The Double Standard

[BlackShanglan]

How about - "I'm not a woman. I'm a porn writer."

"I'm a horse. If you want a gender, you'll have to check the undercarriage."

 

[rgraham666]

"I'm a horse. If you want a gender, you'll have to check the undercarriage."

Last time I tried that I got kicked in the head.

Explains a lot, don't it?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Last time I tried that I got kicked in the head.

Explains a lot, don't it?

I promise I won't kick if you give me fair warning.

 

[rgraham666]

I promise I won't kick if you give me fair warning.

That's what you said last time.

 

[FifthFlower]

Now as for myself, I've found out I'm apparently above the US average. Guess that makes me slutty So of course I've no taken up with someone who had no experience before me.

I found the article CeriseNoire cited amusing. I've got to quote it:

Now the federal government says it has authoritative statistics, documenting that men are far more likely to play the field than women.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same federal government that said, five years ago, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

If one thinks about it, it doesn't make sense that women would have less experience than men. They might deal with it differently, admit it differently, fight over it differently, but if the boys are doing it, so are the girls.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's what you said last time.

I'm terribly sorry, truly I am. Just some things one can do with the undercarriage are more ... unexpected ... than others.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Now as for myself, I've found out I'm apparently above the US average. Guess that makes me slutty

Damn. I'm a tart any way you slice me. But then, so is the SO - with my constant incitement.

 

[Stella_Omega]

a transcript from a conversation today about Elizabeth Swann;

O.A; I'm coming into this thread late, but had an observation I wanted to share.
First of all, straight up, I don't like Elizabeth...she has always struck me as one of those shallow type females who flits from male to male and thinks nothing of using them to gain her own ends...
**
S.O; But O.A, your condemnation of her... once again... sexual behavior goes right back to the original subject which is about how women tend to condemn women in the plural for their sexuality, vis, "one of those shallow type females".

You could say; "One of those shallow people" which would subtly change the gender focus, eh?
**
O.A.;Shallow female is exactly what I meant...and it has nothing to do with condemning female sexual behaviour.
Elizabeth has no sexual behaviour to either condemn or admire. In DMC she is (presumably) still a virgin.
What makes her actions shallow and gender based (as well as stereotypically objectionable) is her willingness to feign feelings and use seduction and the lure of sex as a bartering tool.

Now, certainly both sexes have the capacity for being shallow and neither sex is above feigning feelings; but typically, a man will pretend feelings to attain sex, whereas a woman will pretend feelings to gain a situational advantage.

It's not her sexuality (or in this case, lack of sexuality) that is objectionable, it is the emotional deceit she perpetrates.

***

S.O; but typically, a man will pretend feelings to attain sex, whereas a woman will pretend feelings to gain a situational advantage. I agree with G.M. She isn't "pretending" anything, by my reading; she does like Jack, she is attracted to him, she's exploring and dealing with new feelings during some extraordinarily trying times.

Shallow female is exactly what I meant...and it has nothing to do with condemning female sexual behaviour. yes, you are specifically condemning her for "female" behavior, when you say she use(s) seduction and the lure of sex as a bartering tool.

I gotta say, this is exactly what I find horrible and laughable about this little controversy; there are women who condemn her for dick hopping, and then there are women who condemn her for only pretending to dick hop. Each camp is reading their own gender stereotypes into her behaviour. Women are damned if they do. They are damned if they stray anywhere near the strict boundaries of sexual acceptability, and damned by other women more than anything else. A woman who transgresses has one label for ever more. She might be kind, talented, good with horses, a fabulous mother to her children-- maybe be a halfway decent musician or soccer player--but you know-- she's a sluuuuut...


What I have still not heard anyone say yet-- is what exactly would have been a better alternative for her in any of those moments. What should she have done, in your opinion? I am really getting curious about that. Thus far I've spoken to maybe five women who complain about her flirting to get what she wants. To each one of them I've put the question, and-- whaddaya know, I've not gotten an answer from any one of them!

 

[vixenblack]

I know, I don't get it and personally I think it's total BS!!

 

[Vermilion]

Ack. I read the first 2 pages of this thread, but got bogged down in the complex arguments being spouted.

So, to add my tuppence worth w/o having read the rest of the thread - I qualify sluts as those who have sex with other people with no ...standards.

I can;t explain. I knew a girl (Call her Girl A) who would sleep with anyone. She would get drunk and go off and fuck *anyone*. Mostly she couldn;t remember their names, didn;t care and didn;t really even enjoy the sex that much.

