So are women "sluts" and men "studs" in your opinion, for the same behavior?

[BellaRisa]

If a woman sleeps with 2 or more men relatively quickly, in a day or a week, or however long, do you consider her a "slut"?

Are these men she's just met, or is she in relationships with them...?

 

[Tiger.Lily]

Are these men she's just met, or is she in relationships with them...?

😀

lawl.

 

[Babbles]

The same behavior, same # partners in same time, any time frame.

Are these men she's just met, or is she in relationships with them...?

Either way --- That's a good question.

(I'm sure there *are some people who think they're in a relationship after a week, for various reasons...)

But I was just throwing out a random time frame, especially a shorter one,

since sexual interaction usually gets more (attention, positive or negative)
if it involves more partners within a shorter time.

Whether or not they actually consider it a relationship or if it's just casual one night stands,
or a few in the same day, or even within several years, however it is, significant or casual,
...notches on a bedpost?

I'm just curious/comparing the reactions to the same behaviors, engaged in by men or women

 

[Fire_Sprite]

I'll admit that I do hold a double standard on the sleeping around issue, but its not really the stud/slut distinction. I'm more likely to think less of a girl who sleeps around because that's the gender I appraise for their relationship potential. When I hear a girl's been around the block a few times they're less attractive because:

1. Basic concerns about STDs

2. More likely to cheat

3. Feel a little "out of my league" compared to a girl with 10 times my experience

4. Sex would be completely unromantic. How can something be "intimate" with someone if they do it so casually?

I know its sounds like bullshit for me to evaluate a person based on my possible romantic interest in them, but sex is so intrinsically related to dating that the two end up bleeding into eachother.

If a hear about a guys sexual conquests I don't really think anything of it.

 

[Ticklish9's]

Amn's answer nailed it, in my book.


The key question to ask people who go in for slut shaming is the precise number of people a girl has to sleep with before she's a slut. Obviously there is an acceptable level, and obviously there's an unacceptable level, so what precise number of people is it at which the unacceptable level is reached?

There isn't an answer, obviously, because those people are full of shit. You're not acceptably sexual at 4 partners and then magically slutty at 5 because that's idiotic. But that's precisely what slut-shamers are trying to say, and they keep it fuzzy on purpose so they can't be called out for being an idiot.

Try it sometime, it's great fun watching them come up with excuse lines like "well I'd just know" or "well everyone knows" and shit like that.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Amn's answer nailed it, in my book.


The key question to ask people who go in for slut shaming is the precise number of people a girl has to sleep with before she's a slut. Obviously there is an acceptable level, and obviously there's an unacceptable level, so what precise number of people is it at which the unacceptable level is reached?

There isn't an answer, obviously, because those people are full of shit. You're not acceptably sexual at 4 partners and then magically slutty at 5 because that's idiotic. But that's precisely what slut-shamers are trying to say, and they keep it fuzzy on purpose so they can't be called out for being an idiot.

Try it sometime, it's great fun watching them come up with excuse lines like "well I'd just know" or "well everyone knows" and shit like that.

Well said, as always.

 

[Phineas]

Personally, I've always felt the "double standard" existed for two reasons. One, because it's infinitely easier for a woman to get laid than it is for a man, and two, because women have more to risk when a casual encounter goes wrong.

Think about it. Women not only have to worry about STDs (and from what I've heard it's a lot easier for them to be transmitted to a woman, vaginally, than to a man), but also the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy and all of the life-altering issues that come with it; being saddled with nine months of agony, and/or the gut-wrenching decision to raise the kid, give it up for adoption, or abort it - and regardless of your stance on abortion, it's a very traumatizing procedure. I knew a gal who had two of them. It messed her up pretty bad, both physically and mentally.

And yes, I know the man is responsible, as well, for the new child - but it's a lot easier for a man to shirk his responsibilities to an unwanted baby than it is for a woman.

So, I've always felt the societal "shame" that came from chastizing promiscuous women came from an overdeveloped sense of a need to protect them from this sort of thing.

