Men are studs, women are sluts?

philboy

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Posts
60
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
England
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
As a somewhat older member (guy) here than most I suspect (52), this distinction has always offended me. But I think attitudes are changing for the better.
Surely it is up to the individual, man or woman, to determine their own sexual philosophy and it is nothing to do with anyone else. Is anyone "objects" to the sexual mores of someone else, they should just mind their own business and go somewhere else.
It does not matter to me at all if a woman has had many or few sex partners. It is the personal qualities and characteristics of an individual which count: nothing else.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,716
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Doc said:
Firstly, people here are just throwing thoughts around, so there is no reason to get ruffled about anything if you have chip on your shoulder leave it there.

Secondly, I was just supporting one point of thirdlegs argument since I genuinely saw merit in it concerning the social context in the area I live in. You can take that as you so choose. As for men and women finding each other on the net? Everyone always goes for what they want first, if they don't get it they move on to option number 2, 3, etc..... Older men seem to prefer young chicks, young girls seem to prefer older men. I clearly remember that from highschool. How does this exactly relate to conquest?

No chip, Doc. Only unanswered questions. Please forgive me if I sounded as if I was ragging on you, that was not my intention. I just don't buy thirdleg's theory. It's a blanket statement and his argument is that it's "human nature" and I don't think it's valid. Experience has taught me differently. The older men/younger women point was about the sexes relating to each other. If a man gets option #1 instead of #2, that's supposed to be a conquest, but if a woman gets option #1 instead of #2, it's not? Illogical. I don't get it. The number and quality of options vary with each individual. Why do we feel the need to stamp labels on those with more options? That's what i'm wondering.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,716
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
philboy said:
As a somewhat older member (guy) here than most I suspect (52), this distinction has always offended me. But I think attitudes are changing for the better.
Surely it is up to the individual, man or woman, to determine their own sexual philosophy and it is nothing to do with anyone else. Is anyone "objects" to the sexual mores of someone else, they should just mind their own business and go somewhere else.
It does not matter to me at all if a woman has had many or few sex partners. It is the personal qualities and characteristics of an individual which count: nothing else.

You're a wise man, philboy.
 

invisibleman

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Posts
9,816
Media
0
Likes
513
Points
303
Location
North Carolina
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think that neither men are studs nor women are sluts. If you like to make the rounds sexually--happy for you. Protect yourself though. Fucking around without proper protection is playing Russian Roulette. Don't let male chauvinistic double standards dictate the shame in the game.
 

yongdo

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Posts
218
Media
22
Likes
8
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Gisella said:
where i come from seems is the opposite....:tongue:

Where do you come from?

You perspective being from out of the states would be very interesting.

Don't forget the US is decended from puritanical roots and has a STRONG regligeous center that voted Bush into office for 2 terms and throws a fit if Janet Jackson shows her breast for a second on tv and God forbid if anyone says: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, asshole, dick, prick... (I think those are the seven :biggrin1:)

Anyway, this puritanical view has devided the sexes and responsible for much of the sexism we see today. The idea that a woman has to be a sex object for a man is wonderful only if the reverse is true. Otherwise it is evil.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
mercurialbliss said:
You're a wise man, philboy.

He's British and his attitude is exemplary of the British tradition of letting people get on with their own lives so long as it's legal.

The guy above makes a very good point about U.S. cultural history and this is different from most other places. Any sort of fundamental belief leads to a right and wrong attitude - the problem is that this type of attitude is intolerant and the person with the attitude can't comprehend an alternative perspective.
 

thirdlegmeat

Sexy Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
524
Media
0
Likes
75
Points
248
Age
34
Location
Los Angeles
I had promised myself I wouldn't waste my time with any further responses, but here I am again. LOL

Culture has NOTHING to do with this argument. Feminism or the recent "sexual liberation" of women has NOTHING to do with this argument.

So I'm going to put it another way, and this time very simply...

Pornography, across all cultures, is overwhelmingly developed for MEN. Los Angeles (where I live BTW) has dozens of strip clubs for men and only one "male review" for women that I know of (Hollywood Men). Futhermore this one male strip club is conveniently located in West Hollywood, and many in attendence are gay men.

And speaking of homosexual practices, gay men statistically have MANY more sexual partners than gay women. In fact, on average, gay men have MANY more sexual partners than straight men. This last fact does not imply that gay men are more promiscuous by nature than straight men, but rather, gay men have more OPPORTUNITY. Why...because two men who desire each other sexually do not have the natural barrier of a less sexually agressive female (as do straight men).

The "black widow" comparison is not relevant. Humans are closely related to apes according to evolution and spiders are nowhere close. So the fact that male apes are sexually promiscuous too (as previously stated by another poster) is indeed relevant, despite one's attempt at dismissal.

Need I continue? I really don't want to, because stating the obvious provides infinite examples. I would be here typing for a thousand years.
 

stud_hunter

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Posts
811
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Location
CA, USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
bigschlotsky said:
One of the greatest things about this forum is we have women who are open to expressing lust. A recent thread got me thinking how in our culture if a man has lots of casual sex he's a stud, but if a women likes to have casual sex she's a slut. I think that's pretty bogus, and I'd be eager to hear what the liberated women here think (and the liberates bros too, of course).

