quote: Stigmatizing female promiscuity — a.k.a. slut-shaming — has often been blamed on men, who have a Darwinian incentive to discourage their spouses from straying. But they also have a Darwinian incentive to encourage other women to be promiscuous. Dr. Vaillancourt said the experiment and other research suggest the stigma is enforced mainly by women.
“Sex is coveted by men,” she said. “Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”
About three years ago in some thread I said, to be provocative, that there was cartel like behavior in women when it comes to sex. The thought had randomly occurred to me there and then. Many posters cackled. Who knew three years later I would be vindicated by the New York Times.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, what low standards one sets when one adopts a marginalised, laughable ideology and must cherry pick one's way through scholarship, politics, culture, and science to be 'vindicated'.
Remember, dude: it's the fault of other women, alpha men, and broader society that you can't get a date or get laid without a commercial transaction. It is never your fault. Feminazis stole your ice cream, bro.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not cherry picking. It's a direct reasonable explanation for the phenomenon of "slut shaming" -- in a mainstream outlet no less -- that feminists so often crow about.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Remember, dude: it's the fault of other women, alpha men, and broader society that you can't get a date or get laid without a commercial transaction. It is never your fault. [/QB]
Any man who complains that they are a victim of Female Erotic Capital hoarding can always be shamed in this way.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think slut-shaming is perpetrated by both genders, I don't know in what proportions, but for different reasons.
I think women look at promiscuous women and see it as damaging the gender as a whole. It's a personal affront because the damage gets back to them and affects their lives. (the other side is that promiscuity is really a byproduct of feminism, but it's impossible to square that circle).
But come on, man, slut-shaming is totally a male-driven problem as well. Look at frat-bro culture and tell me slut-shaming isn't a huge problem. Look at the relation between men, rape culture and slut-shaming and tell me "she was asking for it" is something women primarily say. It's really much more virulent on the male side, because it goes beyond simple shaming into objectifying and dehumanizing.
You're right that men might want women to be promiscuous, but you're nuts if you think that's mutually exclusive with slut-shaming.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's cherry picking because you don't care about the 'validated by main tread media' part unless it, you know, agrees with you. You don't consider your outlook condemned when much, much more often it is condemned by these sorts of sources.
You know, the definition of cherry picking in this context.
As for the rest, well, yes, I'm mocking you and your position. I do this because I find it and you contemptibly misogynistic, but also (though truthfully not as much) because I think there is some value in ridiculing them. It's not what I usually strive for, but we've been around on this many times and I feel comfortable that you're largely regarded as impervious to honest argument (ex: your cherry picking), so it can comfortably be skipped.
You're afraid of and resentful towards women generally, quite outside the specifics of whatever issue you trot out as a hobby horse to mask your fear and resentment. It's on the record, a settled case. There are folks around here that I respect who do bring up and attempt to advance equal rights and issues as opposed to MRA. The difference is they don't positively glisten with sleaziness the way you do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's cherry picking because you don't care about the 'validated by main tread media' part unless it, you know, agrees with you. You don't consider your outlook condemned when much, much more often it is condemned by these sorts of sources.
The main media is often on the side of feminists and misandrists. That's why this research mentioned in the NYT is notable because it undercuts man-hating feminist rhetoric.
quote: As for the rest, well, yes, I'm mocking you and your position. I do this because I find it and you contemptibly misogynistic, but also (though truthfully not as much) because I think there is some value in ridiculing them. It's not what I usually strive for, but we've been around on this many times and I feel comfortable that you're largely regarded as impervious to honest argument (ex: your cherry picking), so it can comfortably be skipped.
Actually it's all you strive for...nothing but empty snark.
quote: You're afraid of and resentful towards women generally, quite outside the specifics of whatever issue you trot out as a hobby horse to mask your fear and resentment. It's on the record, a settled case. There are folks around here that I respect who do bring up and attempt to advance equal rights and issues as opposed to MRA. The difference is they don't positively glisten with sleaziness the way you do.
I do have negative views towards the excesses of feminism but as is always typical any man who takes issue with these sort of things is inevitability accused of sexism/woman hatred.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think slut-shaming is perpetrated by both genders, I don't know in what proportions, but for different reasons.
