Why the antagonism towards promiscous women?

[Sykol]

Women can get it whenever they want. Men can't. We need to level the playing field a little.

[Docturphil]

I've never understood why men who have a lot of sex with different women are viewed in a positive light while girls who do the same with men are viewed negatively.

Why do you think this is the case? Isn't it good for men that women wants to have sex with more men?

Personally, I view both men and women who sleep around a lot negatively. These people usually have no respect for the value of a relationship and are usually just dishonorable and dishonest people in general. Generally, not always... That being said, it isn't really my business what other people do, but it can still hint at the character of the person.

[Fencers]

Both lie in those polls. Men exaggerate and women play their number down.

That's exactly what I am saying. Women sleep with many more people than they admit to because of the social stigma.

Men generally don't even come close.

[callipygoustp]

I've never understood why men who have a lot of sex with different women are viewed in a positive light while girls who do the same with men are viewed negatively.

Why do you think this is the case? Isn't it good for men that women wants to have sex with more men?

One word : jealousy
And in this case I'd argue that the level of jealousy is indirectly proportional to how often you have sex.

[CanDellJack]

I'm literally a sex-focused sociologist by profession. I'd gladly give you my own citations, but I'm too openly kinky on this account, and being kinky still gets you fired from jobs or blackmailed even today, so I cannot. (It's absurd that that's the case even when you're a freaking sex researcher, but it is.) It's all readily available. Again, I'm not talking about (nor do I do significant research in) vanilla sex. But people who are inherently more sex positive and open to new experiences (porn stars, BDSMers) are in fact correlated as I described, and this has been confirmed by numerous studies dating back over 50 years. These studies first found that these people were more open minded (no duh, lol), which was then connected to numerous mental health benefits, and later lower rates of neuroticism for tops and switches (slightly higher for strict bottoms). The verdict on vanilla is quite a bit more ambiguous and disputed and there's well-constructed surveys that tell different stories.

Google the claims I just posted, I don't really feel like doing it for you or connecting myself to the articles I would link. To point you in the right direction, The research keyword for kink is BDSM. Porn is just called porn by academia.

Not even interested in explaining your methodology? Sociology is not as hard a science, so your claims don't have the benefit of prima facie. As a law student I've been trained to be dubious of claims made with no evidence, and the "I'm not doing the research for you" form of rebuttal is not how one substantiates a positive argument. Seeing as you are a professional in the field, it might serve you well to support your positions, even when off the clock.

[Damajin]

Women are the ones who label other women sluts for the most part, I don't think men care that much. Women feel other women should be held to higher standards.

Bingo, and then males who want to get with those females parrot what they say and start passing it around as gospel.

[Celista]

I view promiscuity equally among the sexes...promiscuous individuals are, in my opinion, less likely to remain faithful and are more likely to have some sort of disease. Standard STD testing doesn't test all of the diseases, and STDs like gonorrhea are becoming antibiotic-resistant.

I don't understand why one poster tried tying promiscuity to intelligence, seems odd...

[Mistame]

It comes from guys who think girls are not allowed to enjoy themselves either.

False. Most shaming, berating, etc, of women comes from other women. Especially in regards to appearance and promiscuity.

"'A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.'”

I'll assume that you're just posting it for reference since anyone that actually considers that a valid analogy is an idiot.

Because I don't think these women are relationship material.

Typically, someone who's being promiscuous, regardless of gender, isn't relationship material until they're only sleeping with one person. No worries, I know what you're saying. And you're wrong. Sorry, but prudes are horrible.

less likely to remain faithful

Clearly a personal opinion, perhaps one that many others share, with little to no base in facts or reality.

more likely to have some sort of disease.

Logically, of course. Increased exposure tends to lead to an increase of risk. But you realize it's possible to be promiscuous and safe, right?

I don't understand why one poster tried tying promiscuity to intelligence, seems odd...

Because monogamy is stupid?

[Celista]

False. Most shaming, berating, etc, of women comes from other women. Especially in regards to appearance and promiscuity.



I'll assume that you're just posting it for reference since anyone that actually considers that a valid analogy is an idiot.