Well as you can probably tell from my username, I'm not so caught up in notions of how I'm supposed to behave. :biggrin1: . As for me, heck if I care about the opinion of some abstract entity like "society". I get mine :tongue: . And the people who matter to me aren't bogged down with silly pseudo-morality. As for men, I agree with what someone else here said that it's not about how many women a guy beds. It's about quality not quantity. As far as I'm concerned his "studliness" is directly related to what he does for ME. Make me cum, make me cum hard, make me cum deep, and then do it all again.... 8 times. :tongue: :biggrin1: Then you're a stud to me, I don't care how many other broads you've done. Now... that's about all I have to say about that..:rolleyes:
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,255
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
thirdlegmeat said:
...(some text removed)
Culture has NOTHING to do with this argument. Feminism or the recent "sexual liberation" of women has NOTHING to do with this argument...

Pornography, across all cultures, is overwhelmingly developed for MEN. Los Angeles (where I live BTW) has dozens of strip clubs for men and only one "male review" for women that I know of (Hollywood Men). Futhermore this one male strip club is conveniently located in West Hollywood, and many in attendence are gay men.

And speaking of homosexual practices, gay men statistically have MANY more sexual partners than gay women. In fact, on average, gay men have MANY more sexual partners than straight men. This last fact does not imply that gay men are more promiscuous by nature than straight men, but rather, gay men have more OPPORTUNITY. Why...because two men who desire each other sexually do not have the natural barrier of a less sexually agressive female (as do straight men).



Why do you keep denying the impact of society? You cannot, cannot, cannot remove social dictates and mores from the equation. Don't you think one of the reasons gay men have more opportunities to hook up than their female counterparts is because they are encouraged by society to be "slutty" and women are encouraged to be more "chaste"?
 

Gisella

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
4,822
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
193
Location
USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
yongdo said:
Where do you come from?

You perspective being from out of the states would be very interesting.

Don't forget the US is decended from puritanical roots and has a STRONG regligeous center that voted Bush into office for 2 terms and throws a fit if Janet Jackson shows her breast for a second on tv and God forbid if anyone says: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, asshole, dick, prick... (I think those are the seven :biggrin1:)

Anyway, this puritanical view has devided the sexes and responsible for much of the sexism we see today. The idea that a woman has to be a sex object for a man is wonderful only if the reverse is true. Otherwise it is evil.


I came from South American 3rdworld, Brazil...macho place and christian catolic influences (not like anglo puritanismo in US) we have an erotic culture and it manifest in Carnaval...

"Brazilians tend to allow expressions of sexuality and eroticism that are quite unacceptable in other areas of the Latino world, especially in public. This disparity can be traced to a unique blend of Roman Catholic and native Indian values with a strong African influence. Like other Latinos, Brazilians have taboos and restrictions on public sexual behavior. However, Brazilians draw an important distinction between public and private behaviors that preserves traditional Indian and African values."

Some studies about brazilian culture: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/brazil.html
 

GBB

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Posts
121
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
We can't deny that there is a culture out there that we are all a part of.

We may rebel againsti it some, and try to have some impact, but it's a struggle none the less.

I agree that the common perception is that men are studs and women are sluts, valid or not, that is the common perception.

So, while we live and operate within this culture, my way of dealing with it is that while I may have a good deal of casual sex, my hard and fast rule is that I don't kiss and tell.

Because of the perception that women are sluts is pervasive, I do the woman no honor by being anything but discrete about causal sex.

That even extends to online relationships. People may ask me if I'm in PM's with women, and I may say that I am, but I do not say who.

Maybe that's old school, but I think it's a behaviour worth adopting for any man.

Now here's were it gets unfair:
On the other hand, it is my hope that a lady might talk about me to her friends. I love those kinds of referrals :naughty: ! But I won't directly encourage a lady to do that.
It is a great ego boost when it happens though.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
The biological investment female humans have in sexual intercourse is far greater than males. Women produce one egg per month. Males produce millions of sperm per ejaculation. To successfully pass on her genes a female must choose her mates discriminately. A males best strategy is too inseminate as many females as possible.

I grant you that culture and society and modern technology have altered these roles from their purist forms. But that's where we come from. The instincts still hold. Thus the seemingly unfair axiom - Men are studs, women are sluts

ps - Although I don't know what it is, I'm guessing the Black Widow's post coital habits provide some sort of overall evolutionary benefit to her species. Any arachnologists out there willing to weigh in?
 

Doc

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Posts
317
Media
1
Likes
3
Points
163
Age
48
Location
all over now
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Every species has its own needs. We can't look at mantis or Dolphins and say, this or that. What we should look at is perhaps our closest relatives the chimps and then our theoretical history. Why were we made this way, what do we do with our bodies now, what did we do with our bodies then and which one has greater significance in which culture. Shelby has a similar point to what I was exploring earlier.

