Why there isn't a 'double standard' for sexual partners (100% srs) Females GTFIH

[beepec]

Firstly, forget the lock and key analogy (even though it is kinda correct), because it doesn't cover why men and women are different and it makes us sound stupid lol.
Secondly, I implore you to read the whole thing, I think I can truly change the minds of some men/women who think # of sexual partners doesn't matter.

Cliffs.

- The ways in which women and men get sex are different, so we're comparing apples and oranges in terms of # of sexual partners, i.e. there's no double standard.

Explanation:

I have two arguments for this:

1. Sex is an achievement for men, and a prize to give away for women.

Allow to me to explain. Basically in our society men need to do all sorts of crap to get sex. Obtain money, status aesthetics. Women then reward men who fulfil their criteria and pass all sorts of chit tests with sex.
Women do little to no work in obtaining sex, it is almost always used as a prize for the most desirable male.

The point here is simple: sex with a female in our society is an achievement for which men compete. Women do NOT need to compete for it, they simply allow it (or get raped sometimes). There's no denying it.

Now that we've established that sex is an achievement, lets look at how achievement works. An individual that can achieve many things is to be respected. Contrarily, an achievement that is either a) easily achieved, or b) has been conquered by many people before you, is not such a great achievement. Walking on the moon is a bigger achievement than doing a marathon (for most anyway).


Time for a ADHD break:



2. Because the playing field is different, partner counts mean different things.

This one isn't always true, but it is most of the time.

This is more to do with long term relationships. Because guys often have to take what they can get in the dating game, a high number of women usually means they've got some good qualities to attract women. If these don't work out, it's usually not entirely his fault - he could be taking up chitty women just because he has no choice (we all know one guy like this).

Women, on the other hand, have their pick. They should be happy with their choices. They can choose the best male. So if they can have 5-6 really good male partners in a row because they have so much choice, why the high count? Why not just find a good one and stick with them? Because shes a bish, sloot, or both.

Lastly, I've always thought that historically women were out of action 9 months after they phucked a guy, plus they took care of the kid. Guys just nutted and phuck off to hunt. For this reason, women who weren't very picky were probably evolutionarily undesirable, and men might always have a visceral disdain for trollops no matter how liberal society becomes.


Anyway let me know what you think, there'll be about 3 miscers total who read this but I'm interested in hearing your responses.

Edit: there's a good chance I'm wrong, that's why I put this here to hear others' opinions. And I understand someone might have said this all before, but I think this is in a way females can see our point of view better.

Edit2: Post #11 is an awesome reply by 5htp. It's what my last point would have sounded like if I wasn't a dumbass. Read it.













And of course, for your time:

[Brosidius]

second paragraph was a very distracting read sandwiched inbetween hula hoop girl and bouncing pair of tits.

[Lukens437]

This is a good thread. It has fairly broken up paragraphs, an attempt at logical discussion (which will soon be derailed), and of course pics.

Repped op.

Pretty much agree with the things you've pointed out.

[FeelTheFear]

men don't want sluts for partners because it's stupid to invest time and resources in a women who's child might not even be your own

[TheApathy]

I was waiting for this fukhead to fall off the treadmill.

[The_Albatross]

you cant be serious, I didn't come here for a reading assignment

[Groce]

it's not even a double standard, it's just the majority of men find women who sleep around groce, it's just an in built evolutionary response, during caveman times if your woman was slooting around you wouldn't know if your kid was really yours, and you could waste your time/resources/life raising a kid that doesn't have your genetic code and end up never passing on your own genetic material, i.e. the complete opposite of what you were put on earth to do

women sleeping around and having multiple peanuses inside them swapping bodily fluids with many random men, it's just ****ing straight up groce to us men, that's the simple truth

[myzlplix]

Sounds good to me. Generally speaking, I just figured its A) because women have the possibilty to get std's easier than guys and B) once they have certain std's they can pass them on to their unborn children.

[Mightymuddy]

Ahh, why do women have more options than men for dating?
There are more women in the world and I know it's probably easier for most women to just smash but it doesn't make sense that more women have more options for single monogamous dating.

[beepec]

Ahh, why do women have more options than men for dating?
There are more women in the world and I know it's probably easier for most women to just smash but it doesn't make sense that more women have more options for single monogamous dating.

Because, historically we were competing with other men for women. The 'alpha' males won by default because they survived, then they phucked the remaining women. Now there's the issue of consent (srs). Reproduction occurred by rape back then.