Such anonymous and random fucking is very different from someone (Girl B) who enjoys sex as an enriching experience, gets to know people before fucking them, maybe stays in touch with many of them... it's not about numbers, it's about attitudes.


Girl B could have slept with twice as many people as Girl A, but I would call Girl A a slut and not Girl B.

Did that make any sense or am I failing to express my opinions as abysmally as I have been failing to tell my stories?

x
V

 

[christabelll]

personally I see men doing exactly what "Elizabeth" is accused of on a regular basis...
I thought it wonderful that she began using her feminine power to bring about the results she desired. Men do it ALL the time - use masculine power to get what they want. Why is it so horrible that a woman does the same?
It goes beyond simply calling a woman a slut or a whore...
It speaks to the culturally generated fear via religion that a woman - who is aware of and actively uses her feminity to get what she desires or needs or requires - is Evil - a slut, a whore, a shallow female one that will do anyone and anything...
BUt oh, let a man do it, and what a guy, he played her really well, how many women did you fuck this week? Way to Go! kind of thing.

It is a deeper double standard than most people realize
and it goes back to the destruction and virginization of the feminine energy/goddess principle.
If you are a fecund female you aren't allowed anywhere behind the stairs at church - unless of course you suck the priests dick -
You must be pure - virgin - and pre-menstrual to be able to "touch" god. Or conversely -
you must be a dried up, menopausal, crone.
The fertile, sexually active female is considered evil - or corrupt...
it speaks of old legends that men would lose their power if they touched or looked upon a women who was menstruating.
It was a power play perpetrated against All women, crushing their outward link with sex and the goddess.
We allow it still today -
How dare she flirt to get what she desires! What a slut!
How dare she suck his dick because she enjoys it! What a whore!

I revel and cringe in the same breath - wrestling with dogma that is not my own - yet was forced into my body, my brain, which removes a level a joy that is mine by divine right... I endeavor to remove those poisonous barbs as they reveal themselves during the aftermath of incredible, consensual, mind blowing sex...
How could I? I can't believe I let him do that!...
I could because it felt fantastic...
And boy howdy I want some more of that!...
Enjoy calling me a slut or a whore - what ever your mood is -
I am a woman - and I am more than you ever beleived possible................




hehehe what a morning eh?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, I totally reject the idea that slutophobia was entirely imposed on women by men. I think the etiology is grounded at least as much in women's own more generally monogamous nature and their natural dislike of sexually aggressive or predatory females.

I generally write my stories from a female POV, and I do that because I think the female POV on sex is much more complex and interesting than the male's. Men's attitude towards sex is normally so bland as to be downright boring: I like it, I want it, let's do it, it's great. Women are not only more selective in choosing partners and in their perceptive and analysis concerning the relationship and feelings involved, but the expression of their sexuality's often tinged with feelings of guilt and shame that are ultimately related to this inherent slutophobia - the fear that they'll either be seen as a slut or might actually be one. It's almost impossible to imagine a man worrying about the same thing concerning himself.

Especially in the area of BDSM, the submissive woman who relies on her dominant to either force her to reveal her sexual feelings or "pre-punish" her so she can experience them with a clear conscience is pretty much the image the whole genre revolves upon. If not for that kind of built-in slut-guilt, you wouldn't have BDSM. You don't find that kind of fear of guilt in men, and the Fem-Domme dynamic works by an entirely different mechanism .

 

[Pure]

comment to fifth flower; note to mab

I found the article CeriseNoire cited amusing. I've got to quote it:

article: //Now the federal government says it has authoritative statistics, documenting that men are far more likely to play the field than women.//

fifth flower: Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same federal government that said, five years ago, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

If one thinks about it, it doesn't make sense that women would have less experience than men. They might deal with it differently, admit it differently, fight over it differently, but if the boys are doing it, so are the girls.

i see your reasoning a bit, but i think you overlook that some women are taking care of a vastly disproportionate amount of male 'need.' the DC madam just published her list of thousands (presumably serviced by, i'm guessing one or two dozen 'girls').

a good pro is taking care of at least a couple hundred men *per year*. one can see she'll be over a thousand, in a fairly short time. the sad thing is at of all these fucks, the woman isn't getting a thing, *and prefers it that way.*

===
mab--


i like most of what you say; the infusion of guilt in women is certainly sexy. years back i used to say that i preferred catholic women becuase of the smoldering sexuality, due to strong repression.

but i don't think male sex guilt is absent; it's surely suggested by many male-requested scenarios, e.g. 1) domme makes him masturbate onto the floor and lick it up. the implication is that the male does NOT want to progress to genital sex, be it through fear, guilt, whatever. 2) man requests bj only [most common request];
3) man's scene does not involve sex [the 'no sex' rule of many dommes, for legal reasons], and --as one domme in BDSM forum says-- perhaps merely performs domestic service, cleaning floors etc.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, I totally reject the idea that slutophobia was entirely imposed on women by men. I think the etiology is grounded at least as much in women's own more generally monogamous nature and their natural dislike of sexually aggressive or predatory females.

