If you do enough reading on MRM and feminist blogs you will likely come to the conclusion that they are both in the business of pointing at and challenging sexual double standards, the only real difference of course being that the preponderance of double standards scrutinized on feminist blogs are imaginary.
One can hardly blame them, given that little social hypocrisy unfavorable to women actually exists. For an ideologue, having no bona fide raison d’être doesn’t bode well for having anything meaningful to say, or for that matter being an ideologue in the first place. So, not having a lot to complain about, and desperately wanting to complain anyway, they make stuff up – e.g. the gender wage gap, rape culture, male privilege and the female only domestic violence victim paradigm, among other things.
These feminist talking points don’t prove a need for feminism; they just prove that necessity is the mother of invention.
Every once in a while, though, they actually do stumble on something rooted in enough reality that it warrants more than a chuckle and a face palm. One of the better known examples of this is the way society reacts differently to men and to women where it concerns those who engage a large number of sexual partners.
You’ve heard it before, likely more than you ever thought you needed to.
“How come if a man has sex with a lot of women he’s a stud, but if a woman does the same thing she’s a slut? Huh? Huh?”
It’s not a real question, of course. It’s a statement, and it is intended to be a kind of “gotcha,” for people who challenge the status of oppressed victim for women, much like their infernal reliance on informing you their great-great grandmother couldn’t vote. It’s usually delivered in a whiney drone, sort of like a 13 year old demanding to know why he can’t take acid and go to the death metal concert with all the other kids.
Childish wailing aside, it is a valid enough question. And it deserves a lot better answer than you will ever get from anyone whose bread and butter is molding reality till it fits with their ideological worldview. When people invent problems out of thin air, it is a sure bet they will also invent explanations for problems that actually exist.
To put this bluntly, there is a double standard. Men who have a lot of sexual partners are regarded in much more positive terms than women who do the same thing. We can’t proceed, however, without the caveat that there are indeed negatives assigned to men who cavort with large numbers of women. Womanizer and player are on the list. So is dog. We even take that one further and have named a particular breed of dog, “pussy hound.”
Admittedly, depending on the circle you are in, these can either be epithets or “attaboys.” I can’t imagine a PUA being incensed because someone called him a pussy hound, and I have seen the name delivered with a nudge and a wink more than once. But I have heard others use the term and it was not a compliment.
Even with the exceptions, though, the social view of promiscuous men and women is pretty consistent. Men are seen as studs, women are seen as sluts. But unless you have already swallowed a boatload of feminist agitprop about this being driven by the evil standards of privileged, patriarchal, linear thinking, phallocentric, rape apologist do badders – aka men – then you might have considered some of the more sensible reasons why things are the way they are. If you haven’t, let’s give it a shot now.
First, let’s take a look what it takes for men to have a rush hour of sexual traffic, assuming they are not paying for it directly.
To have a high volume of sexual encounters with women, men must:
A. Have great sexual magnetism based on physical appearance, or
B. Have visible economic success, or
C. Significant social status among other men, or
D. An operational understanding of women and their desires and the ability to manipulate those things, or
E. The ability to project high self confidence in social settings, or
F. A combination of two or more of the above.
Now, to have a high volume of sexual encounters with men, women must:
A. Have a vagina
Yep, I am afraid that listing the qualities or accomplishments that women need in order to get more than their share of enthusiastic male sexual partners will not put any undue stress on the English alphabet.
This little tidbit of reality has a heavy influence on the perceptions we all share about men and women. The fact is that for a man to attract a lot of willing sexual partners there must be some or a lot of other factors that make him stand out, in a positive way, from most other men. He must have traits and accomplishments, either those he has earned, learned, or those that he was born with, that differentiate him from other men in the realm of sexual selection.
Women only have to be, well, women.
If a man walks into a nightclub, or a grocery store for that matter, and commands the sexual interest of a significant number of the females present, he indeed is elevated above other men in the minds of most people. He also likely has other qualities, like wealth, athletic prowess, or Adonis good looks, which make him enviable to a lot of other men. Holding him in higher regard is human, even if it is not equalitarian.
Congratulating a woman because she can attract sexual attention from men is like patting a compulsive overeater on the back for being able to overload their third plate with chow mein at the all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. It’s like being in awe of someone because they can outrun a man in a wheelchair.
It is ridiculous to think that anyone with a brain would hold women in high regard for being able to do something that they actually have to try to not do.
After all, you have heard plenty of times about men who are successful with women. When’s the last time you have heard a woman described as “successful” with men? You haven’t. And you never will, because women don’t succeed at getting sex. They just allow it to happen. That’s the difference.
That explains why men who are successful with women are seen in positive terms, but it does not fully explain why women who have a lot of sexual partners are seen more negatively. The answer to that also requires a bit more thoughtfulness and balance, which explains why you will never read about it on a feminist blog. But it is actually quite simple, and importantly, correctable for those who want to.
Men and women both tend to view promiscuous women in a bad light, but for different reasons.
For women, especially for the majority, who view their vaginas as a commodity, the answer is simple. Women who flood the market with easy pussy render all other pussy less valuable, and, to the heart of it, less powerful. It is the same reason so many women hate pornography. It is not because porn is demeaning to women. They hate porn because no matter what they do they can’t compete with a porn actress who has a beautiful face, a perfect body and who can and will swallow nine inches without smudging her lipstick.
