| PUA Forum https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/ |
|
| Men and women double standards https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=92916 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | trixsta [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Men and women double standards |
Found this on a student forum. Pretty long read, but I'm glad I read it. It's about the sexual double standards between men and women. Here is the original source: http://apesinelysium.blogspot.com/2011/ ... guide.html ===================================================== I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard this question, mostly from women: Quote: How come when men sleep around, they're STUDS, but when women sleep around, they're dirty SLUTS?
There is an answer, and a clear one.It's not faayyyuurrrrrrr! The answer is not that men are bitter, jealous misogynists trying to keep women down by shaming them, or that slut shaming is a residue of religious guilt or an oppressive patriarchal society that's deathly afraid of female sexuality. Those things do exist, especially in the Middle East, and they have a dark history - female sexuality has always been a threat to established orders - but they are a symptom, not a cause. In this post I will explain, rather than re-describe, the slut/stud double standard. Different standards are not always arbitrary and in need of debunking by cultural theorists. Read on (keeping in mind that I will use the term "slut" frequently in this post but it is not an insult - it's a neutral term for the very thing we're talking about). Some essential background: Men and women are different Men have cocks, women have vaginas. Men impregnate, women get pregnant. In the jargon: humans are "anisogamous" (small, cheaply produced sperm fertilises large, nutrient-rich, energy-expensive eggs) and we are "sexually dimorphic" (men are bigger and stronger). Next: Humans, like most primates, are "moderately polygynous". Polygyny means: the most attractive men make sexy time with most of the attractive women. This is so important that I'll provide a thought experiment to show the consequences: Line up ten horny men, and bring in ten women who get to choose their partners. What's gonna happen? Ideal outcome: All of the men and all of the women get to pair up just as they wanted. Everybody's happy. Nobody is left heartbroken and alone. Actual outcome: The men and women vary in attractiveness, and do not match up equally. George McStud is tall, handsome, charming, and oozes confidence, whereas Dilbert McNerd is scrawny, timid, and creepy. The rest of the men lie somewhere in between. The women may range from Milla Jovovich on one end, to a bearded swampmonkey on the other. Much to the chagrin of the nerds, most of the women will be attracted to George, with his devilish smile, his twinkling eyes, his easy charm, and his effortless dominance of the other men. And most of the men will be attracted to Milla. Here's where biology comes into play. Technically, all that the ten women need from George is a few minutes of thrusting followed by a grunt, and his manly seed has done its job: ten knocked up women who, all else being equal, will all be unavailable for other men as mates because they'll be busy for the next three years raising their studly children (probably in George's harem). Milla, on the other hand, does not benefit by sleeping with more than one man. And only one man can impregnate her. If she cares about the health of her child, she should choose the best mate, not indiscriminately sleep with anyone. Objection: "It's pointless to talk about biology and take morals from it, that's like, a fallacy. What about contraceptives?" I hear ya. Read to the end. These biological differences have enormous repercussions Once Milla gets knocked up, the other nine guys have to mark her off the list; she'll be busy with someone else's kid (George's) for the next three years. But: George isn't necessarily out of the race. Having sex with Milla was five minutes seconds of his time. There are now ten guys competing for nine girls. Then George, the sneaky devil, gets another girl knocked up, and that's eight girls left. And then seven. And then six. And so on. Hooking up is a "zero-sum game" That means: the girl that one man gets is a girl taken away from another man. (+1 "win" for George plus – 1 "loss" for another guy = 0). Remember, the sex ratio is 50:50. (And of course, procreation is not always the goal; sexual pleasure is, but sex leads to pregnancy in an environment that lacks contraceptives.) Eventually, six or seven increasingly desperate men may be competing for, say, one or two girls, whose value has skyrocketed; the girls just have to sit back while the men fight for them; that includes the swampmonkey, who now feels like a supermodel and acts accordingly. That is the effect of polygyny. Immutable biology sets the rules of the game: Men compete (which is why men are larger and stronger), and women choose (as well as compete among themselves). Once the top guys have finished impregnating all ten girls (or the most attractive ones), the bottom-tier dregs of manhood are left involuntarily celibate, nursing their limp, sad, unused penises, weeping bitter tears. This can be summed up neatly: Most men are expendable; most women are not. Biologically, the inherent value of the average woman is greater than that of the average man. To make a hundred babies, you need just one man and a lot of women. (King Ismael of Morocco reputedly sired six-hundred sons in his harem, while plenty of King Schlumps of Celibacy sired only bored indifference in women.) In the jargon, women are the "limiting resource". And to maximise the health and survival of their children they need(ed) to be more selective than men about who they sleep with. Women can produce only a limited amount of offspring (maximum about twenty). Men, on the other hand, can produce thousands of offspring (depending on willing partners), meaning they have less of an imperative to be as choosy as females. The woman who pounced