Category: Let's talk
the other day i was talking to a friend who was telling me about a friend of his who goes out every weekend and sleeps with a different girl each night. he has a list in fact, of all the girls he has slept with, and ... well all the different things they have allowed during these encounters. I was somewhat shocked that he could sleep with that many women, and didn't seem to think that there was anything wrong with it. so I then asked him, "so if you wanted to be with a woman, and you found out she'd been with as many guys as you had girls, would it bother you?" to which he replied "oh yeah." So my question is this, why, if a guy sleeps with several women, he is considered t be "a lad", whereas, if a girl sleeps with a number of guys, she is considered to be "easy", and gets a bad reputation for it. what is it that makes guys different from girls in this instance.
This is a fact in a lot of our society. I definitely disagree with it 100 percent. As far as I am concerned, you are completely right with your post. It's bullshit, but so many people subscribe to it!
I do not subscribe to it.
Hmm, well, let me ty to apply some social observations here, this may end up being puree ramblings, but here we go. :)
Occasonally my favorite "mindless" tv show "Friends" brings up interesting social observations. There was an episode where Chandler and Monica (newly wed couple) were talking about flirting with other people. It turned out Chandler felt he could flirt with other people but she couldn't. She got offended and demanded explanation for this. He just said "when a guy flirts, girls find it funny, when a hot girl flirts, the guy thinks "man, I am so lucky I am going home with her tonight". I think this actually underlines the social perception that all guys are, as SB uts it "easy", i.e. that if a girl offers a guy to go home with her he's 99.9% guaranteed to say yes and the only limit to how far they will go is impsoed by the girl. I'm pretty sure this is the social perception. On top of that the perception / norm is that the guy is the one to request sex most of the times and girls even just do it to make/keep him happy, in return for which he provides living/money etc and she can spend money on clothes, make up and such that are really the sources of her plessure. Granted, this is a bit of over sterotypeing perhaps, but I feel many of these perceptions are quite alive and well. I won't comment on the correctness of them, if they've ever been true I think things are changing, women are changing a lot, they are more outgoing, assertive and aware of their rights, to flirt, to not be shy about their sexual enjoyements and in general just to change their roles in society, but that's getting off topic.
Bottomline is this, if a guy picks up a woman at the club and goes home with her, well, it's a bit of a feat and something that earns respect from his buddies, even a bit of envy. A girl picking up a guy she wants is almost old news (yeah, she decided she wanted to go home with someone and of course if she hhits on mr X he will go home with her". I think the expectations for guys are just a lot lower than for girls and they are expected to be this "easy" "cheap" or whatever, it is already an accepted stereotype.
So I think this has a lot to do with your friend's view. This being said I don't know anyone that goes home with a new girl/guy every weekend. The two peole I know who really do this are both girls, oddly enough, and an average number of bed partners is much higher for Icelandic girls than guys, how this matches up I can't say perhaps the guys are actually shy to admit to this, which would reverse the stereotype originally described.
It's hard to say, I don't think these attitudes are as much gender specific as they used to be. I, personally, have a hard time being with people who I know are in the habit of changing bed partners every weekend, not unless I was convinced something had changed and STD checks revealed that they were safe partners. All my friends share the same view, so I really do think SB's case is somewhat of an exception to the rule, at least as far as Scandinavia and the U.S. are concerned, I can't speak for other countries.
Cheers
-B
no you're right b i don't think this particular guy is the norm, as in, I don't think that every guy picks up two different girls every weekend, and this particular guy's behavior is somewhat frowned upon by his fellow male colleagues, it was just more the point that it seems to be more acceptable for guys to sleep around than girls. But what you also rightly stated is that times are changing and that girls are aiming to become more equal, and this is becoming more apparent, especially in the drinking culture in the UK, but that's off topic i know, but by the same token girls are now more likely to go home with a guy than say, 20 years ago, even 10 years ago.
Well woman are a mean bunch when it comes to other women. Personally I would only talk about my sex life with the person I was planning to have sex with. Ya know?
yeah likewise, my sex life is my own so to speak, and no one else's business, but sadly that's not always the case with everyone
I must say that there are some women, as well as men, who are quite happy to discuss their sex lives in what I might call inappropriate fora. Groups of girls in pubs have a propensity to discuss such matters very loudly, just as groups of lads, I have noticed. so the dichotomy of attitudes does not find its separation purely along gender-based lines, although I will concur in the view that mainly this is the case.
