.
"Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

"It is very possible that her own promiscuity may have contributed to her present situation."



**********************


Have you ever noticed that these two word, "promiscuity" and "promiscuous" are almost exclusively applied to women?

How come?

Do you ever remember hearing a man called "promiscuous"?

The words, an adjective and a noun, are NOT gender specific. How come they always refer to women?

I mean, an unmarried man can screw his way across the continent but these two words will never apply to him. He'll be called a "stud" or a "ladies man" and his friends and family will wink at each other and kid him about it. He may even strut around and brag to his buddies about all his "conquests" and make cruel jokes about the women he has slept with.

Oh, but for an unmarried women, the story is altogether different. If an unmarried women has even a single sexual relationship, just one and it becomes known, she's runs the risk of being called "promiscuous" or "easy" or something even worse. She is morally condemned and her condition is a "moral consequence" of her behavior.

So, I'm just wondering, what kind of double standard is this? Really, what the hell kind of double standard is this?

And as the writer of the quotations shows, people use pregnancy as evidence of a women's promiscuity. But isn't it funny that if a man could get pregnant every time he had a sexual encounter, half the men in this country would have twenty kids, at least. I wonder if men would be called "promiscuous" then.

And for women, it's the same old history, the same old double standard, the same old moral condemnation , the same old culture of exclusion. She's promiscuous and her own promiscuity has "contributed to her present situation."

I'll give the writer of the quotations a pass; he's just being thoughtless and inconsiderate. And in most cases, when these words are applied to women, it is just someone being thoughtless or inconsiderate.

But sometimes it's deliberate with the intention to hurt, and the effect can damage a women's self-esteem, her self-worth, her value as a person. They're scornful, demeaning, hurtful words.

So, if you thoughtlessly use these words to describe women, there is penance to be done. You must listen to Chaka Khan singing the words of "Beautiful" five times.

And if you intentionally use these words to diminish the value of women, try to remember all of the women who have made your life worthwhile; a mother, sister, grandmother; an aunt, cousin, or friend; a lover, wife, a daughter.
.
.
Original Post
quote:
Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

"It is very possible that her own promiscuity may have contributed to her present situation."



Where did you pull these qoutes from?
Promiscuous:

ADJECTIVE:

" 1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: "Throngs promiscuous strew the level green" (Alexander Pope).
Promiscuous"

___________________________________________

So considering that the majority of 'single mothers' are not
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.,

then, unless we know that to be a fact for a particular 'single mother,' evidently the sexist blanket label does not cover all single mothers, and maybe not even the mother mentioned in the article.
But what makes it so bad is that just like racism, it is the people that stand to suffer the most from the it (labeling) that often do the most of it; as in it is often women (usually priamrily) women that spread such labels onto other women and mold their son's minds to view women in that light, even though, the term,and the perception was surely started my men (most likely of the 'cloth') as a psychological tool to control the female populations.

The truth is, that most single mothers have known and been in a relationship with their child's father for some time before becoming pregnant (although I know that is not always the case), and there are just as many "promiscuious" women in this world that do not have children or were married before they ever gave birth to a child as there are those who happen to be single mothers. Ignorance like this contributes to the rate of teenage pregnancies more than any other thing, in that, the teenager knows that she is not promiscuious, therefore, believes that surely she will not get pregnant like those 'you know what kind' of girls/women.
Promiscuity has very little to do with getting pregant. A virgin can become preganant the first time she has sex and a street walking $10.00 whore can never become pregnant; one girl will get pregnant, while another girl will get lucky, one girl's hormones may not be balanced out yet, while another girl's may; one guy may be shooting blanks, while another guy may not; and numerous other variables. It does not merely boil down to something as neatly packaged as promiscuity. Bestowing that label onto women only and onte single mothers in particular is sheer ignorance and sexism.
This so-called writer has confused ethics and is acting as judge rather than journalist.

Sex is an irresistibly interesting topic for most of us, and stories about other people's sexual adventures, and misadventures, are interesting.

BUT

People who are so judgemental about other people's sexual behaviour, would do well look inside themeslves for an explanation of why they are so keen to 'put the boot in'.

By offering a judgement about some else's life decisions damages the reputation of the victim.

'Opinions' (slander) such as this hardly comes from a state of moral mindfulness.
td6
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
quote:
Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

"It is very possible that her own promiscuity may have contributed to her present situation."




Where did you pull these qoutes from?


