I think a guy would be. My concern is that this list seems to be less about a girl exploring her own sexual needs and wants, and more about pleasing a bunch of guys. In fact the one time one of them goes down on her, it seems to be a major deal - unexpected. I’d question her reasons for this list - which may be more on the slutty end of the scale, rather than a girl with a normal sexual drive.
Yeah. I don’t think this is a fitting punishment for being a bitch. And I too wish we could remove that word.
I seem to recall a group of male teens in a Texas high school somewhere a few years ago (they made it onto Oprah) who DID keep score cards etc (I think they were called The Posse). They were lauded by their peers for it, and by their parents (I remember one dad telling Oprah, “boys will be boys”).
The double standard is alive and well. Girls are held to higher standards re sexual behavior.
All that said, IMO, this list has less to do with the girl’s exploration than something else–perhaps low self-esteem and loneliness. Attention is attention for some people. Clearly, the family dynamics are not the healthiest around. Maybe she shouldn’t have ratted out her brother (for all we know she was motivated by concern for him), but he shouldn’t have published that list onto FB. Neither sib shows much in the way of mature behavior.
I’m left feeling sorry for them both and grateful they’re not my kids.
Yes, this double standard is intolerable.
Why, I remember when I was in high school, and I had opportunistic sex with two different girls over summer break, they threw me a ticker tape parade.
Oh, wait - I was totally ostracised by my peers for being a sleaze. Well, never mind then.
Like, say, “sanctimonious prick,” perhaps?
Twicks, if this is too hostile, feel free to move it preemptively to the Pit. Thanks in advance!
They were called the Spur Posse, and they lived in Lakewood, CA, not far from where I live now.
Re: the OP - This is why you don’t write any of that stuff down. 
Thanks for your permission – but since you knew what you were saying was inappropriate for this forum and you said it anyway, I’ll go ahead and give you the warning.
I don’t know, at my high school and even in college, a guy who had a list of girls and what he’d plan to do with each would have got about the same reactions, except instead of a “slut” he’d’ve been a “huge fucking sleazebag”. Sexual equality for the …tie, I guess. 
Nah not really, not by his or her peers. That’s not a long list. I have a teen niece who has decided I must be her confidante; some of her tales blow my mind. Hand jobs are practically a hug between friends.
I can also remember doing the Slam book game when I was around fourteen and we had to answer embarrassing questions, many of them involving who you’d give your V card to, who you’ve kissed, who you’ve had sex with, that sort of thing. This was the early eighties. It was supposed to be private but they always ended up getting out. After that it was as simple as linking names with numbers on the list.
Aha! And god knows where I got Texas from. Thanks.
You’re hilarious. The fact that you can ask “Who cares about morality?” while describing someone as a slut shows how completely clueless and ignorant you are.
Slut is, and has been for a long time, a morally-loaded word. The very use of it carries a moral judgment. If you didn’t know that, then i guess you’re just ignorant. If you did, and still contend that “slut” and “morality” have nothing to do with one another, then you’re wilfully dishonest.
But it would be alright to sexually humiliate a young man?
There’s occasionally an attitude in modern life that it’s not actually possible to do this. I don’t agree, mind.
Because most of the time when two people have sex is entirely up to the female. This makes it a challenge for guys to get laid while for girls its mainly a surrender and like grandpa used to say “you don’t get any medals for surrendering son”. I don’t understand why this isn’t completely obvious to anyone in this kinda situation when this question invariably pops up. Maybe someday we’ll reach a point where both men and women do equal amounts of the chasing in sexual contests but we are no where near it yet and until then the double standard will stick.
But making sex into a “surrender” for girls is really stupid to me. If a girl wants to have sex she has to pretend she doesn’t? That’s how we get into such stupid labels as slut and whore.
Exactly.
It’s a stupid double-standard that, because of attitudes like DigitalC’s, actually perpetuates itself. Rather than ask whether the old stereotype of woman-as-pursued-rather-than-pursuer might be an outdated social construction, they’ll continue to assume that it’s timeless and universal, and that any woman who doesn’t fit their narrow view is a slut or a whore.
How often does a woman who asks a heterosexual man for sex get told no? Sure it happens, but she’s not going to get slapped in the face for asking.
Exactly. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have *some *skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. It requires a certain amount of social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women to rack up a lot of partners, however, it pretty much only requires a vagina and a pulse. So a man whoring it up and a woman whoring it up are hardly the same thing because for a woman to get a lot of partners is absolutely no challenge, hence no one respects it. This is just human nature: people gain respect (alongside any moral opprobrium) for those who accomplish challenging feats while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained vices as weak or flawed.
Ironically, this double standard is made more potent by the sexualization of our society that is promoted by the very feminists who decry the double standard. (Note that they always do this in context of condoning female sluttiness, not castigating male sluttiness.) Sexual achievement - both in terms of quantity and quality - is now a more important part of social status than it has ever been. Look at the treatment of people who decide to abstain before marriage: a common reaction is shaming language “You just can’t get laid anyway.” The potency of that insult is a direct consequence of sexual liberalization.
if you really think this is the reason for the gender double-standard, i submit you have no clue.
If you really think it’s not part of the reason, I submit (without proof, as you did) that you have no clue.