I think women look at promiscuous women and see it as damaging the gender as a whole. It's a personal affront because the damage gets back to them and affects their lives. (the other side is that promiscuity is really a byproduct of feminism, but it's impossible to square that circle).
But come on, man, slut-shaming is totally a male-driven problem as well. Look at frat-bro culture and tell me slut-shaming isn't a huge problem. Look at the relation between men, rape culture and slut-shaming and tell me "she was asking for it" is something women primarily say. It's really much more virulent on the male side, because it goes beyond simple shaming into objectifying and dehumanizing.
You're right that men might want women to be promiscuous, but you're nuts if you think that's mutually exclusive with slut-shaming.
Men might not want to marry sluts but they aren't going to psychologically torment them. Women on the other hand will socially exclude the "sluts" and cast them out of the group, all the while of course smiling to their face. So often feminists blame "slut-shaming" on the "patriarchy" which pretty much means "men." Nah. Blame the matriarchy instead.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no, you're totes right. Women who are deemed 'sluts'-the repercussions faced from men are simply 'not gonna marry that slut!' Not things like stalking, harassment, threats, spread of rumors, unwanted touching, I'm just keeping this largely on the lower end to match the 'psychological torture' idea. Right. Blame women. But remember, accusations of misogyny are baseless attempts to exert control-they're not grounded in anything!
As for cherry-picking, this is a bit obtuse even for you. It's 'vindication' when the NYT says something you like. When they don't, they're just pawns to their agenda. You get to pre-select which of their views have merit on the basis of whether they agree with you. Cherry-picking.
ETA: Of course it should go without saying-except this is you, Clive, on an issue related to women-that it's flat-out garbage to simply say that women regarded as promiscuous by other women can expect to be treated politely face to face, and leave it at that. It becomes clear that you not only avoid friendship with women (or just as likely, they with you) but you don't even much read or listen to what women have to write and say about their own experiences. I guess it's all man-hating not-dating-Sa'eed lies or something, so you don't have to, but for pity's sake god this is like reading the chronicles of 16th century explorers discussing 'natives'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No no, you're totes right. Women who are deemed 'sluts'-the repercussions faced from men are simply 'not gonna marry that slut!' Not things like stalking, harassment, threats, spread of rumors, unwanted touching, I'm just keeping this largely on the lower end to match the 'psychological torture' idea. Right. Blame women. But remember, accusations of misogyny are baseless attempts to exert control-they're not grounded in anything!
Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut. It isn't some male innate response to a woman who sleeps around -- unlike how women treat them. I'd like to see the paper that argues men single out sluts for this treatment, similar to this:
quote: As for cherry-picking, this is a bit obtuse even for you. It's 'vindication' when the NYT says something you like. When they don't, they're just pawns to their agenda. You get to pre-select which of their views have merit on the basis of whether they agree with you. Cherry-picking.
It's notable when they stray from their biased tendencies and write something that could upset feminists. Their bias lies as much in not regularly reporting stuff like this as it does in reporting feminist friendly stories.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut.
This is untrue. Here's the thing: men will do that to a "slut" that will sleep around, but not with them. "Sluts" are only tolerated by men as long as they comply with the desires of those men. A "slut" who owns her own sexuality and chooses her own partners is treated very poorly, indeed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, men who call a woman a slut use the word to mean "woman who I thought might have sex with me but didn't."
The reason he thought that might have been because she had sex with one or more other people, she wore a "revealing" outfit, or just because he's an idiot. Whatever, she's a slut because he thought she would and was wrong.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: As far as I can tell, men who call a woman a slut use the word to mean "woman who I thought might have sex with me but didn't."
The reason he thought that might have been because she had sex with one or more other people, she wore a "revealing" outfit, or just because he's an idiot. Whatever, she's a slut because he thought she would and was wrong.
Ah yes, focus on what a man might use the word "slut" for. No comment on the study mentioning it's women who torment "sluts" far more.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut.
This is untrue. Here's the thing: men will do that to a "slut" that will sleep around, but not with them. "Sluts" are only tolerated by men as long as they comply with the desires of those men. A "slut" who owns her own sexuality and chooses her own partners is treated very poorly, indeed.