Those were from AA.org's one and only Michael Lofton...he's in that group of Negroes on your avatar.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:

Promiscuous



I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the idea of the post altogether. It was not about pregnant mothers or single mothers, although pregnancy was used as supportive material. Forgive the double meaning.

It was about a double standard that exists in our society and is used almost exclusively to demean women. I used the words "promiscuity" and "promiscuous" but there are many other examples and many other words I could have used to illistrate this double standard.

I don't know what gender you are but I'll guess from your name that you're a women. Regardless of that, a women is never a "whore", not in the dirty, filthy, demeaning way this word has come to be used in our culture.... no matter what the circumstances.

Have you ever heard a man called a "whore"? Of course not! It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Even though a man may behave in the same careless manner, it is another term applied exclusively, and meant to demean women. That it sounds so rediculous is a measure of the extent to which this double standard has become ingrained worldwide. And applying it to women while giving men a pass is EXACTLY what I meant. If you don't see that, you're blind and need some serious reprogramming.

Woman or not, I resent your use of the word!
.
.
Popcorn - I knew you were a woman!!!

I agree with you 100%.

For every "single woman" there is a man who is, IN MANY CASES, disconnected from his children.

First let me say that there is no way to get around the fact that the woman is the mother of all children (until technology screws this all up) and as a result she is going to have the child grow inside her regardless of what the man does.

With tht being the case the woman needs to realize the facts of nature and be careful about what she engages in with the sperm donor with slick tongue.

At the same time it is the Black Male who must be taught the concept of respect and protection of the Black woman or we collapse as a people.

You wouldn't believe the number of times that I talk about the critical need of men to not disrespect Black women by calling them out of their name or when I point to the IGNORANT lyrics of some SAMBO entertainer that young Black males will fire back that THESE PEOPLE ARE ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WOMEN THAT THEY RUN INTO (ie: Mike Jones' song).

Sadly these same people are the main ones chasing after "White Racism" for the BENEFIT of Black people YET THEY CAN'T EVEN FIND IN THEMSELVES A WAY TO SHOW RESPECT FOR A BLACK WOMAN WHO DOES NOT HAVE IT FOR HERSELF. When they have a chance to show "love" for Black people beyond their rhetoric they fail misrably.

Malcolm X in his Autobiography talked about how after he gained power women would thrown themselves at him as women are attracted to men of power. In his disciplined state he felt pitty for them in their unconscious state and suggested that they attend the local mosque to learn about themselves.

Today we have too many men seeking tactile pleasure on tip of their penis rather than living in accord to some greater cultural framework. (Kevin - how is your communalism simply an issue of money rather than other issues that represent the 'common interest'?)
I disagree with the ˜whore' statement.

IMHO, if you are disgustingly promiscuous (and I guess that's the only kind of promiscuity there is) and/or a prostitute, you are a whore. I have heard the term applied to males as well as females. I do not support usage of the term in unecessary situations, and I do realize there has been an overusage of it in music and the black community.

Yes, there is a double standard. I don't see why this is a surprise to anyone. When it boils down to it though, that's not the point. The answer is not to make the name calling equal between the sexes. NO ONE should get a pass for being promiscuous, and females should not be ˜let off the hook' or given an easier time about it. If a male, or in the more common case, a female, does not appreciate the name calling, maybe they should think twice about their behavior. No one is forcing these people (maybe with the exception of the violent pimp) to sleep with so many partners. Making choices means dealing with the consequences.

As far as there being a double standard, I don't find myself shocked or even too angry about it. How often do you hear a man being called a ˜dog', or the statement that all men think with the head down below instead of the one up top? It has become the social norm to assume that all men put sex first on their agendas. And women believe it. Whether is it completely true has yet to be determined, but it seems ridiculous to me to so blatantly admit men are sex fiends, then act surprised when they sleep around so frequently and no one says anything about it. If everyone is admitting they EXPECT promiscuity from men, what's with the shock and awe when it happens?

On the other hand, it is still imprinted in the back of many people's minds that women are the complete opposite. They are not SUPPOSED to act so inappropriately. They are SUPPOSED to be lady-like and polite. They are SUPPOSED to maintain wife and motherly duties. They are SUPPOSED to sit with their legs crossed. So when they sleep with a million men and yes, act whorish, people are bound to be disgusted. THAT'S WHY women are called names more frequently then men. IT'S NOT EXPECTED. It's a hard fact to accept because this is 2005, and you would think these preconceptions would be extinguished by now. People might not like to admit it, but I think just about all of us have our ideas about how we expect men and women to act.