Way back when, men were made for hunting, clearly from our build. Way back when, women were made for rearing children, clearly from their build. That was a long time ago, we no longer need to chase zebras to impress women, to make babies, to continue the species. However if we needed then to impress women to have a family, we still do today, in some strange ways. Shelby's point about the availability of sperm and eggs similify's the issue a bit. The chances that our forefathers had any idea of what happened inside of them is practically zero. Think of it in terms of what each person invests. If I were a woman in prehistory, and I allowed some guy to inseminate me either by force or by consent, what do I have. I have the labor of pregnancy, which as anyone knows is not easy and last for 9 months. Not to mention a child after a delivery that I might die delivering. Any female in her right mind would put up a hell of barrier to any male trying to get some quick action.

On the male's side. If I didn't care, all I wanted was quick fix, and leave the society after being ostrasized, and either get eaten by some nasty prehistoric behemoth, or survive and join another tribe and probably do it all over again.

Both are risky, but for the male being a hunter he is somewhat capable of being on his own and surviving this dilemma. Perhaps a more manageable situation that what the his counterpart has. For the female she has no choice but to be taken care of by the tribe if they so choose, and then has the danger of childbirth and the follow up of raising a child and looking afer herself. Not easy.

So the resistance put up by women then had to be high. Does it anymore, probably not. However I believe these traits are still inbedded in us. It is not easy to just loose millions of years or evolution in 4 decades. Even though we are civilized now, and can do all kinds of things differently. Most of us still instinctualy fall on some of these lines. Therefore I still have to hurdle lots of obstacles before I get a woman to take my approaches seriously. And it's those obstacles that make it a conquest.

Forgive me if I've overstepped my bounds. But I'm just thinking out loud, I don't mean to offend.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,716
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
On the male's side. If I didn't care, all I wanted was quick fix, and leave the society after being ostrasized, and either get eaten by some nasty prehistoric behemoth, or survive and join another tribe and probably do it all over again.

Unless the tribes were close in proximiity, I think i'd put my money on the behemoth :smile:


So the resistance put up by women then had to be high. Does it anymore, probably not. However I believe these traits are still inbedded in us. It is not easy to just loose millions of years or evolution in 4 decades. Even though we are civilized now, and can do all kinds of things differently. Most of us still instinctualy fall on some of these lines. Therefore I still have to hurdle lots of obstacles before I get a woman to take my approaches seriously. And it's those obstacles that make it a conquest.

Forgive me if I've overstepped my bounds. But I'm just thinking out loud, I don't mean to offend.

It's not about losing millions of years in 4 decades or ignoring evolution, it's about embracing it and recognizing the impact of those decades on society at large. We call ourselves civilized for many good reasons: higher intelligence than our fur-wearing, club-toting predecessors ranking first. Evolution dictates that intelligence changes instincts over time. Unlike our ancestors, we have the ability to make better decisions about our instinctual behaviors. Any obstacles a person faces in a struggle for conquest is most likely a result of societal norms. All tribes formed their own societies which dictated human behavior to a lesser or greater extent. Fear of being ostracized from the tribe/society kept members in line (still does). You can't minimize the impact of environment; it's a by-product of evolution. Conquering is not about instinct in this day and age, it's about ego. And there's plenty to go around for both men and women. I've certainly experienced my share.

You haven't overstepped your bounds, Doc. I'm impressed with your sensitivity in addressing your opinions on this issue, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Please consider why in terms of population, humans have been so successful. Forgive me if I don't get the details quite right, but I believe that we all come from 7 genetically identifiable women. Only 60,000 years ago (compared to over 2,000,000 when we were closer to the chimps), there were so few of us in East Africa - racists please look away. In this short period of time (yes it is short) we have covered the globe and developed distinctive forms to deal with local environment.

I don't believe that there is any evidence to show that we have any greater intellectual capacity to our ancestors of 25,000 years ago - maybe less depending on your political views.

The reason I believe is that we can rationalise situations better than any other animal on this planet and adapt. Yes we can adapt - another reason why any form of fundamentalism is the enemy of humanity. We adapt very fast and I acknowledge that you will still find traces of previous behaviour, but that's what they are, traces. Consider how different your life is to that of your great grand parents. We are coping - in fact we take it for granted - so its very interesting to me why people want some things not to change.

To have achieved this population growth has taken some serious amount of shagging - our biggest problem is not knowing when to stop - we're all such studs.
 

yongdo

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Posts
218
Media
22
Likes
8
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Let's simplify things a bit.

Stud is NOT the opposite of Slut so this is not an apt comparison.


A man is a stud if he can get laid easily.
A man is a non-stud if he can't get laid easily.

Women can never be studs or non-studs because as has been said even homley/fat/older... (on and on) women can get laid with EASE where as the hottest/richest/in best shape... guy can not.


A slut is someone who fucks without impunity. a la like a jack-rabbit
A non-slut is someone who is corked so tight they might explode. (like a virgin)

Therefore...
A man who fucks many is a SLUT and a STUD
A woman who fucks many is a SLUT but NOT a stud

A man who can't get laid is a non-stud and therefore a non-slut
But...
A woman who DOESN'T put out is just a non-slut (and NOT a non-stud)


I hope that clears it up.




and
you're welcome :)