You guys make some real good points I didn't think about, repped you all.

However, I really want to hear the opinion of a woman.

[5htp]

I've always thought that historically women were out of action 9 months after they phucked a guy, plus they took care of the kid. Guys just nutted and phuck off to hunt. For this reason, women who weren't very picky were probably evolutionarily undesirably, and men might always have a visceral disdain for trollops no matter how liberal society becomes.

This is the most important factor, differential parental investment, and it's almost ubiquitous in the animal kingdom in general. Women can get pregnant when they have sex, which implies not only 9 months of pregnancy but years of rearing (more so than most animals in fact because it takes years for a child's brain to develop) - while it's obviously optimal for a guy to stick around and help, it is not necessary in the same way as it is for women. Women really, really should be selective because of this, because it requires a significant proportion of their life devoted to raising a child which is the fundamental biological imperative. Men are not obliged to raise a child.

Furthermore, men produce stupid quantities of sperm constantly and with little effort (whereas women only ovulate a fraction of the time), which means they can maximise the chances of achieving their biological imperative by simply spreading their seed far and wide.

Finally, on a somewhat related note, there's the issue of fatherhood in terms of knowing for sure that the father is raising his own child. The fundamental force in nature is reproducing your DNA, and for a man to devote his life to raising a child that isn't his own DNA is a disaster. This combined with the differential parental investment notion means that not only are women meant to be selective, but that men and society in general have a natural instinct not to look favourably upon women who aren't selective, particularly given the potential for the father not reproducing his own DNA.

In conclusion, sloots gonna sloot.

[mirroraddict]

This is the most important factor, differential parental investment, and it's almost ubiquitous in the animal kingdom in general. Women can get pregnant when they have sex, which implies not only 9 months of pregnancy but years of rearing (more so than most animals in fact because it takes years for a child's brain to develop) - while it's obviously optimal for a guy to stick around and help, it is not necessary in the same way as it is for women. Women really, really should be selective because of this, because it requires a significant proportion of their life devoted to raising a child which is the fundamental biological imperative. Men are not obliged to raise a child.

Furthermore, men produce stupid quantities of sperm constantly and with little effort (whereas women only ovulate a fraction of the time), which means they can maximise the chances of achieving their biological imperative by simply spreading their seed far and wide.

Finally, on a somewhat related note, there's the issue of fatherhood in terms of knowing for sure that the father is raising his own child. The fundamental force in nature is reproducing your DNA, and for a man to devote his life to raising a child that isn't his own DNA is a disaster. This combined with the differential parental investment notion means that not only are women meant to be selective, but that men and society in general have a natural instinct not to look favourably upon women who aren't selective, particularly given the potential for the father not reproducing his own DNA.

In conclusion, sloots gonna sloot.

Nailed it.



I recommend the book "Sperm are from men, Eggs are from women" by Joe Quirk to further understand evolutionary reasons why it is undesirable for a woman to be considered slooty (and why sloots gonna sloot)

[JayNotts]

Good logic op repped

[beepec]

This is the most important factor, differential parental investment, and it's almost ubiquitous in the animal kingdom in general. Women can get pregnant when they have sex, which implies not only 9 months of pregnancy but years of rearing (more so than most animals in fact because it takes years for a child's brain to develop) - while it's obviously optimal for a guy to stick around and help, it is not necessary in the same way as it is for women. Women really, really should be selective because of this, because it requires a significant proportion of their life devoted to raising a child which is the fundamental biological imperative. Men are not obliged to raise a child.

Furthermore, men produce stupid quantities of sperm constantly and with little effort (whereas women only ovulate a fraction of the time), which means they can maximise the chances of achieving their biological imperative by simply spreading their seed far and wide.

Finally, on a somewhat related note, there's the issue of fatherhood in terms of knowing for sure that the father is raising his own child. The fundamental force in nature is reproducing your DNA, and for a man to devote his life to raising a child that isn't his own DNA is a disaster. This combined with the differential parental investment notion means that not only are women meant to be selective, but that men and society in general have a natural instinct not to look favourably upon women who aren't selective, particularly given the potential for the father not reproducing his own DNA.

In conclusion, sloots gonna sloot.

Like mirroraddict said, nailed it.

Still no women?