We can't complain about the double standard until we learn to rid ourselves of false notions about the sexes. I believe men and women were assigned roles by God. This is what is SUPPOSED to be, but we have to realize that not everything happens like it's supposed to. By believing all men will be dogs, all women will be lady-like, etc., the double standard will remain rooted in place.

Just my humble two cents.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Popcorn - I knew you were a woman!!!

I agree with you 100%.

For every "single woman" there is a man who is, IN MANY CASES, disconnected from his children.

First let me say that there is no way to get around the fact that the woman is the mother of all children (until technology screws this all up) and as a result she is going to have the child grow inside her regardless of what the man does.

With tht being the case the woman needs to realize the facts of nature and be careful about what she engages in with the sperm donor with slick tongue.

At the same time it is the Black Male who must be taught the concept of respect and protection of the Black woman or we collapse as a people.

You wouldn't believe the number of times that I talk about the critical need of men to not disrespect Black women by calling them out of their name or when I point to the IGNORANT lyrics of some SAMBO entertainer that young Black males will fire back that THESE PEOPLE ARE ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WOMEN THAT THEY RUN INTO (ie: Mike Jones' song).

Sadly these same people are the main ones chasing after "White Racism" for the BENEFIT of Black people YET THEY CAN'T EVEN FIND IN THEMSELVES A WAY TO SHOW RESPECT FOR A BLACK WOMAN WHO DOES NOT HAVE IT FOR HERSELF. When they have a chance to show "love" for Black people beyond their rhetoric they fail misrably.

Malcolm X in his Autobiography talked about how after he gained power women would thrown themselves at him as women are attracted to men of power. In his disciplined state he felt pitty for them in their unconscious state and suggested that they attend the local mosque to learn about themselves.

Today we have too many men seeking tactile pleasure on tip of their penis rather than living in accord to some greater cultural framework. (Kevin - how is your communalism simply an issue of money rather than other issues that represent the 'common interest'?)


I'm done CF....you cannot explain the logic of your position without game-playing and you use games to twist around the schit you are called out on as deficient the way you explain them....we are at the end of the road...since you could not be straight-up in your responses to the simple azz questions I asked....i will continue to fight the blkCon tooth and nail...on behalf of those who delivered us from jim crow and overt racism....because the blkCon is willing to roll back the clock on past gains and let all those marches, beatings and lynchings be in vain...and those kind of people I find to be a waste of time online....and someone to verbally abuse when they insult the intelligence of black people in person......which has only happened to me twice that I can remember...word gets around to them as so far as where they can espouse that shit....so I have a class start soon...which is much more productive than trying to convince a self-hating black man of anything beneficial to blacks people en masse.........
quote:
(Kevin - how is your communalism simply an issue of money rather than other issues that represent the 'common interest'?)


*Read a political science book about wealth and life's chances and you'llunderstand why the shit blkCons attribute to being black is purely socioeconomic...so if black people are doing well the pathologies that come along with poverty sometimes will not be there....why do you think middle and upper class blacks take care of and preserve their communities more than the lower economic class of blacks, whites and any others...if anything was attributed to race soley...then all comunities for blacks would suffer the same plight.....the things you are talking about are a subset or default value of educational and as a result, economic viability.....
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

I disagree with the ˜whore' statement.



If the sum total of all the misery, all the sorrow, all the pain, and despair in this world could somehow be measured at any time, at any moment, at this moment... why would anyone knowingly choose to add a single ounce, a single drop, a single tear to the total?
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

I disagree with the ˜whore' statement.



If the sum total of all the misery, all the sorrow, all the pain, and despair in this world could somehow be measured at any time, at any moment, at this moment... why would anyone knowingly choose to add a single ounce, a single drop, a single tear to the total?
.
.


I understand, but for me, when used correctly, it's simply a matter of English.

My 1951 edition of Webster's dictionary defines the word ˜whore' as:

1.a WOMAN who engages in illegal sexual intercourse, especially one who engages in promiscuous sexual activity for pay, a prostitute, harlot

2.to be a whore

3.to fornicate with whores

And that's way back in 1951!!! I don't use it specifically to refer to promiscuous women; like I said before, IMO it's anyone. And again, bad behavior begets bad consequences.
Well here's the definition via http://www.dictionary.com

pro·mis·cu·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-msky-s)
adj.
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate. Casual; random.


I have highlighted where I believe the source of subjectivity or discontent or interpretation or MISinterpretation lies... Who can argue successfully that men who frequently have "pre -marital" sexual partners could describe those 'activities' as anything less than casual. As opposed to always being about love, commitment and fidelity?