on any penis in sight in the ancestral past, as opposed to carefully selecting a high quality mate who would commit to her, risked single motherhood and this, sadly, would often lead to the neglect or death of her child. (But that was then; this is now, and evolution has not caught up. More on this in a minute.) Among nearly all mammals in nature the females are choosier and less promiscuous than the males. Now we get to one of the reasons studs are admired: they represent the winners of the competition. In modern parlance: Unless they are frequently slumming it, males are admired - or at least less resented - for having the qualities to seduce the choosier sex, including exerting quite a bit of effort, not least of which involves navigating an Asteroid Belt of Cockblockery. Being in the most sexually desired tier of men, floating above the morass of awkward virgins and bumbling chumps, you would expect them generally to be confident, socially dominant, good-looking, bold, charming, etc. And you would be right. Studies confirm that "studs" tend to have high self-esteem and the attributes just mentioned. (Many of them are also obnoxious dipshits – as are many attractive girls – but that's another matter.) Nearly any girl - one with her hair matted to her head, a pissy scowl on her face, no makeup, the conversational talent of a monkey, and a muffin top flopping over her jeans - can saunter into a bar anywhere in the world and get a guy to throw a shag into her later that night. Objection: "So it's easier therefore it's wrong? Nonsense! Resentful male!" Stay with me. The studies reveal (confirmed by an objective casual interaction with real life humans) that, in sharp contrast to men, women with unusually high numbers of sex partners tend to have low self-esteem and to be relatively emotionally unstable. And women with high self-esteem tend to pursue long-term committed relationships. (This may seem like an archetypal sexist myth, but if you have any experience in the real world you'll know that this is so obviously true that it borders on trite). This is not a coincidence. If you want a long-term committed relationship with someone who is emotionally healthy, stable, trustworthy, has good maternal instincts, and has self-respect, self-esteem, and good impulse-control, then promiscuous girls are not your best port of call. (There are, of course, exceptions; these are just statistical probabilities, and it doesn't mean that sluttiness is inherently a bad thing.) The next big fact about human sexuality: Human females have internal fertilisation and hidden estrus, and, consequently, cuckoldry is an inherent risk for men There is an ancient Roman dictum: Mater certissima, pater semper incertus. This roughly translates into "Momma's baby, daddy's - maybe". Hidden estrus means that there are no distinct signals when females are ovulating, and so the male can never know for sure whether he has fertilised her eggs, or if it was a "Sneaking Fertilisation" (scientific nomenclature for a sneaky fuck) by some other guy, which happens frequently among organisms with hidden estrus. (Over one million men in the United States are unwittingly raising a child that is not their own. Contraceptives do not obviate the cuckoldry risk.) In other words, she can get knocked up by a stud and then foist the child on some unwitting guy, who pours his hard-earned resources into raising "his" kid. "Hmmm, I must have some hidden African ancestry" The past does not equal the future, but how someone acted the past is a good indicator of how they will act in the future. In a long-term relationship, promiscuous women are a higher risk for infidelity than relatively chaste women, and the consequences of female infidelity are extraordinarily severe, in the form of paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is genetic death When a man (the competitive, resource-accruing sex) marries a woman (the choosy sex), he invests his resources in her - heavily. He has, in most cases, worked hard all his life to accrue these resources, and he diverts much of them into feeding, protecting, teaching and raising his kids, and he must trust that these kids aren't the spawn of another man's load spurted into his wife. If he marries a Samantha, there's an increased risk that she will cuckold him; promiscuous women (and men) are more likely to be cheaters. From the man's perspective, paternity fraud is worse than celibacy: It is genetic death in combination with the insult of propagating a competitor's DNA. Evolution has wired males to avoid this at all costs. (The fear of paternity fraud almost certainly underlies a great deal of the repugnant misogyny that flourishes in the Middle East and other parts of the world, including the widespread enforcement of cliterectomies, veiling, and the confinement and sequestering of women, amongst other controls on fidelity and chastity.) Now, infidelity ain't cool, whether you're a man or a woman. But the consequences of it differ between men and women. A woman who has a five-minute romp with a stranger she met at a bar can get knocked up and leech from the doting cuckold his resources, his support, his hard earned money, his time, his sacrifices, and his love. A "stud" who cheats on his wife by having a five-minute romp with a stranger he met at a bar cannot come back with a child and foist it off as his wife's. He cannot destroy her genetic raison d'être. This is why male sexual jealousy evolved and why it is more sexually triggered than women's jealousy (women also react with intense jealousy, but female jealousy is directed more towards emotional than sexual infidelity). Many men, of course, will truthfully proclaim that they love "sexually liberated" women (and rail against the condemnation of sluts), but pay attention and you'll see this: they love them for short-term fun, easy sex, banter and friendship, but those same men will loathe the idea of marrying such a girl and having children with her. This is adaptive. And it is practical. Ancient biological forces, combined with the economics of mating, combine to make a