[Brosidius]

This is the most important factor, differential parental investment, and it's almost ubiquitous in the animal kingdom in general. Women can get pregnant when they have sex, which implies not only 9 months of pregnancy but years of rearing (more so than most animals in fact because it takes years for a child's brain to develop) - while it's obviously optimal for a guy to stick around and help, it is not necessary in the same way as it is for women. Women really, really should be selective because of this, because it requires a significant proportion of their life devoted to raising a child which is the fundamental biological imperative. Men are not obliged to raise a child.

Furthermore, men produce stupid quantities of sperm constantly and with little effort (whereas women only ovulate a fraction of the time), which means they can maximise the chances of achieving their biological imperative by simply spreading their seed far and wide.

Finally, on a somewhat related note, there's the issue of fatherhood in terms of knowing for sure that the father is raising his own child. The fundamental force in nature is reproducing your DNA, and for a man to devote his life to raising a child that isn't his own DNA is a disaster. This combined with the differential parental investment notion means that not only are women meant to be selective, but that men and society in general have a natural instinct not to look favourably upon women who aren't selective, particularly given the potential for the father not reproducing his own DNA.

In conclusion, sloots gonna sloot.

Reps to this guy.

Also to op for the assist.

[5htp]

I recommend the book "Sperm are from men, Eggs are from women" by Joe Quirk to further understand evolutionary reasons why it is undesirable for a woman to be considered slooty (and why sloots gonna sloot)

Sounds awesome, just ordered this on kindle, repped.

I should also add that there's a spanner in the works these days due to the existence of birth control, which means that the standard thesis I cited above doesn't necessarily mean as much as it used to. However, we've evolved over millions of years to (correctly) perceive non-selective, dong-hungry, jizz-soaked sloots with contempt that it's virtually impossible to shake it.

It's like hearing a sudden hissing sound in a city apartment - there's pretty much zero chance that there's actually a snake in your apartment, and it's far more likely to be something completely benign (or a gas leak, which would actually be pretty bad as well lol), but we just cannot help being startled by that noise. And that's a good thing, as people who were scared of that noise (rather than those who sought to find it and tickle the snake or whatever) tended to survive and then pass on their genes. I think I've gone off on a bit of a tangent here - am I saying that women are snakes? Yes. Wait no, I'm saying that no matter what technological, social or scientific changes we've experienced recently, we have millions of years of fundamental evolutionary programming that result in instinctive responses to certain contexts.

[NonSmoker]

Lold at ADHD break you cheeky aussie kunt. Good read too.

[NonSmoker]

5htp needs to be mod repped. Dude essentially summed up life.

[Drumbells]

it's not even a double standard, it's just the majority of men find women who sleep around groce, it's just an in built evolutionary response, during caveman times if your woman was slooting around you wouldn't know if your kid was really yours, and you could waste your time/resources/life raising a kid that doesn't have your genetic code and end up never passing on your own genetic material, i.e. the complete opposite of what you were put on earth to do

women sleeping around and having multiple peanuses inside them swapping bodily fluids with many random men, it's just ****ing straight up groce to us men, that's the simple truth

Truth

But, its also in their best interest to sloot around (evolutionarily) because say they have 5 children, from 5 different men, thats a much better chance at getting good genes. If they have one man taking care of the kids/herself this whole time, she's golden

[Banksy101]

cliffs pls

[rowsforthebros]

Walls of text, tried to skim as best as I could.
There's a lot of different opinions on this, the one that sticks to me most is evolutionary though. Men were made to spread their seed and women would only have sex to reproduce. That's why when women see a guy in his late 20s with a toddler, our ovaries ****ing explode (hawt as chit), cause it was rare to find a guy who would stick around for that. I'll probably get **** for this opinion but at least I tried.
Anyways I think the double standard is a huge topic with good points on both sides. Thats all I gotta say bout that

[shuback]

this applies well to landing bishes, gotta have a bitta beta in you too when you get in a LTR imo

[5ub1imin41]

Female opinion: you're right, the accomplishment/reward thing is a good way of putting it.


Doesn't really bother me that there's a "double standard" though. It is what it is.