And should promiscuity be 'judged'? Which is supposedly worse? The casualness of those encounters vs the quantity? Is there a scientific formula? Is frequency of partners any 'worse' morally than just ONE 'casual' encounter? And just exactly what are those indiscriminant "standards of selection"? On and on it goes.... most sexual issues work in the man's favour.

I'm CERTAINLY NOT anti-men Eek but you've got to admit there are more moral escape routes if you are male. Not fair.
It would be remiss to not mention the message coming from the popular culture today.

On the one hand you have the image of the Playa Playa. His objective is to use his material possessions, many of them which "spin" and glitter" to BED as many women as possible. Though all of this is done in the context of and HIV epidemic this is rarely mentioned. They also never mention the possible resulting impregnation that could result from this interlude.

The corresponding message is that the women who are inclined to be attracted by the jewels and spinner rims have no dignity about themselves. They judge the man by his loot and if he can pay to get their hair done.

Please note the lyrics of "Mike Jones" as he tells the tale:

quote:
MIKE JONES LYRICS

"Back Then"

[Chorus 2X: samples from "Still Tippin'"]
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me"
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me - I SAID"
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me"
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me - I SAID"

[Mike Jones]
Mike Jones!!
Befo' I came up in the game these hoes didn't show no love
They see me in the club and used to treat me like a scrub
They wouldn't holla cause my dollars wasn't swoll enough
I bet they change they mind when them 80 4's come rollin up
They see that I'm a star, now they wanna sit in my car
Now they wanna count my cheese, smoke my weed and sip my bar now
They used to love to me diss me, now they rush to hug and kiss me now
They tellin all they friends when I leave how they miss me now
2 8 1, 3 3 0, eight zero zero 4
Hit Mike Jones up on the low cause Mike Jones about to blow
Befo' the ice was in my grill, befo' I got my major deal
These hoes wouldn't give a damn if I was here, shea
Befo' the ice was in my grill, befo' I got my major deal
These hoes wouldn't give a damn if I was here, shea
Befo' the ice was in my grill, befo' I got my major deal
These hoes wouldn't give a damn if I was here, shea - because

[Chorus]

[Mike Jones]
I remember back den, most of them hoes couldn't stand me
But now them same hoes beggin me to pull down they panties bump
A couple of 'em said I was cute but I was just too chubby
Same size a year later the same hoes wanna fuck me bump
Because they see me paid, pimpin pens, workin my jelly
And I ain't trippin cause my pockets stick out mo' than my belly
They know I'm paid, livin laid in the shade
2 slabs in the Escalade with fo' or five estates
Then know that I got it made, I'm a motherfuckin baller
She would want a nigga now but I ain't got no time to call her
I'ma stall her like she stalled me, now she tryin to call me bump
Bitch I'ma dog yo' whole ass like you dogged me
I'm Mike Jones, don't act like you don't know the name
Ain't nuttin changed but my change, I'ma stay the same
I'm Mike Jones, don't act like you don't know the name
Ain't nuttin changed but my change, I'ma stay the same

[Chorus]

[Mike Jones]
Befo' my paper came, befo' I got my fame
These hoes that's poppin on me now didn't even know my name
They said my flow was lame, they said I had no game
I told 'em all I was fin' to blow they thought I was insane
But then my name started blowin up quick, now they jumpin on my dick
Cause they see me on the rise and oh now my paper thick
But then my name started blowin up quick, now they jumpin on my dick
Because they see me on the rise and oh now my paper thick

[Chorus - 2X]


WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR CULTURE FROM THE SAMBOS WHO HAVE HIJACKED IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT BUT IT FOR MONEY OR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:

Promiscuous



I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the idea of the post altogether. It was not about pregnant mothers or single mothers, although pregnancy was used as supportive material. Forgive the double meaning.

It was about a double standard that exists in our society and is used almost exclusively to demean women. I used the words "promiscuity" and "promiscuous" but there are many other examples and many other words I could have used to illistrate this double standard.

I don't know what gender you are but I'll guess from your name that you're a women. Regardless of that, a women is never a "whore", not in the dirty, filthy, demeaning way this word has come to be used in our culture.... no matter what the circumstances.

Have you ever heard a man called a "whore"? Of course not! It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Even though a man may behave in the same careless manner, it is another term applied exclusively, and meant to demean women. That it sounds so rediculous is a measure of the extent to which this double standard has become ingrained worldwide. And applying it to women while giving men a pass is EXACTLY what I meant. If you don't see that, you're blind and need some serious reprogramming.