Fair enough. Perhaps a man in that position can be as cruel to a slut as your typical woman is.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut.
This is untrue. Here's the thing: men will do that to a "slut" that will sleep around, but not with them. "Sluts" are only tolerated by men as long as they comply with the desires of those men. A "slut" who owns her own sexuality and chooses her own partners is treated very poorly, indeed.
Fair enough. Perhaps a man in that position can be as cruel to a slut as your typical woman is.
Ah, of course. It's possible that some sleazy men *might* be as cruel as the typical women.
Remember, Clive, you're not a misogynist!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut.
This is untrue. Here's the thing: men will do that to a "slut" that will sleep around, but not with them. "Sluts" are only tolerated by men as long as they comply with the desires of those men. A "slut" who owns her own sexuality and chooses her own partners is treated very poorly, indeed.
Fair enough. Perhaps a man in that position can be as cruel to a slut as your typical woman is.
Ah, of course. It's possible that some sleazy men *might* be as cruel as the typical women.
Remember, Clive, you're not a misogynist!
I will take your objections seriously when you link to research that says males mistreat sluts. The only research on the topic of the mistreatment of sluts so far shows that it's women who have an overwhelming incentive to mistreat them, not males.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only research on the topic of the mistreatment of sluts so far shows that it's women who have an overwhelming incentive to mistreat them, not males.
*blink* No. This may be the only research on the mistreatment of "sluts" that you have seen, but it is not the only such research.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we stop with the using of "slut" as if it's a designation with some kind of clinical relevance, Sa'eed? "Slut-shaming" describes a set of behaviors, it does not mean that it is legitimate to identify targets of that behavior as "sluts".
"Slut-shaming behavior comes primarily from women" is a legitimate use of the terminology, even if the claim is debatable (and I think the critique of the research that Sam linked to is worth reading, if you haven't yet).
"Women mistreat sluts more than men" is NOT a legitimate use of the terminology.
Please learn the distinction and respect it. If you don't, any effort you make to discuss the claim becomes completely undermined by your own unconscious display of prejudice.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only research on the topic of the mistreatment of sluts so far shows that it's women who have an overwhelming incentive to mistreat them, not males.
you are incalculably ignorant in your quest to cherrypick reality for yourself and validate your neurosis about women. you literally just said this. it's pretty much exactly like listening to ron lambert talk about what research really says about creation versus evolution. instead its you talking about how women are the primary slutshamers in society.
assuming you aren't just trolling the shit out of the forum like you pretty much were totally doing a couple of threads ago, does the weight of the compound bias of your own advocacy ever catch up with you? is there ever some moment where you catch a terrifying glance at your own profound sexism? Or will the feminazis just be stealing your ice cream forever and you'll just be the same Sa'eed who literally quotes Ann Coulter to prove how weak and inferior and petty the female sex is, without having any real understanding of what he really is?
Do not ever use the word 'slut' as a descriptor of women or specific types of women ever again, thanks in advance, you neurotic misogynist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Slut-shaming behavior comes primarily from women" is a legitimate use of the terminology, even if the claim is debatable (and I think the critique of the research that Sam linked to is worth reading, if you haven't yet).
basically based on the more comprehensive discussions we've had about this is that the absence of accounting for or examining the behavior in the context of institutionalized social norms is the study's primary glaring weakness, but it's less so an issue what the research actually IS and more an issue with what people are taking the data to be and what they are reporting it AS. (see: here)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut.
This is untrue. Here's the thing: men will do that to a "slut" that will sleep around, but not with them. "Sluts" are only tolerated by men as long as they comply with the desires of those men. A "slut" who owns her own sexuality and chooses her own partners is treated very poorly, indeed.
Fair enough. Perhaps a man in that position can be as cruel to a slut as your typical woman is.
Ah, of course. It's possible that some sleazy men *might* be as cruel as the typical women.
Remember, Clive, you're not a misogynist!
I will take your objections seriously when you link to research that says males mistreat sluts. The only research on the topic of the mistreatment of sluts so far shows that it's women who have an overwhelming incentive to mistreat them, not males.
