Why do most women resent being labeled a s-l-u-t when they sleep around?

Question

Political correctness cannot mask the biological behaviors of humans.Yet feminism attempts to 'liberate' womens sexuality by playing the equality card and ignoring men's and women's inate differences.

A man must prove himself to aquire sexual partners, when a woman, even a not particularly attractive woman, could have sex many times a night merely by opening her legs. This is why promiscuous men are called studs and promiscuous women are called sluts.

Conversely, a woman must prove herself to a man, for him to commit to a relationship with her and if she has had many sexual partners, he will likely not respect her as she has given sex away so freely. He will have sex with her like the many other men, but will rather commit to a woman who values her sexuality.

So...what do you think of womens' 'sexual liberation' then?

No Cherry, I don’t see it wrong, because you agree with me, men are easy and only the ones that prove themselves get the girl, but for a woman to have a relationship with a man, she must prove herself to him and in this regard, a man is certainly not easy, unless he is one of those poor saps who finds it difficult to prove himself.

Wendy, of course it is my opinion, and I was asking a question and I clarified it so it could be understood. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your dissent? You don’t even elaborate on why the double standard should not exist. Men and women respect a man who is strong, confident masculine, who can attract and have sex with many wom A man who cannot prove himself may have many female friends but cannot get any sex is in the same boat as a woman who sleeps around but cannot get a decent guy for a relationship. They both give away freely to many what is should be reserved to a chosen few.
Wendy, of course it is my opinion, and I was asking a question and I clarified it so it could be understood. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your

Baba Yaga, The labels slut and stud are obviously a social construct as with any label, but is the corresponding behaviour that the label identifies, the difference in gender behaviour. Is gender a social construct?

So you agree that the labels and the behaviour clearly underscore a double standard in society because you state “It has long been known that males will tend to screw anything on two legs” yes true. Then you state “that females tend to be choosier than males” yes, indeed, yet you are being contrary by attempting a straw man argument by accusing me of misrepresenting evolutionary psychology/biology, yet I am merely explaining the social consequences of women going against their innate biology and being promiscuous without any restraint, (women are the restraint).

Baba Yaga,

A perfect example of this lack of restraint is in the gay community where there is only male sexuality. The average number of sexual partners a Canadian gay man has in any one year is 50.

You call me an uneducated chauvinist and a crank without a case yet your argument is no argument at all, it just further clarifies my original question.

If you believe that gender is really a social construct and expect men to suddenly become feminised because women are superior, well you are the worst of the worst of feminists, a gender feminist, a female chauvinist and are far more deserving of the term crank than me LOL

Go on Baba Yaga, show me some of that empirical evidence that backs your, and subsequently my argument.

We make a great team, eh. ;-)

Well obviously sex is not a social construct as boys have a penis and girls have a vagina LOL and you accuse me of being uneducated LOL!

So if gender is a social construct, then it is society that influences why little boys prefer to play with trucks and little girls prefer to play with dolls, not biology? Or how about occupation preference, even with quota systems and affirmitive action most men are still engineers, polititians, police officers, etc. Oh the evil Patriachy still oppressing the womyn in 2007!

Could gender social constructionism be a feminazi construction? Yes indeed the Baba yaga, I am merely disagreeing with this feminist theory.

And you talk of red herrings...

Some phenotypes are highly plastic to a genotype=nurture or change according to the enviromnent and phenotypes that are aplastic or with limited plasticity to a genotype do not deviate from the original genetic code=nature

I suppose you think that the phenotype for the female reproductive system is plastic?

Or maybe it has to do with the different levels of estrogen, progestrone, estradol and testosterone?

Heres a clue, give a woman a shot of testosterone and her libido will increase, or is that too simple for you Baba Yaga?

Though you like to complicate the simple, I'm sure you will have the last word...

Answer 1

In my opinion, you are right. Political correctness aside, the human experience, including sexuality, is what it is and HAS been through out the ages. There are a myriad of basic truths, that have followed both men and women around since humanity came into existence. Women can talk about sexual liberation all we want, but (as my husband would say) when it comes down to the nut cuttin', some never change....

Answer 2

"Political correctness cannot mask the biological behaviors of humans". It is proven that men do not have the "gene" to be promiscuous. It's all a lame excuse that is given long ago during the emergence of a capitalist society by the capitalist big bosses who want to ensure that money stays within the family and they give men the power. So women are taught to be monogomous so that they will not leave the family and take away the money to start a new family. Men, on the other hand, can be bigamous and money still retains in the family.

Answer 3

You state: "this is why promiscuous men are called studs and promiscuous women are called sluts'.

Labels are obviously a societal construct: they clearly underscore a double standard in society (and by extension, Patriarchy). It has long been known that males will tend to screw anything on two legs, and on on four legs, for that matter. You are leaving out fully 50% of the theory on sex selection: namely that females tend to be choosier than males. You are deliberately misrepresenting the perspective of Evolutionary Psychology/Evolutionary Biology on the issue.
You are a an undereducated male chauvinst desperate to crank. Best not to choose subject matter you know nothing about: you are parroting what you THINK YOU have read - INCORRECTLY.

With cranks such as yourself on board any 'case' you people may be trying to make is doomed to failure from the start. Your level of ignorance is breathtaking.