[rowsforthebros]

Truth

But, its also in their best interest to sloot around (evolutionarily) because say they have 5 children, from 5 different men, thats a much better chance at getting good genes. If they have one man taking care of the kids/herself this whole time, she's golden

Good point

[5htp]

But, its also in their best interest to sloot around (evolutionarily) because say they have 5 children, from 5 different men, thats a much better chance at getting good genes. If they have one man taking care of the kids/herself this whole time, she's golden

This is definitely correct to an extent, but 5 children implies a LOT of parental investment, so selectivity is still hugely important. For a woman to truly succeed in this game she should really only reproduce with healthy, dominant, aesthetic as fuark alphas in order to produce master race kids who will be more likely to continue the gene for as long as possible. The downside to this for women is that those men tend not to stick around because they're constantly getting opportunities to bang HBBs. So this is why we often see a beta provider ******* sticking around raising master race kids that were produced by the sloot banging an alpha on the side when she was ovulating. That's the ultimate success for women, having a provider to stay and help raise strong, healthy offspring.

I'm sure most of you have seen studies / documentaries showing the different kinds of men women find attractive depending on whether or not they're ovulating - at the height of ovulation they invariably find the rugged, hypermasculine test-beasts the most attractive, whereas at other times they tend to prefer less blatantly masculine faces. This study has been reproduced over and over again, absolutely fascinating. And it makes sense - when the female body is ready to reproduce, it mind-controls her to seek out the strongest genes possible even if it he's not her normal 'type' and if it means getting screwed over due to the guy leaving afterwards.

Also, regarding a woman having men by different fathers, in practice this is very rare because the vast majority of men steer well clear of single mothers (this excludes ghetto situations where it's almost a given that the guy will run off as soon as he's dumped his spunk in there). Have you seen online dating profiles of single mothers? Hilarious, even the attractive ones are nowhere near as selective as they would be if they didn't have kids - I've seen 7/10 single mums on dating sites who put in their date requirements must be 5'4 minimum, can be any weight, don't care about income etc. They know that this is a massive impediment and so they cannot be as selective as they would be otherwise.

Love this topic

[stealth_swimmer]

The only reason your points are "true" OP is because those are the social norms in place. All you did was describe the emergent properties of people's arbitrary values.

It is a double standard, and you just explained how so.

[stealth_swimmer]

men don't want sluts for partners because it's stupid to invest time and resources in a women who's child might not even be your own

What if you just have the dad take care of that kid? There's ways around what you're saying is my point. Birth control, wearing a condom. She could be sleeping around and never have another person's kid as well, but that's just a sidenote. Also, someone could be the type that sleeps around but does NOT *cheat* on their partners.

[Groce]

This is definitely correct to an extent, but 5 children implies a LOT of parental investment, so selectivity is still hugely important. For a woman to truly succeed in this game she should really only reproduce with healthy, dominant, aesthetic as fuark alphas in order to produce master race kids who will be more likely to continue the gene for as long as possible. The downside to this for women is that those men tend not to stick around because they're constantly getting opportunities to bang HBBs. So this is why we often see a beta provider ******* sticking around raising master race kids that were produced by the sloot banging an alpha on the side when she was ovulating. That's the ultimate success for women, having a provider to stay and help raise strong, healthy offspring.

I'm sure most of you have seen studies / documentaries showing the different kinds of men women find attractive depending on whether or not they're ovulating - at the height of ovulation they invariably find the rugged, hypermasculine test-beasts the most attractive, whereas at other times they tend to prefer less blatantly masculine faces. This study has been reproduced over and over again, absolutely fascinating. And it makes sense - when the female body is ready to reproduce, it mind-controls her to seek out the strongest genes possible even if it he's not her normal 'type' and if it means getting screwed over due to the guy leaving afterwards.

Also, regarding a woman having men by different fathers, in practice this is very rare because the vast majority of men steer well clear of single mothers (this excludes ghetto situations where it's almost a given that the guy will run off as soon as he's dumped his spunk in there). Have you seen online dating profiles of single mothers? Hilarious, even the attractive ones are nowhere near as selective as they would be if they didn't have kids - I've seen 7/10 single mums on dating sites who put in their date requirements must be 5'4 minimum, can be any weight, don't care about income etc. They know that this is a massive impediment and so they cannot be as selective as they would be otherwise.

Love this topic

lold hard at "beta ******* provider"

[mirroraddict]

The only reason your points are "true" OP is because those are the social norms in place. All you did was describe the emergent properties of people's arbitrary values.

It is a double standard, and you just explained how so.

Well 5htp gave some evolutionary reasons why slooty women are looked down upon.



How do you explain those? Birth control has been around for a very very very small percentage of time in our evolutionary history and our instinct has been formed far before effective birth control was invented.

[Groce]

in after india