*snort* The research doesn't actually show that, which I know you know. You're projecting beyond the experiment.
As for the rest, what would be the point? You admitted yourself that the meaningful research was that which contradicted what you seem to regard as feminist orthodoxy-you know, cherry-picking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Do not ever use the word 'slut' as a descriptor of women or specific types of women ever again, thanks in advance, you neurotic misogynist.
BIG FAT DITTO. Your use of that word, Sa'eed, is sickening me.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Will "harlot" do?
No, and nor will jezebel, prostitute, whore, or lady of the evening. In fact, if it's anywhere on this page, you can't use it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/slut
The study itself is a stunning bit of evo-psych tripe. In the realm of science, it is offal. It completely refused to examine any level of male behaviour in relation to the females' behaviour, and in this society, where patriarchy and male dominance is prevalent, that's a critically important variable.
The power dynamic is much like Cerberus at the gates to Hades. Cerberus may seem to be a large, slavering brute who is prepared to enforce the laws of the River Styx by any means necessary, and in fact he is! But his behaviour is entirely controlled by the mandate of Hades, and it is Hades who holds the true power. And it doesn't matter if the standard Hades has dictated is broken. Say Cerberus was instructed that souls in skimpy outfits are to be eaten - that's what Cerberus does.
And so it is with patriarchy - the subconscious enforcement of its mandates happen via everyone, whether they are directly oppressed by it or not, and the people who are favoured by it get by without being savaged. It is a mandate laid out by a society that favours men and enforced by women because men occupy a place of power. No matter who enforces it, women are still oppressed by it and men willingly participate because it is an exercise that favours them.
Without examining this power dynamic, this study is absolute bunk. No ice cream for you.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
You seriously need to stop trying to analyze sexuality thru a macro-scope. It's like someone who is out of work, instead of looking for work, reading articles about global economics, and dismissing what they disagree with and pointing to the rare article that agrees and saying, "Look, I'm right, it's not my fault!"
Get a freaking job you lazy layabout!
And by job I mean girlfriend.
If you weren't so focused on being a victim of some imaginary system and instead put even 1/10th the effort into making female friends you wouldn't be so freaking alone! Of course your efforts at first will be disastrous, but that's because you need to learn how to talk to girls...and enjoy their company instead of thinking that if the universe were different (fairer?) that a super model with an oral fixation would fall out of the sky into your lap because you happen to have a penis and therefore -deserve- sex.
Want sex? Earn it! Be worthy of being sexed. Try and meet girls. Find one with some free time and ask her why she -wouldn't- eff your brains out and take notes!
Women are not the problem. You are.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men have no compelling rational to do those things to a slut.
This is untrue. Here's the thing: men will do that to a "slut" that will sleep around, but not with them. "Sluts" are only tolerated by men as long as they comply with the desires of those men. A "slut" who owns her own sexuality and chooses her own partners is treated very poorly, indeed.
Fair enough. Perhaps a man in that position can be as cruel to a slut as your typical woman is.
Ah, of course. It's possible that some sleazy men *might* be as cruel as the typical women.
Remember, Clive, you're not a misogynist!
That's right, I'm not a misoygnist. I have deep sympathy for this woman who shares a harrowing story of being slut shamed by women:
You seriously need to stop trying to analyze sexuality thru a macro-scope. It's like someone who is out of work, instead of looking for work, reading articles about global economics, and dismissing what they disagree with and pointing to the rare article that agrees and saying, "Look, I'm right, it's not my fault!"
Get a freaking job you lazy layabout!
And by job I mean girlfriend.
If you weren't so focused on being a victim of some imaginary system and instead put even 1/10th the effort into making female friends you wouldn't be so freaking alone! Of course your efforts at first will be disastrous, but that's because you need to learn how to talk to girls...and enjoy their company instead of thinking that if the universe were different (fairer?) that a super model with an oral fixation would fall out of the sky into your lap because you happen to have a penis and therefore -deserve- sex.
Want sex? Earn it! Be worthy of being sexed. Try and meet girls. Find one with some free time and ask her why she -wouldn't- eff your brains out and take notes!
