Is the slut-shaming attitude more of an issue among men or women?
Random post.
Women generally promote slut shaming to drive up the market price of sex. If women give away sex too freely, women cannot barter it for access to male resources.
Unpopular, but thems the breaks.
Look up a paper called ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’ There is some really good info about slut shaming, dressing sexy, why men who have tons of partners are studs but women who do so are sluts, dowries, female genital mutilation, etc.
If you search for the paper on google, the first site that comes up is a pdf of it.
Here is the abstract
God, that’s so desperately parochial and dated - it’s like the 1950s rather than Tallahassee 2004.
No clue. But women have always been taught to judge ourselves harshly.
Much, if not most, of human behavior is subject to analysis in “transactional” terms. No one really thinks about sex in that fashion (well, almost no one), but the point is that their behavior would be no different if they did.
Male resources are fast becoming less essential to women, though. A more level economic play field means any woman or man who approaches dating with the same exact mindset as their grandparents is going to have an uphill battle, and sluts have shit all to do with that.
In exchange for “male resources”, women used to have to put up with a lot that they don’t have to put up with now. Like the inability to say no and have that respected, for instance. Marital rape didn’t used to even be a thing. Nowadays, women are walking into relationships with the expectation that they won’t be giving up anything more than men are expected to give up.
Are there women that still think maintaining a near-virginal status will earn them a Prince Charming? Most certainly. But as these ladies find it increasingly difficult to find dating partners who are willing to wait until marriage before having sex, they might have to change their attitudes towards all those “slutty girls” they look down on.
Nothing wrong with fewer partners and there’s nothing inherently glorious about more. It’s value neutral. So if something is driving down the number of partners that’s not a “success” and when women had more partners that wasn’t a moral “failure”.
You are free to disprove the claims.
I said it was parochial and dated
This is an example of the hypocrisy of feminism, which claims to be about “equality.” Some men find promiscuous women undesirable. You’re saying that’s “unfair” to women and that society needs to change it somehow. Feminists also complain about men judging women for things like being overweight (“unrealistic body standards”), or not shaving armpits and so forth.
But when a guy complains about women’s dating standards being “unfair”, or suggests that they should be changed, feminists rabidly attack him for the crime of “sexual entitlement.” They argue that any guy who whines about his sex life is the moral equivalent of a rapist who feels “entitled” to force women to have sex. (To uneducated eyes this resembles bullies kicking a miserable man for fun when’s he down.) But they promote the same “entitlement” in women that they attack in men. (In fact, promoting this seems to be one of the main focuses of current feminism.) A woman complaining that she’s oppressed because men won’t date “sluts”, or obese women, older women or women who don’t wear makeup, is no different than a guy who says he’s oppressed because women won’t date a guy who’s short, underemployed, or socially awkward. Feminists attack the latter while they promote the former and the former usually are feminists. Lots of women are repulsed by guys who are adult virgins. Do we need to “change the dialog” about that?
The position of feminism seems to be that women can be attracted or not attracted to whatever they want, and nobody is allowed to complain about it at all. But men are required to be attracted to whatever feminists tell them. Somehow this constitutes equality.
Men are judged and shamed all the time. For being short, underemployed, skinny, fat, living with parents, sexually inexperienced, small genitalia, social timidity, etc. Is there going to be a movement for any of that?
There is no hypocrisy. Men can find whomever they want appealing.
No one is talking about rules for individuals but the impact of social mores on people. For example, no one forces a white guy to have to date a black woman, but when society as a whole demonizes and punishes those relationships we have a problem.
Society as whole doesn’t get to label a behavior as morally bad without a damn good reason. And that goes for men and women equally.
Gender privilege? Lol.
Based on the fact that most sentient humans judge worth continuously. I wouldn’t have dated or married my wife if I considered her low value. Women and men both judge potential partners. Have you dated or had a long term relationship? What do you base your choice on?
Dress, manners, education, speech, behavior have no weight on the decision? I find that preposterous.
And I get away with judging what company I keep, who I dated, what I want to say by the fact that it’s accepted and expected behavior. You don’t understand signaling theory do you?
That’s not necessarily true. Each person has to make the choice as to what they value in a partner and sexual behavior is one such factor. A person who has a huge amount of sexual partners and behaves in a risky manner brings real danger into the relationship.
I’m not a prude but I wouldn’t marry a porn star for example.
I don’t think sex is immoral but overly promiscuous behavior signals to me that the person is not compatible with my level of risk aversion. Someone who cheats I wouldn’t trust enough to combine finances or marry. That’s what behavior signals to me.
There’s nothing parochial or anachronistic about marrying rationally.
The only person espousing moral virtue in this thread is up_the_junction likening men who prefer women with fewer sexual partners/experience to misogynists from the 50s or Islamic fundamentalists.
When presented with statistics that Millenials are having fewer sexual partners than prior generations, he dodged.
I don’t consider it “progress” that all men should find sexual promiscuity appealing. It seems he does and Millenials don’t. I wonder who is really out-of-touch here.
How would you even know? Do you quiz your dates on their entire sexual history?
You sound painfully aspiration, and almost a victim of your immediate culture.
Fwiw, wherever you start from people tend to more increasing towards human qualities as they grow and mature; kindness, sincerity, commonality, life experiencing, etc.
But sure, in the procreation years, people can make any number of bullshit decisions. Divorce lawyers love that.
You didn’t make a point. Fwiw, had no idea of the dataset - downtown Tallahassee on a Friday night, perhaps?
Maybe it was old white guys again.
Men are fully entitled to their preferences, but we’re also fully entitled to judge these preferences as a product of insecurity and backwardness if their basis essentially boils down to “I need a woman who is sexually ignorant because my ego can’t handle not being the biggest dick she’s ever had.” Justifying it using evolutionary psychology theories and other hokum doesn’t really remove us from the conscious motivation behind this thinking. The Madonna-Whore complex is a cultural condition that says more about the men who put stock in it than the women they judge. So if men want to judge women as sluts for having an active sexual history, they can’t complain when they are judged as troglodytes.
Like I alluded to earlier, it’s not much different than demanding that a woman be dumb and helpless because those traits will keep her standards to an attainable level, thus keeping her eyes from wandering. Would any guy posting in this thread expect to be immune from judgement if he announced having this preference? The thing is, it used to be taken as given that a dumb, helpless girl was what every guy wanted. This is why women were encouraged to downplay their smarts, keep to light, fluffly subjects, and play the damsel in distress. Disagreeing with a man, talking politics, or even being funnier than him? Girl, forget about it.
How have we overcome (much of) our bias against smart, independent women, while many men still feel comfortable advertising an aversion to women who have slept with X number (noticed no one has yet quantified what the slut threshold is in this thread…it must be a number so bad that it shall not be named). I suspect it’s primarily because education and financial independence lack the moral baggage that clings to sexual behavior. When you have words like “chastity”, “purity” and “sanctity” loading the discourse–and those terms only seem to apply to women’s behavior–it suddenly puts sexual prolificacy on whole other plane. Whereas a man might readily see how it reflects negatively on his competence and ego to announce a preference for uneducated women with few ambitions in life, notions of sexual morality prevent him seeing he’s signaling the same thing when he announces a preference for sexually ignorant women.
Men who don’t make it a priority of screening out women based on the number of partners they have will likely have more dating success than their more finicky brethren. Not just because they are maximizing their options, but also because they are signaling confidence in their own sexual competence (which is a turn on by itself).
I’m neither old nor white.