Woman or not, I resent your use of the word!
.
.

_______________________________________________

I based my response on the bolded:
""Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

"It is very possible that her own promiscuity may have contributed to her present situation."
----------------------
The above statement implies that 'her present situation' is due to her being 'promiscuous.'
What else should I have gotten from the statement, excerpt, etc.,? You went on to address the sexist double standard in the post; I merely pointed out the sexist mythology that such double standards are based on and why.

In other words we live in a world/time where women are really judged by the 'existence' of "evidence" of imoral sexual behavior(pregnancy/child/children without marriage), evidence that is faulty at best in coming to a conclusion on a woman's character, sexual history/background, or promiscuity.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
In other words we live in a world/time where women are really judged by the 'existence' of "evidence" of imoral sexual behavior(pregnancy/child/children without marriage), evidence that is faulty at best in coming to a conclusion on a woman's character, sexual history/background, or promiscuity.

.
.

sunnubian,

You are absolutely right about this.

My post was about the double standard. Perhaps I didn't present it very well or take the time to understand your reply. Hearing things and seeing things like what CF posted makes me so mad. If I offended you, I'm sorry.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
It would be remiss to not mention the message coming from the popular culture today.



CF,

Thank you for posting these lyrics and for your support on this subject.

I should have never opened this door. It will take me awhile to get over the lyrics. I'm just appalled. I think I'll go for a walk.
.
.
quote:
WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR CULTURE FROM THE SAMBOS WHO HAVE HIJACKED IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT BUT IT FOR MONEY OR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION
Speak for yourself... Ain't nobody took "my" culture but, historically speaking, Mr. YT of whom you generally don't have shit in terms of the level of disdain you have for Mike Jones, 50 Cents and the lot...

You sound like these OFF-CENTERED mf's:
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/4351037813

Mike Jones and 50 might DEFINE "your" culture for you but they don't for me, no matter how much I may agree with your sentiment in terms of not agreeing with their lifestyles, the images they project, etc.
I agree the goal should not be to come up with an equal term for promiscuous men. But I think a better solution would be to refrain from labelling other people's sexual activities. How do I know she didn't think she was in love with every single one of the 200 men she slept with? And what need is there for me to categorize her behavior? If I, for some reason, feel the need to talk about how much sex she has, it's sufficient to say "She has a lot of sex."

I think very few people who are using the words whore/ho/slut, etc are choosing those words because their dictionary definition fits what they are trying to say. What people are saying with those words is "That woman does not live up to my moral standard and I look down on her." That is why there is no magic number of sexual partners or list of reasons for having sex that indicate when you have officially crossed over into "whore" territory. Every time I have referred to someone as a "ho," it's not because I had any in-depth knowledge of their entire sexual history. It's just another (unfortunate) way of looking down on a woman.

Those Mike Jones lyrics are atrocious, but that's hardly a sentiment that's exclusive to popular music. Since music began, unattractive men in all genres have been singing about the women that wouldn't give them the time of day before they became famous who have since had a change of heart. $$ "Ho" seems to be a synonym for "woman" in some parts. I feel fairly certain that Mike Jones would casually refer to any woman outside of his family as a "ho" (and not because he's making the usual value judgement).
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
How do I know she didn't think she was in love with every single one of the 200 men she slept with?

EXACTLY

quote:
What people are saying with those words is "That woman does not live up to my moral standard and I look down on her."

EXACTLY
I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this...

While I do agree that often people shouldn't disparage someone because of their perceived sexual histories, individuals should be more responsible.

Women in particular have to realize that the "double standard" really is not a double standard. There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts." The salesman who convinces larger numbers of customers to buy from him is a sales wiz because it shows he's got the skills necessary to win over the customers. But the customer who allows ANY salesman to sell him any product, cannot be considered a sales wiz. He may be gullible, or a pushover -- the "ho" in the transaction, but he's not the sales wiz. The salesman is.

In the dating world, for whatever reason, the process really is analogous to the salesman-customer dynamic. Even though in my view the woman is getting just as much out of sex as the man is (at least they are if I'm the man Big Grin ), it really is the man who has to lay out the charm, and all the other things that will win over the woman. A woman can turn off a man just like a man can turn off a woman, but for the most part, it's the man who's got most of the "convincing" duties.

