Men are studs, women are sluts?

yongdo

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Posts
218
Media
22
Likes
8
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
yongdo said:
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)
One addendum

Though
A man who fucks many is a SLUT AND a STUD
To most men being a slut is NOT a negitive thing (to themselves) so they just drop the term and keep the positive STUD

A woman who fucks many is just a SLUT but NOT a stud or non-stud
and
To most women being a SLUT is a negitive brand so they remain a SLUT in the eyes of others
 

thirdlegmeat

Sexy Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
524
Media
0
Likes
75
Points
248
Age
34
Location
Los Angeles
"Conquering is not about instinct in this day and age, it's about ego."

Why are you fighting truth so hard? I think your very statements themselves exhibit a fundamental difference between the sexes. Instead of being concerned about what's correct and false, you seem to be captivated by feelings of what "should be." The only reason I can see someone making statements such as this (the one quoted above) is to keep from hurting feelings. Stop it already.

A woman speaking with authority as to why a man likes to "conquer" females sexually is absurd. You have no frame of reference. I don't tell you what it's like to be a woman. "Conquering is MOST DEFINATELY about instinct. The human male, as previously stated by several posters, is designed to spread seed. The human female is not designed for the same level of promiscuity. Of course there's an element of ego that accompanies a man's conquest. But this ego itself is part of the instinct.

You speak as if society evolves with no method to the madness. To say that men act a certain way because of social norms and not nature is completely ignorant, because SOCIAL NORMS COME FROM NATURAL INSTINCTS. Again I ask, why is it the female "slut"/ male "stud" scenario dominates EVERY major society and culture around the world? It's not by chance babe.
 

thirdlegmeat

Sexy Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
524
Media
0
Likes
75
Points
248
Age
34
Location
Los Angeles
"You can't minimize the impact of environment; it's a by-product of evolution."

If you can't minimize the impact of environment because it's a by-product of evolution, how the hell do you minimize evolution? By your own words, evolution would be an even more dominant factor than environment. It's as I said in my previous comment that social norms are social norms for a reason...because it's instinctual and makes sense naturally.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Thirdlegmeat - you are not only becoming patronising but your right and wrong attitude is untenable.

Promiscuity is instinctive - monogamy is our social norm. Please explain how one has come from the other.

If you stop and think for a moment you may see that your founding fathers especially tried to institute social engineering to overcome their instincts. This is what happens when the fundamentalist right and wrong brigade start wielding power - you now take it for granted without thinking for yourself.

You are not a stud for sleeping with 100 women if they all thought you were lousy.

Where do you guys get this attitude that rich good looking guys find it hard to get laid, whilst on other posts you all want to whine about assholes getting all the pussy.

You have such an immature attitude to women and sex that I am not surprised that no one wants to have sex with you.

Oh and another change in instinct - those of us who are happy to have and who have had multiple partners, absolutley do not wish to spread our seed. Would you want to be paying for 50+ kids. Kids actually bring a halt to our lifestyle. Its not about conquest, it may sometimes be a bit about ego so stop telling people who have experienced these things what their motivations and feelings have been, unless you have been there yourself, and then talk about your personal experience without generalising it into a universal truth for humanity.

Thanks.
 

G4Girl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 14, 2006
Posts
24
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Gender
Female
I always believed that being wanted, was far more gratifying than being had.

But if I could turn back time, I'd definately open myself up to the experience of being with a few guys I passed by.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,714
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Why are you fighting truth so hard?

Just because you call it truth doesn't make it so.

I think your very statements themselves exhibit a fundamental difference between the sexes. Instead of being concerned about what's correct and false, you seem to be captivated by feelings of what "should be." The only reason I can see someone making statements such as this (the one quoted above) is to keep from hurting feelings. Stop it already.

How sad and transparent. You're resorting to desperation by trying to push my emotional buttons. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

A woman speaking with authority as to why a man likes to "conquer" females sexually is absurd. You have no frame of reference. I don't tell you what it's like to be a woman.