And secondly, like I said before... guys have it infinitely harder to get laid than women. We don't congratulate women as "studs" because they can simply go to the nearest bar/club and land a guy, because all it takes is a pulse and the right anatomy. We congratulate men because they have to develop all sorts of skills and climb all sorts of mountains and figure out all sorts of signals and interactions and stuff. That's not easy. If it was, we wouldn't need the Personals. So when a guy masters all the crazy mysteries that are women, they deserve a medal. Hence, the "stud".

 

[Bohemianne]

Taking the word "slut" in its context

^ And yet some men are not inclined to slut around. Some selected breed of men are busy to transmute "sex" into something more productive. Yes, the drive which inclines one to be a competitive beast does not need to be spent in the pursuit of getting the most of sex in life alone. Some other people have better things to do than indulge it strictly to that.

It means being given the better physiological sex advantage did not make some men promiscuous.
It is the same way some women, no matter how less advantaged on this matter, won't stop them from indulging it in a manner they like.

It is all about something then -- breeding.

Hmm...quite a distinguishing factor. Why? I know why.

 

[Driver Ed]

Those who feel the need to judge others' sex lives are just insecure about their own.

Not at all. Many of us are quite secure about our own sex lives while still perfectly comfortable judging those of others. For me, I wasn't comfortable judging other people's sex lives until I achieved a secure peace of mind about my own. Wouldn't want to be hypocritical.

 

[GQguy]

Each person determines their own slut level. It exist with guys too. I for instance won't date a girl that recently had a strictly physical relationship with a buddy of mine or a man I don't respect. My old roommate would do just that. I remember when I first joined a fraternity thinking that after I hooked up with one sister...the rest were off limits. Boy I was wrong! It made me even more attractive to them. Maybe I was "safe"... not sure. Their slut level is different than mine. I would dare say a woman's slut level is different than a man's.

I think it's behaviours. If a girl has had 50 partners but is classy...how would I know? A gentleman never asks. I drove into the parking lot of my complex last night though and some cute girl jumped on the hood of my mustang showing off everything....she might be a virgin but he behavior labeled her a slut. A virgin could be the "bar kisser" and be labeled a slut while the woman with 50 plus guys leaves discreetly. I recently dated a girl that I had this convo with. I met her in a Vegas pool and she was ready to go right away! Very cool. Due to logistics we never met up...I just assumed she met a better looking guy or whatever. We connected later....and she's a great girl. Pretty, great style, peace corps, sexy feet. We had great sex too. I travel to her state a month later for a concert and we hook up. As I look at her phone to see the time there's another guy on the screen. She casually informs me it's a guy she's seeing in Chicago(we're in Cali). Later she flies out to see me and I see her as just a physical connection. I respect her(I don't use the word slut) but she was upset that I couldn't see her for more than than just physical. She said she liked me alot. She didn't feel that the number of guys she had been with should have any bearing on how I view her. Yet she has no clue how many women I myself have been with. I didn't feel special enough to risk an emotional connection.

In the end what matters is how the other person makes you feel. I could be number 101 on her list....but if she makes me feel like no one existed before me then it doesn't matter. Women don't get concerned about how many women i've been with because I do just that...and it is true...all the women that came before the one i'm with don't matter.

GQ

 

[Mephistopheles]

In the end what matters is how the other person makes you feel. I could be number 101 on her list....but if she makes me feel like no one existed before me then it doesn't matter. Women don't get concerned about how many women i've been with because I do just that...and it is true...all the women that came before the one i'm with don't matter.

GQ

Indeed. I've spent the past years with #101 on my list.

 

[SlaverTickler]

^ And yet some men are not inclined to slut around. Some selected breed of men are busy to transmute "sex" into something more productive. Yes, the drive which inclines one to be a competitive beast does not need to be spent in the pursuit of getting the most of sex in life alone. Some other people have better things to do than indulge it strictly to that.

It means being given the better physiological sex advantage did not make some men promiscuous.
It is the same way some women, no matter how less advantaged on this matter, won't stop them from indulging it in a manner they like.

It is all about something then -- breeding.

Hmm...quite a distinguishing factor. Why? I know why.

You are currently the coolest active female member on the forum.

 

[Bohemianne]

You are currently the coolest active female member on the forum.

Uh not really. But thanks for the compliment.

 

[Mitchell]

I've just gone through this thread carefully, and, of all the answers, including my own, I love Amn's explanation the best. Thank you, Amn.