Hehe, another odd misconception, especially by girls, and I should not reveal this. Apparently, according to my female friends, guys are supposed to discuss sex in the shower or whenever they get together, dteails, number of partners etc, oddly enough I have never experienced this, guys rather shy away from this topic when they get together, strip clubs, sure .. occasionally, but it's mostly football, weird things online, drinking, music, even politics and stuff but sex is hardly ever a part of the discussions. I'd have to second df's comment that women tend to be incredibly mean towards other women, it's crazy to see sometimes. All the back stabbing, guys are usually not like that.
cheers
-B
Sugar I think its dispicable the way this so called stud puts it about is he using any protection or spreading and/ or catching, who knows what with these women..I see it this way some men have a very animalistic attitude and hold themselves up as the procreator of the species, his harem must stay absolutely loyal to him leader while he conveniently ignores the implications of his conquests...I wonder how he will feel when a Doctor gives him the news of his HIV diagnosis.
apparently he has an HIV test every three months
well at least he's got something right though the virus can take several years to show up, so he may still be unaware that he's carrying it
Just to bring a smile to all your faces, the most extreme example of the moral difference that should not exist is what happened to the emperor Claudius' third wife, Messalina. True, her adulteries were apparently as numberless as the sands on the shore, including a contest between herself and a notorious prostitute called Silla, but given that Claudius himself was notorious for his friendship with various women including prostitutes and later on, his niece whom he married, it might be considered a graphic illustration of this strange morality about which Sugarbaby talks that he had Messalina executed for her misdemeanours.
The Romans...sigh..it seems to be a classic example of hypocrisy, you say his 3rd wife?,what happened to the others...dare I ask.
If noth parties are safe, consenting and wnat the wame thing, there's nothing wrong with it..
the other wives? Well the first one got pregnant by another man due to her promiscuity, so Claudius divorced her. His second wife was sister of Lucius Elius sajanus, the commander of the guard who later became Tiberius' second in ccommand in all but name. When he planned to assassinate the emperor and take over the state, but failed in the attempt, Sajanus' family were either killed or disgraced so claudius divorced his sister. His third wife was Messalina who really was a nasty piece of work even though her punishment was perhaps disproportionate, and his fourth and last wife poisoned him so that her son, Nero, could become emperor.
Jesus! I could almost admire such deliberate sleekitness. What a disgusting lot it proves the saying absolute power corrupts absolutely.. Still you can't beat the Norsemen for treachery and violent shifts of power..
Are we talking about Roman history or one-night-stands? I've either misread the topic, entered an alternate universe or taken a substance without knowing it! I think i must have misread the original topic, or else Lawlord's just swallowed a history book!
History books are supposed to be good for your digestive system, especially when taken in big dozes, don't overdoze though, that is the main risk.
Roman history and one-night stands amount to the same thing on a very large number of occasions.
What nonsense! you can't possible aquaint the two. We're talking a modern context, not a historical one!
Indeed I agree with you, I merely brought up the Roman example to illustrate that this rather hypocritical morality, if I may call it that, is of longstanding. then Goblin asked what happened to claudius' other wives so I felt obliged to answer. So not nonsense old lad, not a bit of it.
Hehe arguing with the LawLord is something one should undertake with great care for it ain't easy
Lawlord, my name is not "Old lad." If you want to debate morality we can take it further back than the roman empire. Besides, morality, and the notion thereof, evolves and is culturally diverse.
Of course we can take it further back than the Roman empire! I just thought the roman empire was the right place as in sufficiently far back to make the very simple point that I was using it to make viz. that this disparity, if I may now call it that, between what is considered laddish and what is considered sluttish is one of longstanding. This might help us to explain why it remains today, or it might not, but it shows that it is not a modern phenominon. takie it back even further if you wish though, by all means, if you wish. I don't claim to have given an exhaustive historical account.