Sigh. You're contradicting yourself. Read your first paragraph again. You did, in fact, try to tell what I am thinking as a woman. You've already tried to speak with authority about how women who have multiple partners will always be sluts and can't be studs, thus we are supposed to accept that this is how things "should be". If anyone is captivated by a concept--this one in particular--it's you.

"Conquering is MOST DEFINATELY about instinct. The human male, as previously stated by several posters, is designed to spread seed. The human female is not designed for the same level of promiscuity. Of course there's an element of ego that accompanies a man's conquest. But this ego itself is part of the instinct. You speak as if society evolves with no method to the madness. To say that men act a certain way because of social norms and not nature is completely ignorant, because SOCIAL NORMS COME FROM NATURAL INSTINCTS.

Natural instincts are about survival. People in a civilized society do not need to have sex to ensure the survival of the species. Unless North Korea or Iran nukes us or we start dropping like flies from Avian Flu, there's no real need to furiously propogate the species because we're not in danger of extinction. As a result, sex is an act of desire, not desperation to preserve the human race. We've adapted to our environment--how about that? Darwin knew his shit. If there's no need for survival, then we adapt accordingly and our social mores are drawn from those adaptations.

Again I ask, why is it the female "slut"/ male "stud" scenario dominates EVERY major society and culture around the world? It's not by chance babe.

Of course it's not by chance! The slut/stud labels exist because the origin of those labels were of great benefit to men and, some might say, an excuse to behave in a manner perceived by society to be immoral. You know, the old "boys will be boys" adage. Those labels have nothing to do with human instinct. They were created for convenience. The negative connotation of "slut" was intended to keep women "in their place" in society. Sounds as though you're a big advocate of keeping the original meaning of those labels intact. I strongly suspect this advocacy of such prehistoric notions and a lack of maturity are the reasons for your inability to "conquer".
 

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
I think we used to think of women who had casual sex as sluts because of how the economic system was. What, you say? Think about it. Women couldn't make a living on their own. They needed a man to support them. Women became obsessed with finding a man to marry them because that meant financial stability. Women were supposed to "hold" sex till marriage as a way of motivating the man to marry her. Women who had casual sex were thought to be giving something up (sex) without getting anything in return (committment, stability, financial comfort). This was frowned on.
This is all obsolete BS now. I don't need a man to support me financially, and I don't look at sex as something I possess and "give" to the guy expecting something in return. Sex is something I like and I want, so I think of it not as giving something up but as getting something. These old ideas about what makes a woman a slut should have gone out the door with 8-tracks.
 

AMikkell

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Lordpendragon said:
You can't sit in judgment as to what is the right and wrong attitude towards sex.

A stud is a man who gives, and/or lets a woman take, what she wants.

I feel a bit of hypocrisy here. In judging my attitude about sex, as my judgement of others sex is part of my attitude about sex, you have judged me, and you are judging others. Judging other people is what we do, if we didn't judge, we wouldn't be able to censor ourselves, the result, complete anarchy. It doesn't seem to me that the original poster was questioning the reight to judge, it seems that he was wondering why the judgement is the way it is. You may feel that judging others is wrong, but that doesn't answer the question, and attacking the answers people have given, doesn't help either.
 

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




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.


Thanks for your praise, I was sorry if I was bit rough the other time around. A gentlemen should always watch his manners.

Concerning the issue though, I see your point a bit clearer now. I agree wholeheartedly that Evolution is important not only along the lines of our biology, but as well as our mental abilities too. In this point then we are clearly in a different place than our forefathers. However, our bodies are not. Problem. Society therefore has rules and regulations to keep our bodies in check. The majority of those rules and regulations force men to continue to act like our forefathers to prove our worth. I still think this is relevant.