The whole thing, as Amn said, has to do with role "expectations". Women, as a "role", but not necessarially, as a "gender", are expected to be nuturing, submissive, family orientated, and are expected to settle down with one man. Society, in whatever culture, said, and says, that it is acceptable for a man to "Sow his wild oats" "Play the field". "Have a few notches". (Women) on his belt.

It's a stereotype, and I hate it, but, unfortunately, it is valid.

Personally, I believe in manogamy, for both sexes. Also, as I don't like the idea of hypocritical gender roles, I couldn't say with a straight face that if, for example, I had sex with ten different women, I would be a stud, but if a female friend or partner did so, she would be a "slut". To me, it doesnt work that way. People have to do what is comfortable, and acceptable to them on this subject, regardless of their gender.

Mitch

 

[LD_Tickler]

It's a stereotype, and I hate it, but, unfortunately, it is valid.

You mean true, right? That those stereotypes exist? Because restricting people's options based on their gender (that is, upholding gender roles) is most certainly not valid.

 

[Libertine]

Sorry, Babbles, but you genuinely have no idea. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

It's infinitely more difficult for a man to find a sexual partner than it is for a woman. A woman doesn't really have to do anything- she'll eventually get asked one way or another. A man has to take the initiative, brave rejection, be charming, and unless he's a film or rock star, orchestrate the whole encounter/seduction/dinnerdate/whatever with no guarantee of success.

If a woman wants sex, all she has to do is find someone she wants to sleep with and ask him. Or just stand a bit close until he starts a conversation, then say 'yes' to the inevitable request. The requirements for a man to get the same result are considerably different.

Yes, there are male prostitutes who cater exclusively to women. There are also female prostitutes who cater exclusively to men. Which is the larger group, and why?

Secondly, a man finds it far easier to orgasm than a woman. There are no 'How To Make Yourself Last Longer' articles in Cosmopolitan, not are there any "'You Too Can Achieve The Big 'O'" articles in Playboy. So a promiscuous man is simply sampling a buffet of guaranteed pleasure, while a promiscuous woman has no certainty of satisfaction.

So, given the difficulty the average man has finding a girl to sleep with him, a promiscuous man is indeed a 'stud', if it must be put that way. But I question the motives of a promiscuous woman who knows anything about men.

 

[Mephistopheles]

So, given the difficulty the average man has finding a girl to sleep with him, a promiscuous man is indeed a 'stud', if it must be put that way. But I question the motives of a promiscuous woman who knows anything about men.

Good point. But this difficulty also has an upside, the thrill of the hunt, and the sweet taste of succes.

 

[c7_assassin]

So, given the difficulty the average man has finding a girl to sleep with him, a promiscuous man is indeed a 'stud', if it must be put that way. But I question the motives of a promiscuous woman who knows anything about men.

Why would you question the motives of a promiscuous woman, but not a promiscuous man? I don't think you're wrong about why being a man is different from being a woman, but how does that make being a promiscuous man any better? What is the difference between a stud and a slut, in your opinion?

EDIT: And to fend off the obvious "It's harder for a man to get laid," argument, if that were true, it would mean that an incredibly attractive (or rich, or famous) man wouldn't be a stud for taking advantage of all the sex he got offered; he'd be a 'slut.' And an extremely obese or ugly woman would be a 'stud' if she still got around, not a slut. Which makes the whole argument seem silly to me.

 

[Phineas]

EDIT: And to fend off the obvious "It's harder for a man to get laid," argument,

...which two or three people have already made?

if that were true

Which it is...

it would mean that an incredibly attractive (or rich, or famous) man wouldn't be a stud for taking advantage of all the sex he got offered; he'd be a 'slut.' And an extremely obese or ugly woman would be a 'stud' if she still got around, not a slut. Which makes the whole argument seem silly to me.

Edit: OK, so I slept on it. It seems to me that you're saying that since an ugly/obese woman has a harder time getting laid, she should be congratulated as if she were a stud, and no; this is not the case. For one thing, she's still a woman, and can post an NSA ad on Craigslist and have 200 responses within the hour. A man cannot. Fact is, any woman can land a sex partner if she has no standards and that's all she wants. A man, generally, cannot. There's dozens of websites out there to help men meet women (bbwdaters.com, meetblackwomen.com, whatever) but how many sites are there for women to meet men, other than sugardaddyforme.com? Few, if any.