Therefore, having a lot of sex partners is evidence that the man is skilled at convincing them. People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him. On the other hand, since the woman doesn't have to go through the same effort, she can't be a "playa" or a "stud" if she sleeps with a lot of men. All the average woman has to do to get sex is to let a man know she wants him. So if she sleeps with a lot of men, she's like the easy customer in the above example. That's why she's looked at differently. That's why this really isn't a "double standard;" the comparison really isn't apple-to-apples.
Thanks for the lyrics CF.

While we shouldn't judge and generalize about who is promiscuous and who isn't (particularly in the music biz !!), equally, let's not also presume everyone who achieves fame is altruistic either.

One of the big reasons a lot of guys want to be famous in the music industry (in particular) is to attract babes and be able to 'take their pick'.
In reality money is always a magnet to certain people - women included. It would be more intelligent of Mike Jones and his ilk to learn from his 'experience' how to indentify which women AREN'T after money and value THEM, rather than presuming that ALL women are like that.

Just as ALL men aren't thugs.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this...

While I do agree that often people shouldn't disparage someone because of their perceived sexual histories, individuals should be more responsible.

Women in particular have to realize that the "double standard" really is not a double standard. There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts." The salesman who convinces larger numbers of customers to buy from him is a sales wiz because it shows he's got the skills necessary to win over the customers. But the customer who allows ANY salesman to sell him any product, cannot be considered a sales wiz. He may be gullible, or a pushover -- the "ho" in the transaction, but he's not the sales wiz. The salesman is.

In the dating world, for whatever reason, the process really is analogous to the salesman-customer dynamic. Even though in my view the woman is getting just as much out of sex as the man is (at least they are if I'm the man Big Grin ), it really is the man who has to lay out the charm, and all the other things that will win over the woman. A woman can turn off a man just like a man can turn off a woman, but for the most part, it's the man who's got most of the "convincing" duties.

Therefore, having a lot of sex partners is evidence that the man is skilled at convincing them. People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him. On the other hand, since the woman doesn't have to go through the same effort, she can't be a "playa" or a "stud" if she sleeps with a lot of men. All the average woman has to do to get sex is to let a man know she wants him. So if she sleeps with a lot of men, she's like the easy customer in the above example. That's why she's looked at differently. That's why this really isn't a "double standard;" the comparison really isn't apple-to-apples.


Hello? Confused Oh... I SEE....

So you're saying that if a man displays all his skill and charm and darn hard work to pick up the woman, then his skill and effort is more highly valued? As opposed to a woman who - supposedly - just asks for it and gets it. Damn! Eek

Is this some sort of double pay-back envy type thang? Reward the man for all that "effort and hard work" to get someone into bed? Whereas the lazy 'ho' just gets it 'easy'. Without the "supposed" skill of a salesperson/man?

Excuse me, but are you insane? Apples-to-apples? Or should we say morals-to-morals?

quote:
People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him.


whereas??????????????? the woman doesn't get props because???

What you are really saying that it doesn't take VERY MUCH to get a guy into bed because.....?
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:

Hello? Confused Oh... I SEE....

So you're saying that if a man displays all his skill and charm and darn hard work to pick up the woman, then his skill and effort is more highly valued? As opposed to a woman who - supposedly - just asks for it and gets it. Damn! Eek

Is this some sort of double pay-back envy type thang? Reward the man for all that "effort and hard work" to get someone into bed? Whereas the lazy 'ho' just gets it 'easy'. Without the "supposed" skill of a salesperson/man?

Excuse me, but are you insane? Apples-to-apples? Or should we say morals-to-morals?


I doubt I'm insane, but if you stop and think about it, you'll see that I'm exactly right. I think you're ruffled understandably at the thought of there being an actual basis for the difference in the way these men are seen vs. the women. But I don't think you really believe I'm incorrect.

quote:
quote:
People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him.


whereas??????????????? the woman doesn't get props because???

What you are really saying that it doesn't take VERY MUCH to get a guy into bed because.....?


Welllllll.... if you look at it objectively, are you going to tell me I'm wrong?

Say the AVERAGE man walked up to 10 women and said, "I don't know you, but I'm horny. You'll do, so how about it?" It's a safe bet he'll get 10 solid rejections.

If the AVERAGE woman said the exact same thing to 10 men, she's not getting 10 rejections. She's just not. And since you know she's not, you also know that my last post has to be on the money. I don't make the rules; I just point them out.

Now, imagine the man who would get 5 YESes out of 10. You know you're thinking, "Wow, he sure is a disgusting freak, but I wonder what it is about him that half of the women he asked that ridiculous question to actually said yes."

