Are you a double standard, hypocritcal guy?

Question

This question is not for the under 18s!

I see a lot of posts indicating there is still a clear double standard when it comes to sex. Seems it is OK for the guys to sow theire wild oats, but the girls are expected to remain pure until they walk down the aisle. Hmmmmmmmm - so who are all the guys sowing their wild oats with, one may ask?

However, the real questions are: Guys - are you willing to accept it is OK for the woman you marry to have slept with as many men as you have slept with women? If not, how do you justify your hypocrisy? Girls - would you marry a man who has slept around and thinks it is OK for him, but not for you?

Phil, it might interest you to know that studies have shown that is nature some animal species sleep mate with as many mails as possible during their fertile period to ensure the strongest sperm is used. It has been determined that sperm will actually band together to fight off the opposition so the required number of their "team" can get through. So I'm afraid your nature theory, which men spout ALL the time, doesn't wash too well in this argument!

As it won't let me correct my typos, the about should read "mate", not "sleep mate" and the mail should of course be male.

OU812, you started off OK until you got to "I think, for me, a woman who has slept with as many guys as her guy has women (we're assuming some magic number) is demonstrating that she doesn't value herself enough as a woman and potential mother. And biologically, a woman finds a man with demonstrated desirability to be more desirable than one who doesn't have those desirability qualities." What sort of doubletalk is THAT? I could equally argue that the man doesn't value himself and he should find a demonstrated desirable woman more attractive. The lengths some people will go to, to defend the indefensible!

Answer 1

No, I don't support the hypocisy. I'm willing to accept a woman I am committed to may have slept with other men before meeting me.

The particular 'standard' you mention is a social construct. In times gone by, members of the European nobility (and possibly other nations too) were trying to ensure 'pure bloodlines' - so ensuring their fiances (and daughters) were chaste was a good (if clumsy) way of ensuring this. It is a common practice in the animal world for dominant males (and females for that matter) to terminate the genetic line of competitors by killing their progeny.

It is probably also a result of the time investment associate with reproduction. For men time required is far shorter, since (to be blunt) they only have to stay long enough to impregnate. Women, on the other hand, must play incubator and therefore have a longer time investment at stake. Again, social constructs were put in place - both to create ways for men to be made to be responsible, and to keep women 'sleeping around'.

The list could go on for a while. However, citing the natural world to support men sleeping around while women keep their legs crossed isn't really a valid argument. All animals have ecological, evolutionary, and social factors involved in their reproductive behaviour. Men should take the hint that women can (for the most part) control their own fertility and sexuality. What women do as consenting adults is entirely up to them...

Answer 2

Well, as a woman and a Biologist, I'd say in the animal kingdom there's a pecking order. The fit male lion gets his pick and he'll choose the healthiest females. The lower placed males and females take what they can get. The beta(etc) females will mate with as many males as she can, since she doesn't have the alpha male's protection. This way, so many males (inferior) will bring her the odd tidbit and think her offspring is his. It's survival.
In humans, it's similar, but the fit lion may actually be a fat balding rich man and instead of a healthy alpha female or females, he may choose a surgically enhanced phoney.
I suppose the point I'm getting at, is humans have animal instincts, but they are muddled by the veneer of society and greed.
A typical woman wanting a father for her offspring will tend to look for qualities such as healthy, tall, well educated/strong and with good bi-lateral symmetry.
A typical man (by this, I mean of course a typical heterosexual man) will also be attracted to good bi-lateral symmetry (a sign of good health) shiny hair, bright eyes, good teeth aswell as the more obvious female attributes.
Then of course there's the whole smell and taste thing, ah it's mighty complex and I don't know whether I've made things worse!
On the whole, men don't like to think their mate is the local bike, if she's pure, she won't be able to criticise his "performance". Men are prone to exaggeration about how many women they've slept with.
We females don't want a virgin, we want an experienced man and we lie about how many lovers we've had, don't we girls?

Answer 3

Gillian, the lengths people go to in order to defend the indefensible? I can quote you volumes on the reproductive biology of different species, but the bottom line is that we are talking about our species. You've already decided that the double standard is a bad thing and then you ask what we think and why. Well, I gave you one version of the what and why. If you recall, I never said it was either good or bad; I just told you why we have a double standard. I think if you read my answer again, this time without being on the defensive, you might find it accurate on all points. Maybe not to your liking, but accurate.