Secondly, she's still a woman, which means she needs, in the eyes of society, to be "shamed" into not being promiscuous for the reasons (pregnancy, disease, etc.) I mentioned above.

 

[TickVix]

There's always a catch 22 with situations like this unfortunately. Men and women are never perceived in the same light, even if the both partake in the same behavior.

 

[Libertine]

Why would you question the motives of a promiscuous woman, but not a promiscuous man?

God Almighty, need I go through this again?

(1) The average man has no trouble having an orgasm. In fact, in every men's magazine or publication geared towards men, there are many articles on 'How to Delay Your Orgasm For Her Satisfaction'.

(2) The average woman, while she can be multiorgasmic either alone or with a skilled partner, has no guarantee whatsoever of climaxing, especially with someone new and unfamiliar.

(3) Having sex with a fresh girl is exciting for a man. And we never worry about her noticing our wobbly thighs/leg stubble/T-shirt not matching our underpants- we're going to come anyway.

(4) Having sex with a man for the first time, however, even if she knows him well, is usually the cause of much anxiety for a woman, and this, combined with possible male inexperience/incompetence, may cheat her of satisfaction.

In other words, when the average man gets the average girl into bed, his troubles are over, but hers are just beginning, and she knows it.

The simple uncomplicated emotions (about three; eat/sleep/fuck) of the male are as nothing compared to the multicoloured emotional tapestry every woman hauls around with her.

In a long and extraordinarily eventful bachelorhood interspersed with three legal marriages, two divorces, a few live-ins, countless visits to fetish clubs both alone and with a g/f or wife and all the various problems, scars and traumas attendant on such a past, I've had plenty of time and motivation to study this subject both theoretically and practically, and it ain't pretty.

I have met women whose behaviour leaned happily toward the masculine pattern, but this is very rare.

So, unless she can respond in male fashion, what's the point of a woman being promiscuous?

 

[c7_assassin]

In other words, when the average man gets the average girl into bed, his troubles are over, but hers are just beginning, and she knows it.

The simple uncomplicated emotions (about three; eat/sleep/fuck) of the male are as nothing compared to the multicoloured emotional tapestry every woman hauls around with her.

So, unless she can respond in male fashion, what's the point of a woman being promiscuous?

I think you're making a lot of generalizations and assumptions here. It sounds like you're saying that the only possible reason the average man or woman ever has sex is to achieve orgasm as quickly as possible. What about that whole tapestry of emotions you talked about (which, really, you don't believe men even have?). What about ego, validation, boredom, to affirm manhood (or womanhood), or to establish intimacy? You don't think those factors ever have anything to do with why people fuck each other?

My bachelorhood has taught me that there's a lot of diversity in human desire. Which is why I try not to judge.

 

[Libertine]

I think you're making a lot of generalizations and assumptions here. It sounds like you're saying that the only possible reason the average man or woman ever has sex is to achieve orgasm as quickly as possible. What about that whole tapestry of emotions you talked about (which, really, you don't believe men even have?). What about ego, validation, boredom, to affirm manhood (or womanhood), or to establish intimacy? You don't think those factors ever have anything to do with why people fuck each other?

My bachelorhood has taught me that there's a lot of diversity in human desire. Which is why I try not to judge.

I'm not going to bother any further with this, except to ask you, C7, self-described bachelor of 26 years old, member here for three years and three months and author in that time of some 7,200 posts and five blogs, to test your theories in real life, and spend less time on your computer. There are a lot of real live girls out there and several of them will consider you and you alone the answer to a maiden's prayer. Their only problem is that you're not meeting them. I'm being cruel to be kind; there is no malice in this post.

 

[c7_assassin]

LOL. I accept your advice in the spirit with which you intend it, Libertine. I'd be pretty foolish to post an opinion about women if I didn't have the experience to back it up. Thanks, but you really don't know me.

 

[NonConRon]

Thanks, but you really don't know me.

The battle cry of the inexperienced and Junior High School kids all over the world!