I apologize that I did not make the first half of my post sufficiently funny that the humor was readily apparent.
I will work on that in the future. Totally agree with the purpose of your list.
Probably. On the other hand, men who sleep around - especially if they don’t call the next morning - are universally adored by feminists. Amiright?
Yep. Sluts ruin the status quo for the rest of the women in competition for male attention. Either that behavior has to be discouraged or they have to find ways to make their offer of less sex more attractive somehow, which involves effort. The female ideal would be low sex with high male investment, the male ideal is high sex with low investment. The sluts seem to have won, for now. Funny how men can thank feminism for all that easy sex.
In my experience men’s slut shaming behavior increases as they get older, especially if they have daughters. They’ll openly criticize scantily clad women in media as being scandalous; when they were younger they’d be hooting and hollering.
Those studies are fascinating and correlate with my observations how these interactions play out in the real world.
Per your parameters above if were going to make the standard for “slut shaming” any criticism of any personal sexual behavior by a woman that results in a negative or “notable” consequence then IMO the envelope has been stretched so far that the definition becomes almost meaningless. If (for example) a woman (or man) engages in risky sexual behavior and catches an STD is it “slut shaming” to be critical of the choices or risky behaviors or lack of precautions that caused that to happen? If a woman catches herpes because of unprotected sex with a one night stand, is it slut shaming to tell her she made a risky and stupid decision?
As I sit here, having lunch with my (male) co-workers, they are vocally criticising one of them for going out with a woman they refer to using the expression “afgelikte boterham” (slobbered-over bread), indicating that her alleged sexual exploits make her a less worthwhile partner. One of them prides himself on at least trying to get laid by a different woman each weekend. This is a common occurence.
If you want to get all evo-psyche about it, young women prefer to compete with each other for the sperm of the alpha male rather than mate with some schlub. Schlubs’ libidos function just as keenly as alpha males, so they want to squirt into as many women as possible. But they find the available women on that level are those with low self-esteem, substance abusers, naive, etc.
So, as pointed out already, women resent the easy lays as reducing their own bargaining power. Men resent them as an offshoot of their own self-loathing. IMHO, even though it’s all about status either way, men’s slut-shaming is worse because it comes from someplace darker.
Actually, yeah, I have no interest in shaming people suffering from medical conditions. I would like people to have access to preventative care and treatment, and that’s about it. If a friend caught herpes from a one night stand, I’d offer sympathy and a ride to the clinic, just like I would if she caught the flu. I mean, do you lecture people with cold sores on how risky and stupid it is to share drinking glasses?
Sex is like currency. If some women are giving it away cheaply, that lowers it’s value for all women.
… is it?
If we’re going to go with economic metaphors, maybe it’s like the economy, wherein the more activity there is, the more total value is brought to the system. Or maybe it’s like currency in that it only has as much value as one imbues onto it, and has no intrinsic set value on its own, and said value is highly variable based on outside influences.
This adage is really at the heart of what slut shaming IS. That there is some sort of “value” to women’s sexuality, and that said value is somehow different than men’s, and that women who have different backgrounds and life histories have different values for their sexuality. What makes this slut-shaming (as opposed to sex-shaming) is that this “value” is not only entirely imbued upon the women, but the job of protecting the economy of this value is also given to the women. The men don’t have the the same value, nor is it their job to protect the value (This displays in ways such as, in the case of a man-on-woman assault, a commentator saying she shouldn’t have been wearing that outfit, rather than saying that guy shouldn’t have done that - the protection of the value fell to the woman, not the man.).
Perhaps instead of saying sex has a certain value across society, we should consider treating sex as its own thing, and each sex partner and act as its own situation worthy of individual thought and consideration in its own context. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make for very good adages.
Dang, Poindexter - do you know where the sluts we’re shamin’ hang out or not???
I don’t agree - in my experience women are more likely to look at fuck me heels and say “cute shoes” while men look at it as an invitation and then get all pissy when it turns out the invitation wasn’t for THEM. Most women have, at some time or another, themselves dressed up like a cheap (or expensive) Vegas hooker for fun.
But I’m older and most women my age seem to have outgrown cattiness.
Men have no sexual currency, so there’s nothing for them to devalue. Shame, though, since there’s there’s so many of them who’d be fine getting called sluts, if it meant getting laid whenever they wanted. Strange how the world works.
Girls are labeled “sluts,” boys “faggots.”
I think might have learned other things in junior high, but those two lessons I remember as the point of my being sent there.
Well, that’s kind of the heart of the question there… Why is this the case? And further, is it an appropriate way to behave as a society, and why or why not?
