Frenchy, your point is well taken. There is one thing I take issue with, though. Remember when I said that all a woman has to do in order to get sex from a man (ON AVERAGE) is to lt the man know she wants him? Well, let's take that same level of effort and apply it to the men. There are men who do nothing more than that as well, and have nothing especially attractive to offer (we're talking about the AVERAGE man & woman, remember). The difference, though, is that usually, these men who can't do any better than let the woman know, don't get any sex from any women. Really, then, the female who gets called a "ho," who sleeps with (or is believed to sleep with) a lot of men, is the female analog not of the "stud," but of the guy who tries but fails all the time. This kind of man is usually given all kinds of unsavory names, just like the woman who does the same thing. The man is considered a horn-dog, desperate and hard-up. But so is the woman. The only reason she also gets the "ho" tag is that she was able to get the sex. But really, the connotations implied by the names given to her are much the same as those for the man. I believe that's simply because they both do the same thing: make themselves sexually available to large numbers of people. The man who manages to actually get lots of women gets all of that erased, because his success is seen as "evidence" of all of his persuasive attributes and charms.
More directly on your point, though, I think we run into problems whenever we start talking about the use/misuse of terminiology, because there's so many different ways people use the same term. There are men who use the term "ho" to denote ANY woman. And even the men who you say are so attractive that there's no "smoothness" on their part are still seen as studs because it's their attractiveness that is the persuasive factor. I don't think I specified "game" or "smoothness." Just that he's seen as having the right level and combination of "it;" whatever "it" is.