quote:Originally posted by Frenchy:
My problem is this:
When someone typically calls a woman a whore/ho/slut, it is NOT because they have seen 10 men approach her and know that she slept with 5 of them or whatever other scenario. They usually have no idea of the "whore"'s sexual history or motivations. They are not in her bedroom to know who exactly she is sleeping with and they are not in her head to know what her motivations are. It's not based on any scientific or even remotely accurate and uniform method of observation and determination. It's a plain old misogynist diss used to put women in their place that is so prevalant that women have taken to using it against each other. It's a loaded word who's modern day usage has very little to do with any dictionary definition.
Men are not out there shagging everything that moves in some sort of primal effort to reproduce. They like sex and it's socially acceptable for them to express that and pursue that without having strangers sit in judgement of their moral fiber. Furthermore, men being called studs (usually by other men) is just another way for males to find a bullshit reason to pat each other on the back. Women know that there are plenty of "studs" who's "game" is weak and who's skills are wack, but since he's attractive, women will always want to sleep with him. It's got nothing to do with any sort of skill or achievement on his part. Men generally have no idea why women choose to sleep with them. They just assume that they are so irresistably smooth. Puhleaze! Half the time we decide that before you even open your mouth.
DING! WE HAVE A WINNER! I agree with you on your quote, Frenchy. Yes, women decide to sleep with men before the men knows. I know you and plenty of other women are going to hate me for saying this, but...men don't care. We don't care. A win is a win. A "W" is a "W". If sex was the Super Bowl, you don't care if you lead at the end of the game by 12 touchdowns or a single field goal. As long as you win (i.e. "score"), it doesn't matter.
Having said that, this is one reason why this double standard exists. Why a woman knows or decides to sleep with a man before he knows he's going to get some? Because women are taught when they are little girls (either by parents/relatives or society) to say NO to sex...unless you're in love.
Men on the other hand are taught as boys to always say YES to sex. Unless the woman is a relative, underage or has a terminal STD, NEVER ever turn it down.
Therefore, when a person whose taught to say YES to sex (i.e. man) sleeps with a person whose taught to say NO to sex (i.e. woman), it's an accomplishment. It's a "bullshit reason to pat each other on the back", but a reason nonetheless. Whether she picked him or he picked her is irrelavant. If he got some...Mission Accomplished. If he didn't...work on your dismount, buddy.
Now vice versa, if one who says NO gets with one who says YES...unless the guy is a multi-millionaire/billionaire pro athlete, entertainer or the President, what is there for her to brag about, outside of clairvoyance?
What's so weird about this thread is that no one has ever talked about the flip side of the double standard of sex---celibacy.
Although a woman with multiple partners is called a "ho", but if she's a virgin or celibate, she's called a "virtuous woman" or a woman with good morals. HOWEVER, for men it's different: A man with multiple sex partners is a "stud", but if a man is a virgin or celibate...is he called a "virtuous man?" No way! Unless that celibate/virginal man is super-religious, he's called an idiot by both sexes. So much for that moral fiber.
In other words, that social acceptance for men to explore and sow their wild sexual oats is immediately a punch in the gut if he's not sexually active enough by society's standards.
The #1 movie in America this week is "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," about a guy who's well...the title's self-explanatory. If that 40 year old virgin was a woman instead of a man, would it still be considered funny?