTY of men, whether it be dad, husband, son or brother.
Thank Gawd, women finally got past those issues. Now am I saying I want it socially acceptable for women to *******? NO! I want it socially UNACCEPTABLE for MEN to do it!!!!
Everything you mentioned goes both ways, there are a lot of women here who won't date single fathers.
Yes you are correct that single fathers do exist, but those are much more rare than single mothers. And in the end a man will never have to deal with the problems of getting pregnant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by springazure
Now am I saying I want it socially acceptable for women to *******? NO! I want it socially UNACCEPTABLE for MEN to do it!!!!
I agree that being sexually liberal isn't wise for either men or woman. And I am glad that you agree with this. I was merely explaining the reason for the different views that society tends to have towards male and female casual sex and why the 2 sexes take a different point of view towards sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeCollege
OP, have you heard of things like "birth control" and "abortion"? Just curious.
I did briefly mention birth control in my post. As I pointed out, birth control has not existed for most of human history and is a recent invention, and even today very sexually liberal people are more likely than others to cheat when it comes to actually using it. Birth control does not completely solve the problem. As for abortion, it's extremely morally questionable and should not be regarded as simple and a easy solution.
On the flipside, it is also unfair to men that there is not a form of birth control for them which is as effective as the pill is for women. Do not even mention the word, "condom" to me, because if you're counting on those, then you're an idiot. They fail way too easily. As a backup or a hopeful barrier to disease, sure, but if you use only condoms to prevent pregnancy and are very active, sooner or later the odds will beat you.
Which is why I follow the development of RISUG/Vasalgel, very very closely. I see it as a social equality issue for men. As a mother of sons, I really care about such things...it matters, potentially, to their future freedoms.
Men should have the right to have sex and choose not to reproduce. So should women. We have the medical enlightenment to make this possible, so it should be. No child should be conceived that is not loved and wanted by both of his or her parents.
Personally though, I see discoveries in science, medicine, and tech to be part of human evolution, and our ideas and habits and culture will shift with the times and change as part of our healthy evolution as well. If some human beings want to cling to outdated traditions just because it made sense 100 years ago so it must be a universal truth for always and ever...well, you can refuse to evolve if you wish, but don't ask me to.
So yes, I agree that these cultural concepts came from somewhere and from a biological sense they matter. But I'm not going to live my life around "what men think" and I know how to have sex and not get pregnant. My self esteem suffers exactly zero from being "sexually liberal" as you put it.
I would further state that the male drive to have sex with many women, especially when a man is young and wants to "hit it and quit it" most of the time (have sex and then never speak to her again, a phenomenon you see and hear of very much with young guys)...this is because he is driven to sow his seed in a wide field, in the hopes that it will take root somewhere and someone else will have to rear the resulting child. This evolutionary strategy is as smart for the man as it is unwise for the woman, who is then stuck bringing up that child unless she aborts or gives it up. And our female hormones drive us HARD to bond with the baby, so no, abortion is not only morally questionable, depending on who you ask, but giving up an infant is very difficult. But it begs the question... You would say that despite the fact that women CAN get on very effective (if used properly) birth control, we SHOULD follow the traditional conservative sexual behaviors, and we should not complain when men act as they do, as we also caused that. This paradigm of women being choosy and men being promiscuous whenever possible should continue. What if a man became unable to reproduce but was still able to have sex? Should he then NOT go around trying to get laid, because he cannot be doing it for strictly biological reasons? What if a man actually does not want to play the field, and holds out for true love (I've known a couple of men who stayed virgins until marriage, so this does happen)...are they bad people for denying their nature?
That's the thing about people though, you know...we are complex animals and we're more than the sum of our instincts and natural drives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
