Sexual double standard /stud

[Idk294932]

So this topic has come up recently with a group of friends and it got quite heated between the guys and the girls. I will say that I am pretty torn on calling guys a stud for sleeping around all though I do believe that it takes much more effort, time, and money to get a girl into bed than it does for a woman. In fact it really takes no time or effort for a woman to get laid.. women hold all the power when it comes to sex and all that stands between them and someone inside of them is being willing to say yes. In this sense I do believe in the double standard. Getting a woman into bed is usually a matter of treating them right, taking them on dates, and proving that you want more than just sex. Like I said before all a girl has to do is say yes. So when a girl says that her sleeping around is no different than a guy doing it that is where I disagree. I do not however think men should be looked at as studs for sleeping around....to me it shows a lack of respect for women and that in itself is a character flaw. With that being said a woman sleeping around shows a lack of respect for herself and to me that is more concerning than a man with a lack of respect for women.. the women I was talking to all said that sleeping with a bunch of guys does not make them a . They claim it's just sex and they enjoy it, and they hate the double standards that come along with it. After hearing that I threw out the scenario asking if they had a daughter would they condone her sleeping around with multiple partners because "hey its just sex and it's fun" or are they going to lean more towards my side and want their daughters to have a little more self respect and boundaries when it comes to who they let in? They all agreed they would be upset if their daughters were as promiscuous as they have been in their lives and I pointed out how that is a double standard in of itself... to me women don't want the label but it comes with the territory of when something Is easily obtained it is no longer an achievement. So I understand why guys get a pat on the back and a girl gets labeled as easy...

[Blue Ridge]

I'm not sure what the question is here. Women have historically carried the risk of pregnancy into having sex, as well as a higher chance of contracting STDs, which has had a lasting cultural impact.

[Idk294932]

Sorry not so much a question as a topic of discussion...just curious to hear some more opinions.

[Wiseman2]

These debates hurt my brain and take all the fun and mystery out of things. The debate has too many logical fallacies because the premises are presumed.

[Batya33]

Of course it's easy for a man to find a sex partner -he just has to pay a prostitute. Same for a woman. That's if you're just referring to sexual intercourse. I don't agree about women having all the power because that's presuming that all men would agree to have sex with a woman who was available to have sex. I know of many men who would not have sex outside of a serious relationship so in that case they would have declined casual sex.

[Jabron1]

Whether or not it's a 'double standard' is moot. It's reality.

 

A guy getting laid at least once a month with a hot new girl is a good locksmith. A girl getting laid with multiple guys is just a crappy lock.

 

It takes no skill for a woman to have sex. It actually takes a lot for men to get good consistent sex (trust me on that ).

 

This is a double standard that is correct.

 

Relationships is a woman's celbration (such as marriage). Men celebrate sex.

 

There's a term for men giving their relationships without getting sex... it's called the 'friendzone' XD

 

There's a term for women giving their sex without getting a relationship.... it's called the 'booty-call' XD

 

These 'double-standards' exist for a reason, and they are mostly right.

[Blue Ridge]

Anyone, male or female, who has careless sexual intercourse with strangers is making questionable decisions. Besides engaging in risky behavior, there is typically something broken about them that they have the need to validate themselves through being found desirable by a stranger. But as the poster above said, reality is reality.

[Batya33]

Whether or not it's a 'double standard' is moot. It's reality.

 

A guy getting laid at least once a month with a hot new girl is a good locksmith. A girl getting laid with multiple guys is just a crappy lock.

 

It takes no skill for a woman to have sex. It actually takes a lot for men to get good consistent sex (trust me on that ).

 

This is a double standard that is correct.

 

Relationships is a woman's celbration (such as marriage). Men celebrate sex.

 

There's a term for men giving their relationships without getting sex... it's called the 'friendzone' XD

 

There's a term for women giving their sex without getting a relationship.... it's called the 'booty-call' XD

 

These 'double-standards' exist for a reason, and they are mostly right.

 

LOL completely disagree. I was not "just" friends with the men who I was in romantic relationships with despite our decision not to have sex until we'd been serious for a number of months (and in one case we were going to wait until marriage). Really offensive to men to suggest men are not relationship-focused and are instead sex-focused.

[hrat791]

The "stud" vs "easy" double-standard is quite inaccurate and unfair. Although, I can see how society created this term, as it has been a "man's world" for a long time. Men have felt, acted and proclaimed they are superior throughout many aspects of society, and tend to twist things in their favor to make them seem better than women. A good example of this is a recent wedding I went to, in which almost the entire speech given by the pastor was about how the woman needs to take care of the man. And how the woman is now property of the man, and they even had the father of the bride come up and give some sort of "promise ring" back to the bride, and said something along the lines of "You now have permission to have sex with my daughter." - It was very weird, and I was surprised at how degrading and slightly misogynistic it was.

 

Aside from that, I don't necessarily think "sleeping around" is a bad thing, as long as it is consensual and safe. Even in your example of it being my daughter, I wouldn't think she doesn't have any boundaries or self-respect just because she is having sex actively with multiple people. Again, as long as it is consensual, contains trust, and is safe. Sex has been a taboo subject and act for a long time throughout our society, and we have turned this natural urge of wanting sex, into something you need to repress and think about extensively in every way.

 

Now don't get me wrong, there are people who have sex a lot without any care for who the people are, using any protection or how it will affect either party in the long run. Even if both parties are consenting, you also have to consider the emotional part that could affect you or the person you are sleeping with. That is something that needs to get cleared up from the beginning, and also brought up throughout the casual encounters. It shows a higher level of respect and consideration when people communicate things like that, especially regarding sex.

 

So again, you can be promiscuous to a certain extent, without risking as much as other people might think. Men shouldn't be called studs while women are called easy. They should both be called "sexually active", because that is all it is.

[Blue Ridge]

LOL completely disagree. I was not "just" friends with the men who I was in romantic relationships with despite our decision not to have sex until we'd been serious for a number of months (and in one case we were going to wait until marriage). Really offensive to men to suggest men are not relationship-focused and are instead sex-focused.

 

I'm a relationship focused man, and not offended at all. I think the topic is promiscuous people, so doesn't apply to you and me.

[ThatwasThen]

Well I think that either sex that conducts their life the way you describe in the opening post is disrespecting themselves so not sure about a double standard if you think of it that way.

 

In this day and age there is no difficulty getting women who are down with casual sex so the title "stud" went out with the bee-hive hairdo just as the word chaste went out when young girls thought giving head wasn't having sex.

[Jabron1]

LOL completely disagree. I was not "just" friends with the men who I was in romantic relationships with despite our decision not to have sex until we'd been serious for a number of months (and in one case we were going to wait until marriage).

 

You were certainly the one wearing the trousers.

 

Really offensive to men to suggest men are not relationship-focused and are instead sex-focused.

 

You realise that as a man I have 15 times the testosterone that you do?

 

I ain't like most guys that will hide it either, and act like a woman - in order to not be "offensive" (which isn't something that men care about btw). Reals over feels.

[Jabron1]

In this day and age there is no difficulty getting women who are down with casual sex so the title "stud" went out with the bee-hive hairdo just as the word chaste went out when young girls thought giving head wasn't having sex.

 

Spoken as someone that has never lived it.

 

I would love to take you out for just one day. You'd learn a lot.

[HeartGoesOn]

Please note that the sex and romance forum is for topics that are directly related to and contain a relationship question. Any threads which are not related to a specific relationship question, will be removed.

 

Thread closed.