I generally write my stories from a female POV, and I do that because I think the female POV on sex is much more complex and interesting than the male's. Men's attitude towards sex is normally so bland as to be downright boring: I like it, I want it, let's do it, it's great. Women are not only more selective in choosing partners and in their perceptive and analysis concerning the relationship and feelings involved, but the expression of their sexuality's often tinged with feelings of guilt and shame that are ultimately related to this inherent slutophobia - the fear that they'll either be seen as a slut or might actually be one. It's almost impossible to imagine a man worrying about the same thing concerning himself.

Especially in the area of BDSM, the submissive woman who relies on her dominant to either force her to reveal her sexual feelings or "pre-punish" her so she can experience them with a clear conscience is pretty much the image the whole genre revolves upon. If not for that kind of built-in slut-guilt, you wouldn't have BDSM. You don't find that kind of fear of guilt in men, and the Fem-Domme dynamic works by an entirely different mechanism .

Nice observation, but not really the whole image of the genre-- hetero BDSM is only one part of the entire scene. And, dammit, if there's ONE single place were sexual activity is egalitarian and started that way, it's the BDSM scene, and it's going to stay that way! Grrr....

Anyway, Doc, the "slut-guilt" thing might be true at this time in our lives, but as far as I can tell it's a Victorian artefact more than anything else. And it's time we started actively fighting it.

I propose that we begin to object to these characterisations, the way we object to racial characterisations. Make them bad manners. Time to start re-educating people.

 

[Guest]

I propose that we begin to object to these characterisations, the way we object to racial characterisations. Make them bad manners. Time to start re-educating people.

I agree.

You wanna team-teach?

 

[christabelll]

second that emotion...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ack. I read the first 2 pages of this thread, but got bogged down in the complex arguments being spouted.

So, to add my tuppence worth w/o having read the rest of the thread - I qualify sluts as those who have sex with other people with no ...standards.

I can;t explain. I knew a girl (Call her Girl A) who would sleep with anyone. She would get drunk and go off and fuck *anyone*. Mostly she couldn;t remember their names, didn;t care and didn;t really even enjoy the sex that much.

Such anonymous and random fucking is very different from someone (Girl B) who enjoys sex as an enriching experience, gets to know people before fucking them, maybe stays in touch with many of them... it's not about numbers, it's about attitudes.


Girl B could have slept with twice as many people as Girl A, but I would call Girl A a slut and not Girl B.

Did that make any sense or am I failing to express my opinions as abysmally as I have been failing to tell my stories?

x
V

Vermilion I think you did fine! But let's think about this further, because here's what I see in your two examples;

Girl A is an alcoholic, and she's self-destructive. yet the first and only standard you apply is sexual. Granted, it's because we are talking about that exact standard-- but do you see what I mean?
And Girl B is dancing to your tune, so to speak-- as long as she behaves within your parameters, she's good. In other words, her standards are the ones you approve of.

Now myself, I never got drunk-- but I was certainly fixated on the fucking, and it must have seemed to many people that I would fuck *Anyone*. I did not always take the time to get to know someone first, I saw it as fun rather than enrichment, and I have kept in touch with maybe five out of the many. Where do I stand in your scale? Where would I stand if you did not already know me?

I can joke and say that I'm a slut and proud of it-- but I prefer to say that I'm sexually aggressive, seems more accurate to me.

 

[tickledkitty]

Vermilion I think you did fine! But let's think about this further, because here's what I see in your two examples;

Girl A is an alcoholic, and she's self-destructive. yet the first and only standard you apply is sexual. Granted, it's because we are talking about that exact standard-- but do you see what I mean?
And Girl B is dancing to your tune, so to speak-- as long as she behaves within your parameters, she's good.

Now myself, I never got drunk-- but I was certainly fixated on the fucking, and it must have seemed to many people that I would fuck *Anyone*. I did not always take the time to get to know someone first, I saw it as fun rather than enrichment, and I have kept in touch with maybe five out of the many. Where do I stand in your scale? Where would I stand if you did not already know me?

I can joke and say that I'm a slut and proud of it-- but I prefer to say that I'm sexually aggressive, seems more accurate to me.

