What I'm saying is that they're talent would have got them women at any stage in their life. And they would have earned every dalliance by virtue of being brilliant.

It means he thinks he is entitled to sexual attention because he is famous / makes money and sees all women as for sale - except apparently his mother

I think the OP's point is that for a man to sleep with a lot of women it requires a lot of work on his part.

Here's why.

What type of men sleep with a lot women?

Actors, musicians, athletes etc. Their hard work in their fields has allowed them to amass the status to allow them to pull many girls. Even on a lower scale, guys who typically sleep with loads of women and are not famous approach A LOT of women. And get rejected A LOT at the same time.

That's work.

Now, what type of woman sleeps with a lot of men?

Escorts, prostitutes, strippers etc. That's not even being sexist, it is the cold hard truth.

The women on DS can say what they like, but when was the last time you were in a social situation and put in the legwork to find a guy? I.e approaching multiple men in a bar/pub/club.

It's not expected for women to do this because of social conditioning. Women have the options. Women ultimately have the power in this regard.

That being said, I don't think women should be overly criticized if they are sexually adventurous. I just think people should realize that gender equality in this sense is fantasy and it IS a different scenario when it comes to sex.

You really can't grasp the fact that not everyone views all sex is a commercial exchange and instead think itvcan be about mutual and equal wants. A woman isn't actually always selling something - they can be sharing it. But I guess that is a philosophical disagreement linked to the old fashioned concept if a girl being ruined if she is sexually active.

And students and sexually and mostly physically liberated women. Not all but those are the other groups that have the option of promiscuity with less judgmental attitudes.

The basis of the slut vs stud double standard lies in :

It takes a lot of work and facing uncountable rejections to be a stud.

It takes no work whatsoever to be a slut.

note: maybe the top 1 % of ultra attractive men are exempt from this rule. Rock/rap/hip hop stars, kings and princes…

As long as women are the ultimate gatekeeper of which men get to enjoy sexuality, this double standard is justified, and necessary.

Sex is biologically driven, fundamentally for procreation and the continuation of the genetic line. The male biological drive is to impregnate as many(preferably young healthy) females as possible. The female biological drive is to pick the best (read most established, strongest, fittest, most talented, richest) male who will be able to support her through the vulnerable first year or so after the child is born.

Well maybe he's confused what he's accustomed to with what he's entitled to. Either way its a very tenuous link to my point that it is not a linear argument. While men who put it about tend to do so because they 'have a special set of skills' above and beyond the standard of most men, women who put it about tend to do so because they are prepared to drop below the standards of most women.

Who set those standards and why are those standards are socially accepted across both genders is another question that would be interesting to have answered.

Talking to a script?

It's about balance and fairness. You can waffle on about it being an achievement for men and a doddle for women all you want. I'd rather judge people for their actions, whatever their gender, whether positively or negatively, and I don't care whether they had to put more effort in, or not.

Dappy's mum has taught him to be a sexist pig and he will try to teach his own children the same attitude. Hopefully, they'll tell him to stop being so old-fashioned, whatever our nature is.

How is it justified and necessary?
If a woman enjoys sex and wants to sleep with five men in one night, you think it is justified to call her an offensive word, but not the same for a man, just because it takes more work for the man?

That's easy.
People like you and Dappy and Dappy's mum, apparently.

I'll add this to the pot: a significant amount of women that I have come across who have put it about on the same or similar level to some men I know have had some disturbing and unfortunate back stories and were either high or drunk or were just emotionally unstable. I'm not saying all, but a significant amount. Significant enough to feel uncomfortable with the notion that women in general can put it about on the same level of guys without there being an unsettling and unnatural dynamic there.

So yeah, a man pulling 5 girls in one night is seen almost jocularly but a woman doing the same is generally seen as disturbing, uncomfortable and improper.

Who said slut is offensive?

It is the definition of the exact scenario you mentioned in your post "If a woman enjoys sex and wants to sleep with five men in one night.

The dictionary definition of slut = a woman who has many casual sexual partners. I.e a promiscuous woman.

Therefore if you're going say the double standard isn't justified then you subsequently must also drop the negative connotation behind the word.

Or lee is indulging in juvenile bragging.

Its not balanced or fair not to assess the effort behind the action. That's just nominal, binary decision making. Basic level thinking. Me walking tomorrow is not the same achievement as a war vet with his lower limbs blown off walking tomorrow. You think like a robot. You don't assess and hence you come to knee jerk decisions based on a thin veneer of analysis. Now that I understand your thinking style I understand your belligerent point of view.

Zing!

A* post

Everyone who uses it to denegrate certain women.

Call men sluts, or male sluts, if you want and I won't call it double standards. The negative connotations exist, whether I like it or not. Maybe, if men were also treated badly for the same behaviour as women, they will realise how ridiculous it all is and stop calling women sluts.

That's totally different.

In this case, it is not just the effort that is being judged. It is the act itself. Good for men, bad for women.

The war vet walks and he gets praise and admiration.
You walk and do not get called a disparaging word for doing so. You get no judgement.

Please don't criticise my thinking style, when that is the best you can come up with.

Jeez. Cold hard truth huh? So there are no highly sexed, sexually adventurous women who sleep with a lot of men outside the sex industry? No young women going through experimental phases? No perfectly ordinary professional women, mothers, housewives attending swingers parties? No groupies enjoying nights with the band or the team or the crew?


Not OVERLY criticised? What is the acceptable level of criticism they should receive?

This is just outdated patriarchal gender role stereotypes and nothing else.

Standard and basic response. Almost pavlovian in the fact that you provide no analysis and no reasoning.

No one disputes that the two actions are perceived differently. There are obviously different standards for men and women when it comes to sexual promiscuity. However, the issue is whether we as a society should want to change this, and whether this change is possible.

Many of the claims here that 'Dappy is right' seem to boil down to a form of biological determinism which suggests that these attitudes are the result of intrinsic differences between men and women. Here are some examples from the thread:



The problem is that these claims equate social attitudes with some kind of fixed biological essence. Desy Boy does at least acknowledge that these attitudes may be socially constructed although he does imply that going against these attitudes would be living in an 'unreal utopia'.

Human society throughout its history has shown that such attitudes can be changed. For example, people used to criticise homosexuality by claiming that sex is 'fundamentally for procreation' and therefore any other form of sexual activity is morally wrong, but today the majority of people in the developed world do not believe that. People also used to hold up essential biological differences to justify racist attitudes and these are thankfully shifting too.

So, yes, attitudes towards promiscuity may be different in our current society but that doesn't mean we can't stand up and try to fight against these attitudes.

Excellent post ScreamingJay.


Edit: oops, new page, here it is again:

I was referring to the typical image of a woman who casually sleeps around. Of course, there are exceptions and you're right. The types of women you mentioned may do the same. I was generalizing for the sake of convenience and not wanting to list every different type of woman who may be extremely sexually active.


Yes, I feel the criticisms of women sleeping around are normally over the top. I for one don't agree with it entirely though so I do think a relative criticism is just in some contexts. HENCE why I said "overly"