Why promiscuous women are labelled as sluts but the same doesn't happen with men.

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicenthic
Why promiscuous women are labelled as sluts but the same doesn't happen with men.

 

Women complain about how unfair it is that men are called studs when they sleep around, yet women get called sluts for the exact same behavior. It’s actually not a double standard though, because both scenarios are pretty different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:

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. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.

Second, women have potential to 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. 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 all 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 is secretly 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 risk takers 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 millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals.

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. It’s just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.

 

Issues Pages: 
bagkitty bagkitty's picture

WTF?

Maysie Maysie's picture

Ring ring!

Hello, nicenthic? It's the 1950s calling. You stole our gender analysis and we'd like it back.

voice of the damned

Sigh. Is it too much to ask that trolls display at least a modicum of originality?

 

[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2447312/posts}]Free Republic 2010[/url]

 

Plus a few dozen other places on the internet.

 

6079_Smith_W

Love that handle though.... nicenthic.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

See you around nicenthic. Thanks for the memories.

MegB

Thanks CF ... felt my temperature rising with that OP.  I'm still considering punching something that won't hurt me or anyone else.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Where's a good Oakley sunglasses spammer when you need one?

Yes I just linked to a spam thread. I'm promiscuous that way.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Actually it's funny he completely avoided the subject of homoeroticism. Considering it's so natural for guys to want to have sex all the time, and all. Or maybe he just wants to talk about  good old biblically-sanctioned procreative sex... for some reason or other.

.

 

 

 

 

Doug

At least trolls could try to put their rants in the appropriate forum. 

Michelle

Unfortunately, babble doesn't have a "Chauvanist Crap" forum. ;)

6079_Smith_W

Doug wrote:

At least trolls could try to put their rants in the appropriate forum. 

I'm not all that surprised that someone who would pick a name like that might have a hard time negotiating the deep end of the pool. 

On the other hand, if we really want to get into sex practices driven by millennia and millennia of conditioning to carry on one's DNA, we could also talk about biting your mate's head off and devouring him after you're with him, or having a penis that detaches and finishes the job without the rest of the useless body. 

But then I guess that doesn't quite convey the same harem master image bignhard was trying to rationalize.

Also doesn't quite jive with the fact that matrilineal heritage is actually far older, and makes a hell of a lot more sense. And the only person who I can think of who cares about being "cheated" by not passing on his DNA is someone who cares for himself and no one else.

 

Doug

Yay - found a cover of this with a woman singing. Some people are going to be sluts. Deal.

 

I'm gonna be a slut

Michelle

Oh man, I just got the name now.  I was trying to pronounce it earlier in my mind and kept getting "niss-EN-theck".

Ken Burch

he might be nice and thick(between the EARS, that is)but, he's neither nice, nor ethnic.

And I strongly suspect he doesn't get to DO much "sleeping around"-unless he keeps alternating between the top and bottom bunks in his old room at his parents' house.

Doug

Is he? Photos or it's not true.

Doug

Maysie wrote:

Where's a good Oakley sunglasses spammer when you need one?

 

Perhaps there should be spam-sensitive sunglasses that turn black at any hint of spam.

Jacob Two-Two

nicenthic wrote:

This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way.

And yet, even if we accept this, what really catches the reader is the remarkable attempt at being a total moron.

Man, you gotta love these guys who just sit around musing in their armchair about "why things are this way" and who have clearly never done the slightest bit of reading into their subject. You meet them everywhere, if you talk to people. Utterly ignorant experts with long-winded torturous rationalisations that make so many erroneous assumptions that you never have any idea where to begin picking them apart. And of course, the conclusion is always the same: my prejudices are perfectly natural and rational. That's what every one of these dopes is out to prove every time. I mean, it's not like this isn't the information age. If these people had any real honest interest in the subject they've put so much effort into weaving stories about, then they would actually read something and not start from a place of total ignorance. But their only real interest is in rationalising their own biases.

Ironically enough, someone mentioned "Sex at Dawn" recently in another thread, a book which uses overlooked scientific research to make a case that the prehistoric state of human sexual relations was polygamous and usually involved one woman with multiple male partners, which, if true, would be the exact opposite of the slut vs. stud dynamic that patriachy has imposed on society.  

Fidel

Are there no male sluts? Are there no self-destructive male sex addicts?

 

Doug

Of course there are. But I don't happen to think slut and self-destructive sex addict are the same thing.

Jacob Two-Two

Does the word slut even deserve to keep it's status as a word? Can anyone think of a single positive reason for its survival? It's a sad comment on our culture that such a word in so prevalent.