---------------------------------

Great question, but it's a false dilemma. It really just depends on the individuals. You're also suggesting that inequality means hypocrisy. We all know that men and women are different; and that applies, also, to sexual standards.

The investment in sex, for a woman, is far greater than that of a man. STD's can ruin a woman's chances of having kids and can even put the child at risk if an STD is active during childbirth and fetal development; the more sexual encounters, the greater the risk of an STD.

Women risk pregnancy with each sexual encounter. We know down deep, that the cliche about women and love first then sex is more true than not. The value of women as mother's is a world wide cross-cultural standard; women aren't valued first as warriors and providers, but as mothers and caregivers. And so on.

For men, sex can easily have no emotional involvement at all and men are not at risk of getting pregnant, etc.

So, yes, there is a double standard, because their is an inequality. And,yes, I love the old high school statistic that says 80% of the guys had sex and 20% of the girls (I just made up the numbers); where were those girls when I was in high school.

I think, for me, a woman who has slept with as many guys as her guy has women (we're assuming some magic number) is demonstrating that she doesn't value herself enough as a woman and potential mother. And biologically, a woman finds a man with demonstrated desirability to be more desirable than one who doesn't have those desirability qualities.

Double standard? Yep, but that's simply a function of value and not of morals; women are more valuble than men so the qualities that make them more valuble need to be preserved. You asked! P.S., We weren't discussing virginity which is a highly overrated quality.

Answer 4

interesting. I've often wondered.

it seems to me that most guys are more tempted by sleeping around. It seems like a logical fruit of evolution: on the days of no contraception, a guy who slept around increased the number of wombs his sperm would potentially get exposed to (and thus the number of wombs which would potentially beget children with his genes). Whereas a woman who slept around increased her odds of becoming pregnant, period (and ran a high risk of catching some disease).

So evolution selected men who slept around, and women who did not.

As a result, most women tend to have slept with a lot less guys, than most men have. As a result, the guys just have less ex-partners to accept from their bride, than the bride has to accept from them.

Now would I accept a woman who had slept with as many guys, as I'd have slept with women? Yes why not (I'm already married though).


As for the math, this is a simple one: statistics, and empirical evidence (as gathered by friends and myself), clearly show that it is a small proportion of the female population fulfilling the "sowing the wild oats" needs of the male population. I have a few woman friends, who admittedly I don't see very often if at all these days, very good looking, who each could have all the guys they wanted, and have slept with a total of several hundred men over their lifetimes, with peaks of several dozens on some hot summers. They're all happily married, with children, by the way.

Answer 5

I used to be a hypocritical guy but some events in my life have changed me. Now I understand to love a person you have to accept everything of her.
I guess it is about maturity or personal growth.
But I still think men and women both should try their best to reamain pure until they walk down the aisle. Perhaps I am just old school.

Answer 6

Men are designed to have as many oats as possible due to evolution.

We have millions of sperm and can get a woman pregnant every day of every year.

Woman on the other hand have one egg per month and their job according to evolution is to select the best candidate to produce offspring.

When you consider this dilema, men need as many partners as possible (quantity) and women need the 'best (quality), you have a conflict.

It is not about double-standards, men are loaded with testosterone to seek out their oats. Women do not have this in-built evolutionary status of a sex-seeker, although modern thinking that women are exactly men is just wrong.

A woman who sleeps with as many men as possible is not a partner that I would ever want.

Answer 7

Multiple reproductive partners means more diverse offsprings.

A woman surely know that her child is her child, while a man don't know for sure that his child is his child.

I think that what is best for man is a woman who is selective and capable to separate things.

But hey, if anything goes, then anything goes, including no fussing over which man fathered which child.

Answer 8

An experiensed girl is more fun in bed. But you're right double standards exist everywhere.

Answer 9

I don't run around, so if a woman was with every man in town, I don't want her.
Of course if you like someone it doesn't matter.

Answer 10

Yes! You are so right! When men sleep around they are called "studs". But when women do, they are called "hores".