There’s several evo-psych answers to the question (Men spreading seed, women wanting the strongest seed), some feminist answers (because patriarchy!), and some religious answers (The bible said so!). I feel they all fall a little short. The truth of the matter is probably infused with all of these answers, and others I’m not thinking of, and boils down to a long, long history of society. What we need to confront is weather we want this to continue to be the case, and if it’s ok. It’s not enough to say “This is the way it is” and move on.
IMHO, it’s not enough to say “Oh, well, strange how the world works…” and move on. Why do so many guys feel this way? And do they actually feel this way? What harm does it do to both men and women to assume this is the way the world works? What repercussions does this have? How would the world be different if it didn’t work this way (assuming it does)? Is that better than what we have now? How and why?
Why do so many guys feel what way?
The reason things are the way they are is that contraception and modern medicine are new. In most of human history, giving birth was life-threatening, and taking care of yourself, and a baby, by yourself, was difficult or impossible.
When we were hunter-gatherers, being pregnant slowed you down. And then after child-birth, there was a helpless infant to take care of. Either the rest of the group picked up the slack for you, or you didn’t make it.
So women had a choice to make: they could promiscuous, and run the risk of being abandoned when they needed help the most; or they could maintain their virtue, at least until they found someone who showed both a willingness and the ability to help when the help was needed.
The rest of the group (tribe, family, whatever) had a stake in it too, because they were the ones who’d have to pick up the slack if she made the wrong choice. And when food is scarce, or there are enemies or predators around, the wrong choice could have life or death consequences for everyone.
Except, really, it seems to be wrong (or cherry picking). Because from the news and articles I’ve read, it seems some of the most “primitive” hunter-gathering societies still around are ones who least concern themselves with that sort of thing. Probably because they understand that, even with a partner, the baby and baby’s mother would need all the help possible, so either way, all the group helps in raising all the kids born, and babies are not singled out or separated because the mother didn’t have a proper partner.
It seems to be more agricultural societies (and those with inheritance laws/customs) where the notion of controlling a woman’s sexuality (by restrain or by calling her names and ostracizing her) is more developed.
And currently, anyways, we’re not in a firmly agricultural society either, so we do not have to keep those customs either.
And lastly, and I think this is a point Sehkmet was trying to make… just because it is exists, doesn’t mean it have to exist and continue to be done.
It is still useful as cartel behavior. If you are a young girl and you want to be able to date a variety of young men so you can find the right man to marry and settle down with. However, if you become pregnant you will either end up with a traumatic event like and abortion or adoption or a baby. If you have a baby it will make your life much more difficult. You could also end up with an STD which could significantly affect your health or ability to have kids. There is also research that having more partners leads to substance abuse in women.
Thus it is better for young girls if there is a prohibition against premarital sex. However, it is better for each young girl to violate the prohibition because that will give them access to better boyfriends. This causes other young girls to loosen their morals to compete. Thus there are two equilibrium, one where no one engages in risky behavior and everyone still gets to have a boyfriend, and one in which only those who engage in risky behavior get to have a boyfriend. If you are a young girl or a relative of one then the first equilibrium is preferable. Thus social pressure is useful.
I don’t think this is correct. There’s evidence that the two are linked, but not that the one causes the other. That’s a very different thing in the context of this thread.
I think this is only true if you take any possibility of safe sex out of the equation. Condoms drastically reduce these risks, and significantly change the calculations here. I mean, don’t get me wrong, teenagers are plenty capable of being stupid, but what research DOES show is that in geographic areas where teens are taught safe sex techniques and given access to birth control, condoms, and counseling services, the rates of unintended pregnancy and STI transmission is significantly lower than in geographic areas where this is not the case.
Also, regarding your study saying women who have more partners are more prone to substance abuse… that’s the sort of study I’d want to take a look at before accepting. A conclusion like that really leaps out at me as a situation where there could be significant correlative issues (socio-economic status, for starters), as well as significant cohort differences. Also, many, MANY sociological and anthropological studies have major issues, as reported in the popular media.
In one of those “Great coincidences of the world” type of things, the below article showed up on my feed today. It discusses some of the ways in which living in a “slut-shaming” culture huts men, too.
http://playboysfw.kinja.com/bros-this-is-how-your-slut-shaming-is-backfiring-a-se-1563665480
I disagree, when a man does that reactive “slut” thing, he’s also implicitly trying to shame her for being sexually active, with other, presumably inferior men. It’s slut-shaming, and despicable. But women do it more, I suspect.