Women are not the problem. You are.
I do not have unrealistic expectations. Female Erotic Capital hoarding is a reality in post-Sexual Revolution America and public policy needs to address this, perhaps by making prostitution legal in every county and subsidizing younger men without means to visit sex workers.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hehe, now it's even harder to tell if you're trolling. I mean it's pretty clear your misogyny and sexual frustration isn't an act-or if is, props to your commitment to the act if nothing else! But insisting not only on this erotic capital nonsense, but that you've some inalienable right to it that's not being met, AND that other people should pay for you to get it seems ridiculous even by your standards.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Slut shaming is tied to erotic capital. The "promiscuous woman" (i.e slut) undermines the bargaining power of the cartel by giving it away so freely, hence the need to shame her.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sa'eed: I can't allow you to refer to women you would consider "promiscuous" as sluts over and over. We all know what slut shaming is.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Slut shaming is tied to erotic capital. The "promiscuous woman" (i.e slut) undermines the bargaining power of the cartel by giving it away so freely, hence the need to shame her.
Do not ever use the word 'slut' as a descriptor of women or specific types of women ever again, thanks in advance, you neurotic misogynist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: As far as I can tell, men who call a woman a slut use the word to mean "woman who I thought might have sex with me but didn't."
The reason he thought that might have been because she had sex with one or more other people, she wore a "revealing" outfit, or just because he's an idiot. Whatever, she's a slut because he thought she would and was wrong.
It's not even necessary to be outright rejected. One can, like Clive, preemptively label any number of women 'sluts' if he *thinks* she would reject him, if he ever got the stones to make an effort. Or if she reminds him of another woman who did reject him, even if she's never met the other woman and has nothing in common except his mental association and perhaps physical appearance and clothes.
One might almost begin to think this isn't some calm attempt at cultural classification, but rather a means to shame and marginalize women who don't behave in approved ways.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't labeled anyone a slut, except to hypothetically talk about so called "sluts" (note the quotation marks) who are shamed by women. It's an interesting finding that slut-shaming is primarily driven by women.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without counting carefully I noted five times you referred to groups of women with a gender slur without even the transparent mask of scare quotes. You're not fooling anyone, Clive. Obvious use of perjorative is obvious.
It's a tricky situation. On the one hand, you advance the cause you claim to oppose, and weaken your own by being such a terrible, offensive standard-bearer. On the other hand, you make the gender look bad.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Without counting carefully I noted five times you referred to groups of women with a gender slur without even the transparent mask of scare quotes. You're not fooling anyone, Clive. Obvious use of perjorative is obvious.
My use of the word "slut" was not defamatory but merely a reference to the behavior that is shamed when we say "slut-shaming." I am not the one slut shaming. But curious how sensitive people here seem to be about women being judged for slutty behavior. Good. Then you should work on lecturing women about not slut shaming.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
The only person here who you are fooling is yourself (assuming you aren't a troll). Not a single person here (correct me if I'm wrong here people) thinks that your attempts to couch sexuality in macro economic terms is anything other than a pathetic attempt to justify your disgusting misogynic hatred and mistrust of females.
Just stop. Please.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry you feel that way. I am interested in having discussions about these issues because I feel modern society is gynocentric in many ways, one of which is men being blamed for stuff that women do to each other (beauty standards, slut shaming, etc).
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you're not interested in actual discussions. You've admitted it in this thread already by acknowledging the way you cherry-pick your 'evidence'. Someone taking a contrary stance, whether it's anecdotal, clinical, psychological, statistical, or cultural is dismissed up front as in pawn to the matriarchy. Yet whatever experience you might have had or heard of, whatever study that even hints at supporting your position, 'vindicates' you outright.
Even if, as in this case, the scope of the study isn't even what you claim it is! At most, even if we set aside all of it's other problems, nothing you reference indicates women shame more than men do. The experiment didn't event test for that!
So tell us more, Clive, about what's really clear about your motives. Tell us again how interested you are in discussion. But be ready to be given the lie.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, Sa'eed, you're either going to sweep the Trollscar awards this year, or this is all very sad. In case it's the latter, here's my advice.