As for your issue of conquest. I concede on that. I think this was a misunderstanding of vocabulary. Conquest does by itself imply ego, other wise what would be the point. But if it is not Conquest what do we call it, because something of the nature exists. Third leg might have a very different view on this than me, and I in no means share all his views. However I found what he was saying earlier interesting becuase of one part only. And I still find it interesting. When I am sitting in a bar, and I see a hot girl. She sees me and in one way indicates I should move forward. What is that. Why is an obstacle based on my performance necessary to meet this girl. Now within the last 40 years or so, she has had more liberty in various societies to making her own move. But alas, I do not live in such a liberated area. So I have to go over. That by itself is enough to assume that the majority of mens lives are spent in the pursuit of the women they fancy. I know that is a huge statement, I just didn't feel like really fleshing it out, but you get my meaning. Do women have to do the same today, yes. I'm sure it is getting just as hard for you, obstacles and all, than it has always been for men. And maybe this current intersting social construct might even reverse one day, hard to believe but possible. However going back to my original point. I still have lots of work to do, to get laid. As do we all I assume, but do men have more or not? I think we got it worse.

Just my point of view. And thanks for the healthy argument M. It is always fun to jostle around a point. You never know what you might find under a rock you trip over.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
AMikkell said:
I'm sorry Lord Pendragon, I don't understand your response.

I wasn't judging you; what I was hoping to do was to express a reasoned opinion.

Many of the judgments within this thread are based upon an accepted moral stance. I don't share these morals and I don't think that people should presume that everyone shares their morals.

People who make you want to share their morals also embue a shock at when other people reject some or all of them.

Questioning received morality is what led to a sexual revolution, or the acceptance of being and having a gay lifestyle - of course there are those who don't wish to see these changes.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,714
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Thanks for your praise, I was sorry if I was bit rough the other time around. A gentlemen should always watch his manners.

No need for apologies. I appreciated your candor and humor.



As for your issue of conquest. I concede on that. I think this was a misunderstanding of vocabulary. Conquest does by itself imply ego, other wise what would be the point. But if it is not Conquest what do we call it, because something of the nature exists.

You're absolutely right and i'll tell you why . . .

Third leg might have a very different view on this than me, and I in no means share all his views. However I found what he was saying earlier interesting becuase of one part only. And I still find it interesting. When I am sitting in a bar, and I see a hot girl. She sees me and in one way indicates I should move forward. What is that. Why is an obstacle based on my performance necessary to meet this girl.

Maybe it's not an obstacle, but what makes the world go 'round. I think certain people (men AND/OR women) are hardwired to meet and greet others differently than others. It's a matter of individual personality. Obviously some prefer to make the first move and others opt to wait and observe the other person before deciding what to do.

Now within the last 40 years or so, she has had more liberty in various societies to making her own move. But alas, I do not live in such a liberated area. So I have to go over. That by itself is enough to assume that the majority of mens lives are spent in the pursuit of the women they fancy. I know that is a huge statement, I just didn't feel like really fleshing it out, but you get my meaning. Do women have to do the same today, yes. I'm sure it is getting just as hard for you, obstacles and all, than it has always been for men. And maybe this current intersting social construct might even reverse one day, hard to believe but possible. However going back to my original point. I still have lots of work to do, to get laid. As do we all I assume, but do men have more or not? I think we got it worse.

If you live in an area where the traditional scenario of "boy meets girl, boy gets girl" is the norm, then yes, you will bear most of the pressure of introduction and interaction on your shoulders. And if you're a shy guy, it's even worse. Problem is that even in more "liberated" societies, a man is expected to prove he's a gentleman by paying for dinner, drinks, etc., which I think is a crock. There are men who insist on pursuing and do not want to be pursued. I remember the alarmed look on one man's face when I asked him if I could buy him a drink. I didn't take it personally; he probably wasn't used to being pursued. At any rate, it sounds as though you live in an area where you are expected to do all the work. You have my sympathies.