Often a woman who has been cheated on will call the “other” woman a slut, or a whore. That is code speak describing the other vagina that out competed her for control of the man. I’m not dismissing her pain, or sense of emotional betrayal for having been cheated on. But that pain and betrayal is at the hands of her man (unless she pushed him into cheating), not the “slut” that he was fucking. Part of her outrage is that she, or her vagina rather, is no longer calling the shots or calling far fewer of them. She has been undersold, and it pisses her off.
It would be simple to leave it at that. Most of the slut shaming that happens in this culture emanates from women who are consciously or unconsciously influenced by the law of supply and demand where it concerns vagina.
If I were ideologically inclined, I would just borrow from feminist rationale about rape, war and violence and rest my case. You know, the school of thought that says male victims are most often raped or harmed or killed by other men so we don’t count those things as a problem. Why not say that slut shaming comes mostly from women, so why give a damn? After all, I have known a lot of men who were rather partial to sluts. They sure don’t have a problem getting the guys to line up.
But, of course, I am not ideologically inclined, and don’t much like cheap cop outs, especially those that are egregiously insensitive. They don’t help us understand anything. An understanding of the tendency in some men to view promiscuous women as inferior is in order.
Part of it is clearly sociobiological. Men, like every other animal on Earth, have an investment in furthering their own lineage. Women with a lifestyle of multiple sexual partners can cause doubt about paternity. Women you would “not bring home to mother” also happen to be the same women who some men may not trust to practice fidelity; women who may have them working for and supporting another man’s offspring, perhaps killing off his chance to further his line in the process.
But of course, that is what I would call a blue pill rationale. It only takes one additional sexual partner to cause a pregnancy. And I will wager that most cuckolded men got that way because their wife or girlfriend had a hidden affair with just one man. That is cheating, which non promiscuous women, “good girls,” are just as likely to do as anyone else.
It’s just that the “slut” is more honest about who she is. She is just a regular woman who was direct with you about how many partners she had. The visible evidence that she is sexually liberated is interpreted as a character flaw making her higher risk than “normal” women, whose private, unseen inclinations allow men to maintain denial about hypergamy and risk.
In that sense, men who use concerns about trust as a reason to harshly judge openly promiscuous women do so in a thoughtless bit of reproductive hypervigilance. And it is important to remember that this ties directly to the defined male sex role of furthering his genetic line by tying himself to lifelong service and expendability to a single female whom he believes will carry and care for his offspring.
In other words, it is a straight up blue pill induced lack of cognizance. Sluts are a threat to his possibility of becoming a good servant. This misguided bit of rote programming is not misogyny, but rather it is a source of misandry.
As recently pointed out in an excellent article by Peter Pan, the idea of a woman being sullied or dirtied by having sex with men is pure hatred, of men. It is an acknowledgement that men themselves are dirty and unfit and that sexual contact with them leaves a woman stained and inferior.
The real double standard here is misandric in every sense. Those who think less of women for having sex on some level must view men as foul. If the difference between dirty and clean for a woman is determined only by her contact with men, then it must be men who are the problem, or at the very least her for not having the moral character to stay away from them.
As a misandric society, we expect men to be dirty dogs. It is their normal state to be immoral hounds, pieces of shit whose very worth as men is predicated on numbers of spread legs.
It is our great wish that women rise above the filth of men, and not imbrue themselves with our sexual attentions; that they somehow retain their dignity and worth by rejecting all but a fraction of us sexually.
And where do we see this mentality the most? It is hard to tell who leads the pack. Radfems, of course, pen often and badly about the evils of penis in vagina (PIV) sex, and how you can only be a fully realized woman by hating men and rug munching.
The other, so called moderate feminists just spend their time making the case that all men are potential rapists, murderers, war mongers, destroyers of the planet and the embodiment of evil, but hey, if you want to have sex with the worthless bastards, no one should criticize you for it. Their objection to slut shaming is much more about objecting to criticizing women for anything, not a defense of women’s choices. Besides, they are a lot more worried about women loving men than fucking them, or fucking them over.
We also see it, in a more targeted form, in the moralizing ideological bedfellows of feminists — tradcons – who essentially feel not an iota different. They just express their contempt for men by shaming women who choose to have sex with them outside the purview of a state sanctioned relationship, not that they don’t express a lot of contempt for men directly.
The answer to this? Red pills, of course. A double dose if necessary.
As men continue to raise their awareness of where they have always been on societies ladder, which is predominately at the bottom rungs; as they peel back the layers of their disposability and their longstanding expectations to suffer and die mindlessly for provision for and protection of women, they will come to recognize that the deification of the “pure” woman and the hatred of men are both on the same sorry road.
There is no enhanced or reduced worth of any woman based on her number of sexual partners. Our tendency to value them, or trust them more, based on a perception of sexual discernment and restraint is a woefully misguided distraction from assessing their true character as human beings. And it is an indictment of all men as unwholesome and immoral for our very existence.
Slut shaming is only a surface attack on women. The real destructive nature of engaging in it is to men. It is just a programmed tactic for men to clear the field of imagined undesirables, leaving them with the illusion of better women; a fantasy that enables them to deny and rationalize their way into slavery and destruction.
Until men learn to evaluate women on their character, which will weed out a thousand fold more women than evaluating their sexual history, they will continue to swallow the blue pill poison, and pay the price. That is the problem with the double standard, and why we should invest in fixing it.
- For real love to arise, romantic love must die: Part three - August 15, 2017
- For real love to arise, romantic love must die. Part two - August 13, 2017
- A word between men from Paul - August 9, 2017
- For real love to arise, romantic love must die. Part one. - August 8, 2017
- The legacy of men on their knees - August 2, 2017