slut a good short-term mate but poor long term one, just as an incorrigible rake is a good short-term mate but a poor long term one. Men innately value chaste females as long-term partners, for the biological reasons outlined above. There are, of course, incentives to deny all of this under the canard that equality = sameness, but reality doesn't care about that. Women lie about their sexual past (even in anonymous surveys) and demand not to be judged precisely because they know how damaging promiscuity is to their reputation and their prospects as long-term mates. The modern maxim, whether unfair or not, goes something like this: If a girl tells you she has slept with 10-15 guys, the real answer is probably closer to 30, (alongside 20 blowjobs that don't count.) Men lie too, but in the opposite direction; they lie up, to appear like studs. Men would count "girl accidentally brushed against my crotch in supermarket queue" as part of their notch count if they could get away with it. Culture cannot overwrite biology, only harness it. Now for a crucial point, one that most people trip up on. Despite feminism, the pill, contraceptives, and Cosmo magazines, the deep-rooted remains. Birth control may reduce the cuckoldry risk, but it does not remove the underlying hardwired emotional mechanisms that evolved to prevent cuckoldry from happening. Evolution works too slowly to have caught up with our modern environment. An analogy is our taste for sugar and fat: this was adaptive in the ancestral past when they were scarce, but the modern abundance of fat and sugar does not undo the hardwired mechanisms that wire us to seek fat and sugar (see: obesity). Likewise, if you asked a man why he feels pity and contempt for a guy who marries the town bike, or why he feels contempt for the girl he and his buddy just double teamed an hour after meeting her, he probably won't be able to articulate the exact reasons – because they are hardwired, visceral, the product of adaptations, not purely reasoned conscious thought but a set of drives that ensure you don't mess up your reproductive success. (Anyone who claims to be above natural instincts is simply a liar or woefully lacking in self-awareness.) These are human ways. These underlying mechanisms cannot be switched off. It's like asking the question, "why do you feel incest is wrong, even when the participants use birth control and maintain emotional distance?" Most people, however, are oblivious to the underlying biological forces at work, seeing only the social manifestation of different standards and different behaviour. As a result, they come to false conclusions. They will fail, loudly and aggressively, to see the underlying logic. Many writers, implicitly adhering to a misguided version of equality, have written biased, scientifically-unsound books that insist that gender differences are entirely culturally constructed. These books, owing to their shrewd demographic targeting and emotional appeal, percolate through the vessels of political correctness and the consciousness of feminists (but I repeat myself), who as a result have been miseducated about gender differences to the point where biological explanations seem ridiculous and chauvinistic to them because a writer with a PhD "proved" that gender is socially constructed. From that position - which has a veneer of intellectual sophistication - the "slut versus stud" dichotomy is a hypocritical double standard, an arbitrary moral code, and those espousing it are sexists clinging to a pre-feminist relic of more ignorant times. But that is nonsense, and deep down most of us know it. Men and women are biologically and psychologically different. Different meaning "different", not "of unequal value". If men were the ones who made eggs and got pregnant, men would be the loathsome sluts and women would be the admirable studs. Demanding not to be judged for your sexual past and behaviour is futile and hypocritical. Judgement of others is an inherent part of human nature, encapsulated in the self-defeating irony of the phrase "God, I loathe judgmental people". Women judge men on their job, income, status, and popularity with other women, amongst other things (because this knowledge is crucial for female reproductive success), and men judge women on their beauty, femininity, and sluttiness, amongst other things (because this knowledge is crucial for male reproductive success). A woman's status, popularity, income, and job are relatively unimportant to men. We use different standards of judgement for a reason. Demanding to not be judged for being promiscuous (i.e. demanding to reap the rewards of high quality husbands, no hit in reputation, no reduction in mate value compared to more relatively chaste girls) is like a man asking to not be judged for being a boring, needy, unambitious slob and to reap the rewards of money, status, and lots of sex partners. Women who resent studs will try to cut them down by making a point of calling them "sluts", in an attempt to artificially transfer the negative connotations of female promiscuity onto the man. As it happens, women are more opposed to sluttiness than men. Women call other women sluts far more often than men do, and for good reason: Sluts are a threat to other women, and calling a competitor a slut reduces that competitor's perceived value in the eyes of other men (while also giving the accuser a pleasant jolt of moral superiority.) Specifically, sluts dismantle other women's sexual leverage (the non-slutty women become less valuable and powerful sexually because, if they play coy, a man can just shrug and go for the easy target, a slut) and also because sluts are likely to be potential homewreckers; women have a vested interest in keeping their parters away from them. Jealousy is universal, innate, ineradicable, and dangerous. The free-love communities of 19th century American collapsed from sexual jealousy, a pattern consistently repeated around the world. Free love proponents and pro-slut feminists (including the ones with penises) are playing with fire, but are too myopic and self-absorbed