Trans, with all due respect, if you keep pressing Coldfire’s buttons with this “How possibly offensive can I be in the fewest amount of words” blitzkrieg mode of communication, you may well get banned even if you don’t break a specific forum rule.
Are you implying that bigotry is allowed on this forum, and moderators allowed to practice it?
Never mind. I should not have interjected my opinion re your posting style. It’s not my place. Nature will take it’s course.
No, I’m glad you brought it up. Everyone has a right to see with their own eyes that bigotry is well and truly alive in the twenty first century, and people do still get oppressed for having and expressing non-mainstream opinions even when they abide by all the rules and regulations of a community.
Oh stop it! I’m misting up.
Skill differential? SKILL DIFFERENTIAL?!
I’m afraid that it is you that do not get it. The simple fact is: men are socially rewarded for sleeping around and women are socially denigrated for doing the same. That, is the definition of a double standard.
There is no discussion about “skill differential.” Frankly, your statements reek of misogyny. “Yeah, haha, it takes a male talent and skill to get laid, all a chick has to do is her hair! Har-har-har! They’ve got it so easy, if only I could score that easily.”
What you’re saying, in effect, by suggesting that it requires men to have “…excellent verbal communication skills, the ability to read and use body language effectively, the ability to accurately estimate a woman’s character and modify one’s approach in accordance therewith, self-confidence, the ability to take countless rejections in stride, and most importantly, the willingness and ability to improvise and act out a seduction attempt correctly and immediately on hot prospects”, is that lying and deception is acceptable and understandable, so long as it’s in the pursuit of getting your dick wet. I’m afraid I gotta call you on that. That’s nothing but an immature, selfish, the-world-owes-me, bullshit philosophy.
If you, or anyone, wants meaningless, unattached sex, that’s just fine by me. I say more power to you and your mate of the moment. The world would probably be a cooler place if more people got laid more often, but do not presume to preach that there is no double standard in society or that women have it “easy” just because most men would happily stab their best friends for a night of questionable pleasure.
And for the record, being a “stud” doesn’t require any of that. All it requires is a few drinks and a loose girl that’s had a few more.
No it isn’t.
First of all, I have to differentiate myself from transitionality - I do not give extra respect to a guy who sleeps around, nor do I think it should be respected.
However, it is not a double standard.
Most women do not want inexperienced lovers. They like guys who can get lots of girls. They like guys who are charming and confidant. Just the fact that so many women date older men should tell you that women place a FAR higher value on experience than men do.
Most men, on the other hand, want a girl who is NOT extremely experienced. They tend to not want to be compared to the procession of men that came before. It may make them feel inadequate, or fear that the woman will cheat.
See the problem? BOTH sides have a reasonable view. Both sides are making a judgement on what they value.
So how can it be a double standard? It can’t.
How the hell do you go from what I said to what you claim I said? Where exactly do I advocate dishonesty? I do not advocate dishonesty at all. The most proficient pick-up artists never tell lies. Their natural charm expresses itself in the way they speak and in the way they carry themselves. They want sex and they get sex using their skills. This is deserving of the highest praise. Any man who overcomes challenges using his skills and determination is deserving of the highest praise – and there are few challenges more demanding than being a stud.
That’s rape. Did you just advocate rape?
Are you one of those “skilled studs”??
Because if your verbiage here at the SDMB is any indication it doesn’t demonstrate:…
“Their natural charm expresses itself in the way they speak and in the way they carry themselves.”
What charm? So far you haven’t emitted one iota of charm.
There aren’t any:…
“excellent verbal communication skills,”
(though I guess technically you could claim you have those, since we haven’t heard you speak, but if your 'communication skills on here are any measure, you probably haven’t been laid for a good long time).
It REALLY doesn’t demonstrate:…
“the ability to accurately estimate a woman’s character and modify one’s approach in accordance therewith”
You have shown exactly the opposite of that skill, you’ve not “accurately estimated” the character, (and what kinda OXYMORON is that anyway???) of one single woman with whom yyou have had contact on this board.
It’s certainly NOT:…self-confidence
Don’t mistake a vastly overblown sense of importance and arrogance for “self-confidence”.
I find your self delusions vastly amusing. You’re an interesting mouse, but you’ll play too close to the cats, and get nailed. It’s the nature of creatures like yourself.
But I appreciate watching you twist in the wind all the same, it’s very entertaining.
Individual personal preferences have nothing to do with a societal double standard. Regardless of what kind of person someone is sleeping around with, if they sleep with a lot (a subjective concept of course) of people they are given either the postive label of “stud” or the negative label of “slut.”
There is nothing reasonable about a guy wanting to sleep around with the excuse that that’s what women look for in a man and at the same time condemn women for doing the same thing because their fragile egos can’t stand the thought of being compared to past lovers and being found inadequate.
The sentence that convinced me: “Being a stud requires good looks, a solid sense of fashion, an active imagination, a compelling sense of humor, excellent verbal communication skills, the ability to read and use body language effectively, the ability to accurately estimate a woman’s character and modify one’s approach in accordance therewith, self-confidence, the ability to take countless rejections in stride, and most importantly, the willingness and ability to improvise and act out a seduction attempt correctly and immediately on hot prospects.”
Emphasis mine.