Hmmm...Maybe it depends on how much you like the girls in question?

ETA: Another thought. Might it not depend on how discreet one is? Girl A is an indescriminant fucker. She lets it be known that she'll fuck anyone. Girl B on the other hand, the more thoughtful fucker, is more likely not to advertise her conquests. Which leads me to the show-offy aspects of it. Aren't there people who fuck around partly or wholly for effect? I mean, it makes them feel important to not only get the attention, but to let everyone know they're getting the attention.

How I do run on. I haven't read all of this thread either, so if I've made a point that's already been drilled into the ground, I apologize.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmmm...Maybe it depends on how much you like the girls in question?

I have a feeling that means that I would be a slut in your eyes except that you know and like me.

But here's my point-- that words like "slut" and "whore" assume a universally approved set of behaviours for women. yes, women can be manipulative, or predatory, or indiscriminate, and all of those are negatives-- but those words do not carry the gender-specific connotation. Not only that, but they are rather more precise-- a slut could be any or all of those things, and there's no telling which one is referenced. ALL of her sexual conduct is condemned in one swell foop, and all of every other woman's is called into question as well.

 

[rgraham666]

I agree.

You wanna team-teach?

I believe you have to be on your knees for this.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I believe you have to be on your knees for this.

You start, Sarah will catch, I'll take notes

 

[rgraham666]

You start, Sarah will catch, I'll take notes

Pictures would be good as well.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmmm...Maybe it depends on how much you like the girls in question?

ETA: Another thought. Might it not depend on how discreet one is? Girl A is an indescriminant fucker. She lets it be known that she'll fuck anyone. Girl B on the other hand, the more thoughtful fucker, is more likely not to advertise her conquests. Which leads me to the show-offy aspects of it. Aren't there people who fuck around partly or wholly for effect? I mean, it makes them feel important to not only get the attention, but to let everyone know they're getting the attention.

How I do run on. I haven't read all of this thread either, so if I've made a point that's already been drilled into the ground, I apologize.

re your ETA;

Why should discretion have anything to do with it? A man who is a discrete asshole is still an asshole, merely an undiscovered one. A man who is a blatant asshole doesn't usually get called a slut, or any masculine variant of the word-- not that there is one.

I'm not picking on you, honest, TK, it's just that your points are perfect for my argument!

 

[Pure]

vermillion, stella

i agree with stella about vermillions two examples, the indiscriminate drunk fuck-anyone "girl A", and the one, "girl B" who gets to know her partners, and keeps in touch.

sounds like number 2 is meant as 'a better person.'

maybe.

but if you transpose the example to men, yes, perhaps number 2 is 'better', but no one will cast stones at number 1; Wilt Chamberlain in his bio says he fucked 5000 women. I doubt he keeps in touch!

But I haven't heard anyone saying Wilt's a male ho; on the contrary, the fact provokes--in men-- looks of amazement if not admiration.

Coming back to the "girls". Verm, I think you tilted the scales by saying you got drunk a lot. Take that out of the pic, and she's, in my terms, 'sexually voracious'. Like Wilt.
===

here's a small analogy: woman A is friendly to all; opens up and talks freely, etc., is as ready to do a favor as to ask one; woman B is choosy: she's cool and reserved to most, but opens up with her 3 close friends. now, who is the 'better person.'?






----

Verm can;t explain. I knew a girl (Call her Girl A) who would sleep with anyone. She would get drunk and go off and fuck *anyone*. Mostly she couldn;t remember their names, didn;t care and didn;t really even enjoy the sex that much.

Such anonymous and random fucking is very different from someone (Girl B) who enjoys sex as an enriching experience, gets to know people before fucking them, maybe stays in touch with many of them... it's not about numbers, it's about attitudes.


Girl B could have slept with twice as many people as Girl A, but I would call Girl A a slut and not Girl B.

 

[tickledkitty]

re your ETA;

Why should discretion have anything to do with it? A man who is a discrete asshole is still an asshole, merely an undiscovered one. A man who is a blatant asshole doesn't usually get called a slut, or any masculine variant of the word-- not that there is one.

I'm not picking on you, honest, TK, it's just that your points are perfect for my argument!

I don't feel picked upon Stella.

My point about discretion is this. It's not about the discretion itself. It's about knowing what the person is doing. You wouldn't call someone a slut if you didn't know that they were fucking everything that moves. I'm sure there are sweet little demure ladies (and men ) all over the place who are sluts in private. I think that's the difference.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. Being a slut and being called a slut. Is there a difference? What was my point anyway?