EDIT:
I noticed you asked "Wendy G" "Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your..." But you DAREN'T ask ME the same question: not up for the challenge, I see. I think this puts everything in proper perspective, don't YOU???
EDIT:
Just checking to see if you have the balls to dare me to provide empirical evidence. I can see you are really intimidated by me.
EDIT:
Uhhh... gender IS a social construct as are gender roles...sex is not an artificial construct. Still confused? Look it up. If you can't even get that part straight it's pretty sad and underscores your ignorance in general. You are throwing in red herrrings: the original question was "Why do most women resent being labeled a s-l-u-t when they sleep around?" Labelling is a social construct. How can you not 'get it'? I think I have made my case. If you are still confused then when I have more time I will return with the 'evidence" you seek.
EDIT: I don't need to prove to you that LABELLING is product of the society in which the labelling occurs: it's pretty obvious, I think. Why is it I keep having to guide you back to your question? You seem to have forgotten all about it. For review: "Why do most women resent being labeled a s-l-u-t when they sleep around?".
EDIT:
And now, to finally put your argument - which keep mutating as does your questio - to rest. In the words of evolutionary psychology:

“Joint product of genes and environment. Confusing individuals with populations has led many people to define "the" nature-nurture question in the following way: What is more important in determining an (individual) organism's phenotype, its genes or its environment?

Any developmental biologist knows that this is a meaningless question. Every aspect of an organism's phenotype is the joint product of its genes and its environment. To ask which is more important is like asking, Which is more important in determining the area of a rectangle, the length or the width? Which is more important in causing a car to run, the engine or the gasoline?

Genes allow the environment to influence the development of phenotypes”.

Looks like I won that one. Now that you are on the defensive it's YOUR job to prove ME wrong (with empirical evidence, of course)!

"feminazi"? But I came at this question soley from the perspective of Evolutionary Psychology? How then is this possible?? Now out come the slurs and denunciations. I think there was an Aesop's fable devoted to this phenomena..oh yes,something about a fox and SOUR GRAPES. HA HA!

Answer 4

You are working on the misguided assumption that a women values a man that has had many sexual partners...and that he has some how 'proven himself' in this manner. Somehow the greater the number of sexual partners, the more virile the man? You are also operating under the assumption that the description of 'stud' holds some appeal rather than revulsion to most women.

Answer me this - why would any human, regardless of gender find value in someone who holds little regard for sex as an incredibly intimate act? That it is nothing more than a physical release.

As for sexual liberation, it means being held to the SAME standard as men....bottom line, promiscuous applies to both sexes equally in my opinion

Answer 5

I think you have no basis for your assumptions regarding human sexuality. Is this based on empirical evidence, do you have anything to back it up? They are merely your opinions, nothing more. You are only coming up with excuses as to why this double standard should exist in the first place, in order to validate your habit of using degrading terms for women.

EDIT-Don't you understand that the "burden of proof" lies with YOU? You made the statement, er...I mean asked the "question", you have to convince us. But, WTH, I'll bite. Let's leave off principle for the moment. Speaking from a Biological Evolotionaryperspective, humans are one of the least fertile mammals on the planet. Logic would suggest that females should have sex with as many (fit) partners to ensure that their own genes make it to the next generation. Or, if biology isn't to your taste, let's consider sociology. Evidence suggests that early man lived in matriarchal societies, were groups of humans lived in cooperative groups, men and women working equally for the common good. There was no "nuclear family" to speak of, but a large extended family. Therefore, women did not need to "find a man" to "look after her," in such a setting, and thus, she was free to "do as she wished." Familial lines were passed down through the mother...it wasn't until later, when men gained more power that they imposed the idea of "virtue" onto women, in order to control, and ensure, "paternity."
The double standard is WRONG, because it is inherently unfair, and you can find whatever evidence you want to support your beliefs, it's still wrong.
Morally, MY "opinion" is that sleeping around is "wrong," But that is my opinion, and I don't judge others based on my own beliefs. They dictate how I behave, they don't give me license to judge others. That is, again, unfair, and wrong in itself.

Answer 6

Well, it is safe to say you wont be going on to many dates. And what is with the double standard? The men are studs however, the women are sluts. No, you have it wrong if the women are sluts the men are slut puppies, they are putting themselves into harms way with sleeping with someone who they may know or suspect as being promiscuous. What a sexist attitude. You really need to grow up. God bless****

Answer 7

Hypocrisy -- Duh, its like when a women says the past don't count and then she lies about it. Think about that why lie about something that don't count. Oh yes that's your hypocritical slut that now wants a bill payer just like other virtuous women.

I had a cousin that was a Sl** but she admitted and made no bones about it. Gotta love that!

By the way you have some really poor assumptions about men and women. Rich men and rock stars do get sex whenever they want. Fat women do not. These are facts so its not a man women thing its a culture thing with looks and money.

Answer 8

Woman are sick and tired of the double standard. Women who have sex are whores, sluts etc. Men who have sex are studs or given a free pass with the "boys will be boys" crap.

Answer 9

Because the female likes to operate on the basis of stealth.

Did you read the answer women are not sluts because men are so easy.

Wow the modern woman is really amazing.

I think we really need to legalize and give respectability to prostitution now and fast.

Answer 10

Women enjoy to lie to themselves.

Every woman wants to wear white for her wedding, even though she hasn't been a virgin for years.

Most of what women live daily, is a lie.