The woman who gets 5 yeses (yesses? yes's??) is not going to get that same reaction, because the dynamic is different. Among those 10 men are those who would figure this as the gift horse not to look in the mouth. Or maybe they'd look it in the mouth, but they still would get with the woman... lol
Vox is right.

Even if you want to tear it down to the very basics. The innate instinct to track down and find a mate is simply stronger in men (or it should be). All males, including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects, are built with a need to reproduce. It is in the male nature. This need to reproduce is not as strong (although present) in females because technically, the guys 'make the babies.' It makes sense for a male to be more promiscuous than a female. He feels he has a job to do.

I'm not trying to give anyone an excuse because humans have taken things further than they should have gone, but we can't look at it simply. When a female acts irresponsibly and more like a man than a man, what are people supposed to think?

And still it all boils down to this, if you don't want to be called a whore, don't act like a whore. A guy can't get mad when he dresses up like a fireman and stands by a firetruck, and someone asks him for help, can he?
CF,

Thank you for posting these lyrics and for your support on this subject.

I should have never opened this door. It will take me awhile to get over the lyrics. I'm just appalled. I think I'll go for a walk.
.
.[/QUOTE]

Popcorn:

This is but a snow flake on the tip of the iceberg with respect to the MESSAGES that our young people are receiving today.

Their views on sex, male/female relationships and general respect for each other is both reflected within and stem from the MESSAGES that they receive from the CULTURE that is operating around them.

In my view the bigger threat to our advancement as a people is coming from WITHIN!!

How is it that a Black man is going to be in the life of a child that he has with a woman when HE DOESN'T RESPECT HER, he lives in a society THAT DOESN'T DEMAND THAT HE BE A MEANINGFUL PART OF THIS CHILD'S LIFE (and this is beyond the paycheck that the JUDGE IF FORCING HIM TO SEND EACH MONTH).

We need to flip our views around - This promiscuity and disrespect is happening in the vaccum of a DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE that DOES NOT ASK ANYTHING OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE. Their peers largely influence the norms that these young people learn to accept. With young folks sex, money and popularity dominate their lives when there is no framework for them to build their character around.

The parents and the broader society has FAILED to provide this structure to these young people. As a result too many of them will operate at a level of the 7 deadly sins that are at each of our base and instinctive level:

quote:
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.


http://deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm
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. cool
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Vox is right.

There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts."



Vox is NOT right. He may consider himself an animal, but I like to think of myself with higher standards.

He may like the implication of his argument and analogy that all women are objects to be won, bought by some slick salesman, but I don't. It's a piss-poor analogy and offensive on this site which focuses on people being bought and sold.

He may like the implication of his "salesmen" analogy" that after a women in "won" once, twice, three times by one, two, three men in his fucked-up scenario that she's a whore, slut, cunt, but I don't like it.

He may like the implication of his post and and analogy that his mother, his sister, his daughter is a whore, slut, or cunt, but I don't.

He likes the idea that his wife, lover, girlfriend is one and all of the above, "the "ho" in a transaction, but don't put that label on me.

That more of you "fellas" out there don't challenge these implications about your women just tells me how gutless you are. CF is the only man here with any courage who is willing to take a risk.

Another thoughtless vulgar post by another thoughtless vulgar man.

A "transaction", Vox? You goddamn fool.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:


He likes the idea that his wife, lover, girlfriend is one and all of the above, "the "ho" in a transaction, but don't put that label on me.

Another thoughtless vulgar post by another thoughtless vular man supported by an equally thoughtless women.

A "transaction"? You goddamn fool.
.
.


A pretty silly tirade. The analogy is a pretty correct one, because it describes what typically goes on. If you have ever lived in any kind of a society, you know full well that typically it's the men who do most of the work to convince the woman to get with him, and the woman does most of the evaluating. This is certainly true when it comes to beginning a sexual relationship; maybe less so when it comes to the commitment level. There is absolutely no room for disagreement on this, unless you have never been outside your home. And SINCE (not 'if') you have to agree with that much, there is no tenable logical disagreement with the rest. Like Artgurl, you can EMOTIONALLY disagree; that is, you can hate the fact of what I'm saying so much that you can't bring yourself to accept that there's a valid reason for the "double standard." But you can't provide any logic that supports an honest belief that what I'm saying is not true.