Dress nicely, shower, shave. (Or don't shave, some women like a bit of stubble. No neck beards, thougb!)
Locate a local club or bar where young people hang out. Go there, get liquored up, talk to women who don't have a man with them. Odds are a good portion of them will be there for the same reason that you are; to drink, get merry, meet someone and maybe get laid. Offer to buy her a drink, compliment her looks, just talk and try to be charming.
If the night is getting old and she's still interested, bring up the subject of going somewhere else together. When you get to where you're going, kiss her. For bonus points, kiss her before you leave the bar! If she's down with the plan, it'll be pretty obvious. Your dick isn't a collectible, so bust it out of the original packaging and have some fun! If you get shot down well, you're in a bar. Lots of other women around, right? Keep trying! Lack confidence? Everyone's liquored up, standards are lowered for everyone and you don't know any of these people anyway! Remember, a lot of these women are looking for the same thing that you are.
You don't have to be Casanova, and you don't have to do this type of thing forever. It's just to get you into a game that you're very obviously not a part of. Bottom level of the game to be sure, but once you get some confidence you can move up. Confidence in yourself is really the keystone to success, here. Well, that and not treating women like they're inscrutable aliens.
And hell, if neither of you want to vomit the next day in the bright light of sober, you might be able to spend more time with her, have some fun and get to know her properly.
Protips - Condoms. For Christ's sake, always a condom, no matter what. Also, if she's so drunk she is having major trouble walking or talking, or is calling you her ex's name or something, honorable guy puts her to bed and sleeps on the couch. Finally if she's "falling asleep," even just intermittently, then the game is most definitely over for the night or you're going to be in Rapetown, population : You!
Seriously though books and studies won't teach you how to trip a woman into bed. You're going to have to get out there and do some hands on work, so to speak.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can definitely say, at least from personal experience, that slut-shaming is unfortunately something perpetuated by both sexes. I think it's especially appalling when it comes to men for this reason: the same guys who call a girl a slut or otherwise demean or disrespect her are usually the ones (mostly unsucessfully) harrassing her and pressuring her to have sex with them. Worst of all, if the girl turns him down he usually even more convinced she's a "slut" than if she accepts. (though either way, he will continue to disrespect her)
Then there's the sort of guy who has self esteem issues and constantly complains that no girl wants to sleep with him. Inevitably, when a girl *does* show interest in sleeping with him, he instantly dismisses her as a "slut" or "whore", because in his mind that's the only sort of woman who would ever stoop low enough to be with him.
I'm sure there are plently of reasons for woman-on-woman slut shaming, I very much doubt a major one is "hoarding Female Erotic Capital."
Which makes me wonder, Sa'eed, how much time have you actually spent trying to date women? I don't mean a few lame attempts at conversation or pick up lines, I mean actually going out there consistently and trying to find a sexual partner? Because it really isn't as difficult as you make it out to be, especially if you put some effort into it. (working out, getting a good wardrobe, good hygiene, taking dancing lessons, practicing using speed dating oe online dating, etc.) I assure you there's a woman out there somewhere who wants to share her "Female Erotic Capital" with you. She may not look like a supermodel, but then again, neither do you. (Probably. But for all I know you could be Ryan Gosling's handsomer brother or something, in which case more power to you!)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to submit: Both the article in the original post and the Jezebel article highlight "slut-shaming" without addressing why there is a double-standard in popular perception between promiscuous males and females.
Promiscuous females are "sluts" and both articles take this for granted. Promiscuous males are maybe labelled "man-whores" but, unless they are married, are by and large not shamed at all.
I think we need to answer why that is before we go any further.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I would like to submit: Both the article in the original post and the Jezebel article highlight "slut-shaming" without addressing why there is a double-standard in popular perception between promiscuous males and females.
Promiscuous females are "sluts" and both articles take this for granted. Promiscuous males are maybe labelled "man-whores" but, unless they are married, are by and large not shamed at all.
I think we need to answer why that is before we go any further.
A key which can open many locks is a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a broken lock.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there's nothing like a metaphor that emphasizes one gender's supposed inferiority by suggesting they're something merely to be opened by men to demonstrate you're *totally* not a misogynist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