Typically, someone who's being promiscuous, regardless of gender, isn't relationship material until they're only sleeping with one person. No worries, I know what you're saying. And you're wrong. Sorry, but prudes are horrible.



Clearly a personal opinion, perhaps one that many others share, with little to no base in facts or reality.



Logically, of course. Increased exposure tends to lead to an increase of risk. But you realize it's possible to be promiscuous and safe, right?



Because monogamy is stupid?

Describing monogamy as "stupid" is clearly personal opinion. If two people are truly monogamous then they reduce their risk of disease significantly. Sure you can be promiscuous and safe, also comes with a lot of hassle and wearing a rubber. Imo monogamy is more emotionally and physically satisfying.

Promiscuous people are a poor bet as long-term partners. An individual's behavior doesn't inherently change once he or she is in a relationship.

[May90]

Why do people dislike any group of people that doesn't bother anyone? Rhetorical question.

[AeneasBK]

Wow, only 2 minutes, impressive speed, genn. /applaud

Seconding this applause.

[Noradin]

Since when are men keys and women locks?

Clearly you misunderstood that one, women are keys and men a locks.

[Deleted]

I've never understood why men who have a lot of sex with different women are viewed in a positive light while girls who do the same with men are viewed negatively.

Why do you think this is the case? Isn't it good for men that women wants to have sex with more men?

Because it's harder for a man to get laid.

[Jotaux]

I don't view a promiscuous woman any different than a promiscuous woman.

[Mistame]

Imo monogamy is more emotionally and physically satisfying.

To you. Men typically aren't looking for "emotional" stimulation.

Promiscuous people are a poor bet as long-term partners. An individual's behavior doesn't inherently change once he or she is in a relationship.

Patently false. One's prior experiences and lifestyle are not indicative of their behavior in a relationship because typically people who are promiscuous aren't in relationships.

[Celista]

To you. Men typically aren't looking for "emotional" stimulation.

Yes, hence the "in my opinion" part of my post. Also the latter part of your statement is false. Just because you seem to have issues with emotional intimacy doesn't mean all men do.

Patently false. One's prior experiences and lifestyle are not indicative of their behavior in a relationship because typically people who are promiscuous aren't in relationships.

Citation needed. Do you have a study that backs up your claim regarding prior number of partners and fidelity within a relationship?

[Shakadam]

Uh, maybe it's just me and the people I hang out with, but I view a guy who sleeps around with lots of women just as negatively as I do a woman who does the same.

[jimboa24]

I couldn't resist...even if it's from chronically unfunny MadTv:

[McFuu]

I look at it differently. I still view overly promiscuous women differently than similar men, but for a specific reason. Men and women view sex differently, woman are more emotional about it, men are more physically.
When I slept around, met chick at bars or wherever, it was something to do, it's just sex. Most women sex is emotional and carries a different level of importance. Women who sleep around are doing it to fill an emotional need, whether it be attention or something else, regardless when it comes to the all important subconscious judging of a mate, the female sleeping around will be less likely to stop sleeping around in a relationship. They will no longer be filling their emotional need and eventually fall back into it.

TL;dr you can't turn a ho into a house wife.

[Yvaelle]

I've never understood why men who have a lot of sex with different women are viewed in a positive light while girls who do the same with men are viewed negatively.

Patriarchy, duh.

Why do you think this is the case? Isn't it good for men that women wants to have sex with more men?

“Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.” - Oscar Wilde

If women realize they can have sex with their not-husbands, then how will their husbands control them?! And what about unwed women? They'll have their own power!

"'A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.'”

By extension, all locks which a master key can fit into, are therefore shitty locks (more than one key).

Therefore, the only way to have the Master Cock, is to only have sex with the Slut Locks.

So - if you fancy yourself having a dick that can open up any woman's legs, every woman who ever permits you - is fucking around behind your back with another key. Merely speaking that lock-quote implies that the speaker's ideology on relationships is deeply flawed/troubled.


Edit: Not to mention you can flip the analogy around by just picking something which is meant to receive multiple things, but things which are not meant to be received in everything they are put into:

'Any credit card reader which can read any credit card, is called a functional credit card reader. Any credit card which gives full bank access to any credit card reader, is called a compromised credit card.'