and too interested in immediate self-gratification to realise it. So, human nature is at the centre of the stud/slut different standard; specifically, the different ways in which mate value is instantiated in males and females, stemming from clear biological differences. That's why the double standard exists - why promiscuity is not a lifestyle choice without consequence - but it's not a moral condemnation. *** Addendum: In the above post, I did not define precisely what counts as a slutty behaviour; it's wasn't necessary. Anyone with cop on knows intuitively what it means and why a precise number-of-cocks definition is not necessary. I have a laissez faire attitude to sexuality. What people choose to do with their sex lives is their business. But there is no escaping human nature, and if you want certain benefits in life you have to meet certain requirements. This naturally doesn't vibe well with people who have a inflated sense of entitlement. To counter the predictable, trite, incorrect accusation of sexism: Using the word "slut" to describe a small subset of women who imbibe a different stranger's penis every night, as harsh as it sounds, is not sexism, in the same way that it is not misandrous to use the word "loser" to describe an unemployed slobby male who lives in his parent's basement and spends every day fapping to manga and playing video games. (It goes without saying that neither gender is morally superior or "better" than the other.) It becomes sexism when "slut" is used to refer to a woman who enjoys sex, or shows signs that she might enjoy sex, or turns a man down, or has the audacity to wear clothes that show off her figure, or breathes. And the biggest sexists are man-hating feminists, who, in a predictable chorus of shrieking agitprop designed to drown out reality and the sad whisper of their own unhappiness, also drown out the voice of sanity and decency from ordinary sane feminists. Hypocrisy runs as deep as DNA. Other predictions so banal they're hardly worth writing: screeching ad hominems (misogynist! asshole! hater!) from people whose egos have been pricked by an unsugarcoated, ribald explication of sexual behaviour; misinterpretations by people whose emotions override their ability to comprehend; complete disengagement with the actual girders of the argument; accusations of malevolent patriarchal ulterior motives, and so on. It's a touchy subject. Like Obi-Wan, if you try to strike a word down, it becomes more powerful. Women: if you don't want to be called a slut, don't waste your time invoking bonobos or trying to disarm the word slut in public consciousness. Instead, embrace it, or consider not pouncing on every penis in sight. Those are your options, handed down by reality. If you have no problem being called a slut (or promiscuous, or loose, or easy), then more power to you. As mentioned, there are men who rail against slut shaming; these are usually suck-up white knights (opportunist feminists), or, worse, crypto-misogynists (after some probing: "all women are sluts and merely masturbation aids"). And beggars can't be choosers; men of poor mate value who will take what they can and settle with a promiscuous cougar will rationalise it away through a loud and sanctimonious show of nonjudgementalism. Some women embrace their inner slut and are neither mentally imbalanced nor filled with self-loathing; they love what they do, they're fun, open, authentic, and sexual people. Such women are rare, and the blunt brush of judgement surely tars them also under the "damaged slut" category. Stereotypes, as it happens, are based largely on reality, not constructed out of the ethereal fumes of culture. Dre may have been generally right when he said "you can't make a ho a housewife". But: I think a certain minority of women go through a "whore phase" and then settle down and remain faithful not just for reasons of expediency. Such women are almost certainly rarer than the majority of sluts, who are unfaithful and promiscuous wherever they can get away with it (while still young enough to attract other men, for example). Most people pass off lack of opportunity for virtue. |
|
| Author: | Txacoli [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's a great read and it really hit the nail. I'd like to add something about studs. A guy can be perceived as a stud only if his females are high quality. If his females are low quality, he will be perceived as a manwhore. |
|
| Author: | Fin [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's alot of claims of "evolutionary biology is this way.. ..." - sorry sport, evolutinary claims to validate psychological beliefs is not science. Alot of the rest of the argument is "we feel this way.... becuase..."- affective attitudes are influenced by culture as much as cognitive and behavioural attitudes. And at the end of that. What is.. i.e. People are wired to "blah de blah" =/= We should "blah de blah". All in all, looks like usual pseudo-science which even were it to hold true, would fail to make a sturdy argument for up holding the slut-player paradigm. |
|
| Author: | robizeratul [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i read everything and it makes sense to me.every genius of his time was considered crazy...i don't know if this is the truth,but smarter people than me have already proven it,or will do it in the future...who knows? |
|
| Author: | kinorc [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Long post, read it all n enjoyed. Thevast majority is correct. What I would add, is that this represents a general outline n there will be exceptions in each sex. Also, it is most definitely a biological unconscious drive, yet it most definitely gets manifested differently depending on the culture in which you were raised. I think if used properly, this info can help people to realize some of their unconscious motivations n in turn bring about more self-awareness. Good post, I hope it gets alot of reads, and people get a better understanding of the forces acting upon their consciousness. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|