Just my point of view. And thanks for the healthy argument M. It is always fun to jostle around a point. You never know what you might find under a rock you trip over

You're welcome, Doc. My goal is to learn something from every discussion. I enjoy the challenges to my opinions and I try to keep an open mind in all things.
 

almostthere

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Posts
3
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
NY
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Don't be too hasty to lable the hedonistic sex is a sign of liberation.

All of humanity being created by dual forces of male attraction to fertile women, and women's innate instinct to want the best male genes and providing for her children would create this moral system of double standard.

Economically, this is a very consistent and natural way for mankind to create many wanted children.

These economic laws of dynasty and heritage are eternal and cannot be erased or "liberated from" by mere liberalized thoughts that posit equality between distinct forces.

--

In a world with what liberalism names "birth control", there is no difference between men and women. Socially speaking, both are children.
 

JoeNeckbone

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
54
Media
51
Likes
15
Points
228
Location
Arizona
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I want to remind the forum members that overgeneralizations are basically stereotypes and stereotypes are not real. What is perceived subjectively as being real by any one mind is not actually reality to anyone else. Subjective terms like stud, slut, asshole, bad, and good all smack of opinion not fact or truth. The easiest way to negate another human being is to label them in a word. This topic should back up to the role of human being which men and women share. As soon as it's about the roles of man and woman the relevance of any comment made by a man about a woman or vice versa escapes me. If a woman is perceived as a human being first and foremost maybe objectivity would enter the male mind. After all slut is what slut does. My point is that the word slut describes a human being and is not a gender specific.If a woman did not invite me to specifically comment on her being a slut or not I would shut the fuck up. :rolleyes:
 

diego

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Posts
148
Media
7
Likes
75
Points
273
Location
Brazil
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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).
Man! this is really common in a latin culture. Women are raized to be mothers and they can't express their desire for sex. Nowdays this ideia is changing and they are more open-minded. One hot woman who loves sex is very atractive to me, for me the importance is "to come". Try to find books from a brazilian writer Nelson Rodrigues, his stories talk always about pervertid sex, woman and man desire, incest, cheat, homo sex, ninfomaniac womens, fetich, everything pervertid that society try to hide.

"I am a pornografic angel, i am just a boy who likes to watch inside keyholes" - Nelson Rodrigues
 
Joined
May 22, 2006
Posts
50
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I think that in this day and age that promiscuity and sleeping around for either gender has two very real consequences. AIDS (and other diseases) and pregnancy. I got pregnant with my daughter because a condom broke. If the guy I was with (my boyfriend) had AIDS I might not have been here today. I think that we all have our share of sexual partners but we should always practice the safest form of sex at times. I am really thinking that (god forbid) should I be single someday, I will expect the person I am wanting to be intimate with will be tested as well as me, for everything beforehand.

And on that note, I think that its crucial that any responsible parent should inform their kids. AIDS kills!

I don't personally know anyone with aids but I feel it's our responsibility to be in control of ourselves. That being said, If you want to play, hold yourself accountable:)

Hope I didn't bore any of you fun and beautiful people out there:)
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
I am not saying that anyone here is - but do you think that the puritanical control freak brigade are using STD's and AIDS to stop people having the sex life they would prefer.

As far as I am aware you can stop any std with the proper use of the correct type of protection.
 
Joined
May 22, 2006
Posts
50
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Lordpendragon said:
I am not saying that anyone here is - but do you think that the puritanical control freak brigade are using STD's and AIDS to stop people having the sex life they would prefer.

As far as I am aware you can stop any std with the proper use of the correct type of protection.

I apologize if I was sounding puritanical:) I wasn't trying to, I was just trying to express my opinion about how easy it is to contract diseases and that it's a scary world that we live in....So, that being said, I think many men and women see a woman who has been around (especially in a small town) as a whore, where as a man who has been around is a lucky dog or a player...

and to answer your question about the puritanical control freak brigade, there was a woman who contracted hiv from her dentist. She was a virgin! The blood wa on an instrument that the dentist used on her...she died like 8-10 years ago...