I started a thread on this topic a couple of years ago, and somebody (I think it was Huey) said that Montel Williams did an experiment similar to the example I gave. he had a guy go up to different women he didn't know and ask them to sleep with him. Montel had a woman do the same thing. The woman had takers, and the man didn't. So you can debase yourself by trying to call me all kinds of stupid names for pointing this stuff out, but you can't actually debate the truth of what I'm saying, because the truth of it really is clear. And since it's so clear, you can call me whatever names you wish. I didn't invent the dating process. And I didn't invent any of the ugly implications that flow from that process.
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.
Vox, your scenario doesn't clearly define what it is that makes the woman a whore. By sleeping with one man out of the ten who approach her? Two? Three? Does it depend on what the man says to convince her? Is she still a whore is she sleeps with a man who lies and says he loves her and wants to marry her? When exactly does she venture far enough that she can "rightfully" be called a whore?

Men have sex with any old thing, so the women who sleep with even one man who approaches them are whores who have fallen for this "genius in his own mind"'s game?? I don't disagree with you that short of having a peg leg and a hump on your back, a man will sleep with you, but what does any of that have to do with justifiably calling women whores?
So, Vox, in keeping with your analogy, if a woman walks up to 10 men and say: "I need my rent/house note paid; I need to go shopping; I need my car note paid; I need you to work everyday (maybe even two or three jobs) to support me and maybe even some children while I sit at home; etc., then if she can get at least 5 out of the 10 men to do what she wants, then, is she a 'playa' - does she have that "certain something" and is she 'skilled' at convincing men to do what she wants?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

A pretty silly tirade. The analogy is a pretty correct one, because it describes what typically goes on.


The analogy is not a correct one. It's vulgar and thoughtless, something you might hear from a pimp. Women are NOT part of a TRANSACTION. We haven't been since 1863!!! Are you a pimp Vox? Is that why you think of women as part of a transaction?

"Emotionally"? Another typical male sterotype of women. I can think of at least ten thoughtless sterotypes of men. Would you like me to cite them?

And don't cite any supposition by Montel. Show me! Anyone who would think of such a brainless, thoughtless analogy lacks the processes to think clearly.

No, you didn't invent any of the ugly implications that flow from the process. You just support them.
.
.
Vox, I apologize. I posted while you were responding so you've already answered some of the questions I raised again. Wink

I completely agree with you that the misuse of the term is so widespread that it is difficult to even come up with a solid definition for what a whore/slut/etc is. That is precisely why I think people should keep their traps shut before they sling out that word to tear someone down. Be direct. Just come right out and say exactly what it is you mean instead of hiding behind this all-inclusive, misogynist term. "She sleeps with a lot of men." "She falls for the oldest lines in the book." Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:


The analogy is not a correct one. It's vulgar and thougtless, something you might hear from a pimp. Women are not part of a transaction. Are you a pimp Vox? Is that why you think of women as part of a transaction?
"Emotionally"? Another typical male sterotype of women. I can think of at least ten thoughtless sterotypes of men. Would you like me to cite them?

And don't cite my supposition by Montel. Show me! Anyone who would think of such a brainless, thoughless analogy lack the processes to think clearly.

No, you didn't invent any of the ugly implications that flow from the process. You just support them.
.
.


Vulgar and thoughtless, you say, and yet not one attempt on your part to explain why it's wrong. And then, I call your clearly emotional response an emotional response, and that makes me a stereotyper. You're not particularly bright. Is that a stereotype too? In fact, you seem like a brainless idiot. Is that a stereotype also? bs
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
So, Vox, in keeping with your analogy, if a woman walks up to 10 men and say: "I need my rent/house note paid; I need to go shopping; I need my car note paid; I need you to work everyday (maybe even two or three jobs) to support me and maybe even some children while I sit at home; etc., then if she can get at least 5 out of the 10 men to do what she wants, then, is she a 'playa' - does she have that "certain something" and is she 'skilled' at convincing men to do what she wants?


ROFL! I would have to say you're right. The same exact implications would have to apply. She must have something going for her if she managed to succeed at that! I'm partially being funny, but just like the male "stud," it's absolutely reasonable that she would be seen as a "playa," etc. Of course, we question the morality anyway, which I think may play into your point; I think sucking money like that from somebody, even if they're willing, is on a different moral tier than having sex with them. Others may disagree, though.

But of course, if she's a TRUE playa, she'll write a how-to book, and make even MORE money!
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
In fact, you seem like a brainless idiot. Is that a stereotype also?


The only brainless idiot here is you. I shouldn't have to explain the obvious.

Emotional? "I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this" and then you cry like a baby when it happens.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:

Emotional? "I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this" and then you cry like a baby when it happens.
.
.


Confused Confused Confused

I really don't think we're reading the same thread. The only whiner and cryer here is you, my dear.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×