Maysie Maysie's picture

J-2-2 wrote:
 someone mentioned "Sex at Dawn" recently in another thread,  

That would be moi.

Kiss

J-2-2 wrote:
 Does the word slut even deserve to keep it's status as a word? Can anyone think of a single positive reason for its survival?

Yeah, I know.

Our world continues to need words that reduce women to sexual objects. While not a positive reason, sadly, many words survive for similar negative reasons.

The good news is, all this will change after The Revolution (tm).

Laughing

6079_Smith_W

Here's another take on the theme:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/The_Shame_of_the_het_sexaddict_movie-...

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Ethical_Slut.html?id=Y1our6q42kEC&red...

Fidel, I'd say it's only shameful if you are ashamed of it, and it's only a problem if it gets in the way of your feelings for yourself and your relations with others.

And Maysie. Yes, I agree, though once those terms are out of the bottle (and sometimes reclaimed) it's hard to predict which might eventually fade away. If one is a utopian there is the hope that they might. We can make things better, certainly, but I expect  the struggle is always going to be there in some form.

Once a word no longer serves any purpose, I am sure it will be gone.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Smith, I would say it works the other way around.

Once women are not longer objectified in the ways we are now (or slowly, over time, it becomes less and less "okay" for this to happen) there will either be no need for terms like "slut", or their meanings will change to be truly benign. Language reflects the culture. And it's the culture that creates and maintains the use and meaning of that language.

Individuals and groups can try to change the culture and attitudes and laws and values by changing or shifting the language, and there is validity in doing that (it's something I try to do in my life and in my work) but it can't happen in isolation. Without other concerted efforts and successes we end up with the "politically correct" bullshit backlash that we've seen for the past few decades.

I disagree with the power of reclaiming, while I respect those who attempt to reclaim, eg "Slutwalk". Reclaiming can only happen in a small bubble. Outside the bubble, the orginal meaning (and the woman-hating and sex-hating context under which the term came about) is unchanged.

Ditto racist words, homophobic words, sex-negative words, poor-bashing words.

6079_Smith_W

I agree with you about language following from the culture, which was actually the intent of my last sentence. 

As for banning, reclaiming, re-spelling, and altering, I know there are all kinds of different beliefs on that, and differing degrees even within communities. So whatever your feeling or my feeling on the matter, I don't think there is an absolute. 

Which is why I kind of steered away from trying to herd those hornets back into their nest.

 

 

 

 

Jacob Two-Two

Maysie wrote:

I disagree with the power of reclaiming, while I respect those who attempt to reclaim, eg "Slutwalk". Reclaiming can only happen in a small bubble. Outside the bubble, the orginal meaning (and the woman-hating and sex-hating context under which the term came about) is unchanged.

Ditto racist words, homophobic words, sex-negative words, poor-bashing words.

Oh, I don't know. The word "Queer" has been pretty sucessfully appropriated by gay culture. Where I grew up (NFLD), it was a common term for anything strange, but quickly developed into a hateful slur against gay people. Nowadays though, I never hear the term used at all except in the gay community describing itself. Do people still use this as an insult?

But of course, you can't just redefine any word you want, nor do you need to. When there is space for it, and the word could still be useful in a new context, then by all means take it for your own, but in the case of "slut" it has no useful function whatsoever. Society doesn't need a term for a woman who supposedly has too much sex or sex that moralisers disapprove of. If anything, we need some new derogatory terms for prudish busybodies.

Maysie Maysie's picture

J-2-2 wrote:
 If anything, we need some new derogatory terms for prudish busybodies.

I love this idea! I'm sure the babble folks, creative lot that they are, can come up with some great new terms à la "Santorum".

Fidel

Doug wrote:

Of course there are. But I don't happen to think slut and self-destructive sex addict are the same thing.

 

What is love?

6079_Smith_W

@ J22

Yes, on the other hand, I remember one particular occasion selling advertising which involved the word "Queer", and talking with an advertiser who strongly objected to the term. Despite its common, and benign use, he still felt it was hateful and demeaning, and had very strong feelings about it. 

He bought the ad and supported the organization despite his personal feelings about the word, but it was important that he told us.

I understand how some people want to discourage the use of certain words, because there are some words I feel that way about.

On a more basic level though, I think our language is influenced positively and negatively on levels so subtle that there is no way it can be truly clean.

As well, so long as those negative elements still exist (and I think they always will tosome degree) that negative language will keep being re-used and re-invented.