You do not come out and say that lying is acceptabe, but you insinuate as much by suggesting that a “stud” must “accurately estimate a woman’s character and modify one’s approach in accordance therewith.” Modifying one’s approach, as opposed to just being yourself, is a willful deception for the sake of personal gain, which, is lying.
Overcomes challenges like what, an unwilling woman? This determination deserves no respect. A desire for sex is a basic, animal instinct. Regularly succumbing to it completely does not demonstrate anything but immaturity, juvenility, and a lack of control over one’s own base emotions.
I’d pity these people but I feel sorrier for the offspring they continually create and then neglect on their way to their next conquest.
What’s next, rape is worthy of respect because the man took initiative and used body language effectively?
That’s not rape, that’s the M.O. of your standard bar “stud.”
Maybe when you’re old enough to drink you’ll see it first hand.
Individual personal preferences have nothing to do with it, but when those individual personal preferences are held by a large plurality of the population, then they have everything to do with it.
In general, traits which are attractive to and valued by the opposite sex will have a good connotation.
As long as women value experience in men, being experienced with many women will have a good connotation for men.
As long as men value lack of experience in women, being experienced with many men will have a bad connotation for women.
Therefore there is no double standard.
Your second argument is completely irrelevant, and amounts to nothing more than an attack on males for not valuing experience as much as women do.
Why should males have to change their preference? Women could change their preference, and decide that they value men who don’t have a lot of experience. Why not attack them for not doing so?
Or we could just let everyone keep their own natural preference, and realize that sexual preference cannot be forced on someone. There’s a thought.
And thus the societal double standard.
It’s not the preferences that need to be changed. Everyone is perfectly entitled to their own personal preferences. If you want to dress in leather and hog-tie your SO while blowing the cat, good for you–and the cat–but applying a negative label to someone merely because they do not meet your personal (or you and your friends) preferences is wrong.
The issue isn’t about what men prefer or what women prefer, it’s that, in general, men are applauded for promiscuity and women are ridiculed.
That women, as you so eloquently generalized, prefer experience and men prefer virgin brides does not provide rationalization for society to look down upon a female whose personal preference is to be promiscuous (which, again, is a subjective term) and place a male who does the same in high regard.
Oh, would that that could happen huh?
The point is, that thanks to popular culture, teen terrors, and the little “clique-y” leftover attitudes from HS, and a multitude of other societal input. This isn’t the reality.
It would be nice if it were. But what other posters were trying to explain about “the double standard” real and true. It happens.
I’ve read a few of your posts, and I think what you might be trying to say (I’m sure you’ll let me know if I guess wrong) is that:
“yeah, but guys are victims of the double standard too”. If we try to get sex, just for the sake of sex, we’re called cads, and worse. Society imposes just as much of an unfair standard on us (albeit in different ways) as it does on women)".
Now, if that IS along the lines of what you were trying to say. Then I’d have to agree with you. There are “double standards” imposed on men also.
Like…the unfair double standard that says that if a woman marries well, and becomes a stay at home mom, she’s “noble”.
But, if a man wanted to do the same, he’s “not really a man,” is a wimpy milque-toast, etc.
Not fair, and JUST as much a double standard as the “Stud=Good/Slut=bad” one.
You know what’s ironic? If so many men didn’t have that “haha I got laid and I tricked you you stupid slut” mentality.
MORE women would feel free to not feel as if they “had” to be in it for love, and more of us might take a freer approach to sharing sex, simply for the pleasure of sharing sex.
Hence, men would get laid a lot more with less chance of strings and retaliation for being “played”.
You are, obviously, joking, because nobody could be stupid enough to say something that idiotic, and actually be capable of using a computer.
“Few challenges more demanding than being a stud”? Yes, well, I’d like to think that say, being an astronaut or a surgical resident is a little more demanding. Or about ten million other things.
Picking up girls is not very hard, quite frankly, if you’re willing to be unethical about it, and anyone who doesn’t know that has, well, never picked up a girl.
I admit when I am wrong. And I am wrong.
Soulmurk, CanvasShoes, you are right. It is a double standard.
The point I really wanted to make is that it is not a double standard for men to want women who are not sexually experienced, nor is it a double standard for women to want men who are sexually experienced.
Everyone is entitled to their own perferences, even if they themselves are trying to fulfill someone else’s preference that is different from their own.
However, when anyone looks down on a woman for being “promiscuous” or gives her less liberty or sexual freedom, that is very much a double standard.
That’s not what I am saying at all. Personally, I wouldn’t want to have sex with anyone I didn’t love, or at least like a whole lot. I am only interested in women who feel the same way.
That is a despicable attack on my character.
I make a point of not sleeping with women under the influence of alcohol, even when they compel me to. It is rape.
If you’re comfortable advocating rape, that’s your problem. Don’t bring me into it.
I demand a retraction.
There’s no deception here at all. You talk to people in ways and about topics they will find interesting and stimulating. If you try on a 35 year old the same approach that you would use on an 18 year old, she will think you’re juvenile. If you try on a 18 year old the same approach that you would use on an 35 year old, she will think you’re stuffy. There’s nothing dishonest about giving people the pleasure of talking about things that they find interesting, and you’re sadly deluded if you think otherwise.
That’s hillarious, transitionality.
Which one of soulmurk’s statements prompted this hissy fit?