Now, building on the simple point and getting back to the topic as I know sugarbaby would want me to do: my simple point was, to recap, that this morality has its roots in history, whether that be through the orgies of the Roman empire, or the royal mistresses. Women did not have equal status in the past and there are remnants of that. Mya rgument is that this laddish morality, insofar and to the extent that it still exists in certain circles, is a relic of that. However, you get more and more guys now who do not consider the stricto sensu Cassanova as a lad at all, but instead frown upon his antics, so perhaps the morality of the past is gradually disappearing (It was an unspoken truth of society, for instance, that a Victorian gentleman may have at least one mistress). Having progressed thus far, though, I only think it right to observe at this juncture that in the west, at least, there seems to be a culture amongs some groups of girls that one could describe as the equivalent of the laddish culture. This, I think, might be explained by the more liberal as in less straight-laced standards expected of women ever since around the 1920's, and far more dramatically so since the last war.
I agree with the above, but you haven't address the cultural differences, and the homo-social diaspra. I thought, (perhaps incorrectly) that we were addressing the issue from the angle of British men and women; i take your points, however, historical and cultural complex do not really help when talking about disaffected men without real rolls in society.
It should be noted, just because the person who posted the topic initially was discussing the point from a "British" point of view I think the discussion was never meant to specifically explore this behavior in a British context, I think she was going more for a universal/social comparison, seeing as this web ite is very international in nature and only by comparing cultures etc can we really learn if this is really a genetic or universal phenominon or something that it solely a product of British society/culture. I think the historical perspective is interesting certainly, how pertinent it is is arguable but it does prove the point that this behavior has been around and is probably rooted in the culture that preceeded ours and may be a erlic of those times rather than something enate or genetic that will never change.
Cheers
-B
I take all those points but Wildebrew I really cannot let something that you said lie: you say that the relevance of historical factors is arguable, but leave it at that. If it's arguable, argue it! It is very important, in fact, that if you wre going to question its relevance as you implicitly do or as one might infer from your posts that you do, that you explain why. History is relevant, in my view, to every aspect of our culture today; the renaissance explains our free-thinking tradition, and similarly, the morality of history is bound to have a bearing on the morality of today, even if it be only to the extent that we realise the morality of the past to be wrong and correct ourselves.
LawLord
You are right actually. The way I worded this was rather stupid in fact. I think historical human behavior has everything to do with the way people act in modern society so a historical perspective is called for in this discussion in fact.
Cheers
-B
I refer you to my previous post....
Eadle if you were seeking to draw my attention to the homosocial diaspra, I confess that I am unable to comment as I am not entirely sure what this is. If you elaborate, however, I will adjust my opinion accordingly if there is any need for any adjustment whether it be to the extent you indicate or at all. Wildebrew old lad thanks for the clarification. We are in agreement comme d'habitude.
ok well we've established that over the years and centuries men have had mistresses and women have had lovers, let me raise one other point then. in certain cultures, i.e. Muslem, in some countries in Africa, and also in some religious sects such as mormon, it is acceptable for a man to have more than one wife, whereas the same is not acceptable in reverse. Anyone care to clarify? or is it purely that no woman in her right mind would want more than one husband. *grins*
You're joking aren't you? I've read a couple of cases where young women have married old, very rich, men, purely for the advantages of gaining a legacy after the husband's death (Remember that a marriage revokes all previously made wills and the default next of kin will be the wife especially if the matrimonial home is owned by them both as beneficial joint tenants). Again, this is another practice that we can trace back into history, where daughters were set up in marriages to middle-aged or old men so that they could be kept well for the rest of their days and perhaps rise up the social scale through the riches they obtained. Now, are you meaning to seriously tell us that these women, given the opportunity, would refuse the chance of marrying more than one husband? Let me suggest to you that they would not be in their right minds to stick at one husband in such circumstances! right that's taken care of that potential banana skin of a question, now on to the other issue: it is indeed true that some religions allow a man to take more than one wife and don't allow the same for women. However, let me suggest to you that the reason for this is that men were, and still are in some cultures, the property-owners, and the society depended on the having of children. Women were necessary for that, and so a man was expected to marry several women to take them under his protection, provide for them and produce his heirs and successors. Women, by contrast, weren't even permitted to own property in Britain until the nineteenth century, and indeed it is still the case in some jurisdictions that when a woman marries, she ceases to be a legal person and her legal person, as distinct from natural person which is obviously something quite different, becomes subsumed in that of the husband. Hence a wife would not be able to sue or be sued. It's what's known as the doctrine of consortium. in sum, my point is that these religions, based on the patriarchal dominance that mirrored what was happening in society when these religions were founded and when they took hold, permit a man to take more than one wife for reasons that are practical as much as ideological.