Is it true that male "players" were shamed prior to the sexual revolution?

MidoriEgg · 2023-12-09T19:17:04+00:00

I think religion was a much bigger factor back then, so there was probably more stigma around being a player, but I think men where where still probably admired for it to an extent.

I think I remember reading some were that men where expected to have some extramarital affairs, but if they where sloppy about it, it was looked down upon.

shadowrangerfs · 2023-12-10T01:40:35+00:00

And afterwards. In the 90s they were called immature womanizers who "use women for sex". You used hear women talk about not wanting to be "another notch on his bedpost". There has never been a time where women approved of men sleeping around. Even today with all the talk of slut shaming, and slut walks, and proud slut t-shirts, most women don't like that men sleep around.

Hoopy223 · 2023-12-09T19:29:09+00:00

Yes and no. If a guy went around banging women/getting multiples pregnant or whatever it might be considered Bigamy especially if they lived in a Common Law relationship. That was one of the biggest complaints against Mormons and how Joseph Smith got killed by vigilantes/sheriff posse (running from Bigamy charges iirc).

In certain societies that man would be on the hook for a dowry payment. If a man had sex with a chaste woman it was literally considered rape even if it was consensual. The punishment was usually monetary or a shotgun wedding but it could be angry male relatives of the woman killing one or both of them.

The No part would be that (up until 100ish years ago) prostitution was common and completely accepted. If a guy wanted to do his running around that was how he did it. There were parts of town designated for prostitution like “Grope Street” and “Grabcunt Ln” and “Whores Mount” which are now Grape Lane and Horse Mount etc.

In conclusion I think a guy who is a player has always been looked up to but societal standards have been very different throughout the ages.

ThorLives · 2023-12-10T05:47:01+00:00

In medieval times, the word "Rake" was used to describe men who slept around. The word seems to have fallen out of use, though.

In a historical context, a rake (short for rakehell, analogous to "hellraiser") was a man who was habituated to immoral conduct, particularly womanizing. Often, a rake was also prodigal, wasting his (usually inherited) fortune on gambling, wine, women, and song, and incurring lavish debts in the process. Cad is a closely related term. Comparable terms are "libertine" and "debauchee".

...

After the reign of Charles II, and especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the cultural perception of the rake took a dive into squalor. The rake became the butt of moralistic tales, in which his typical fate was debtors' prison, venereal disease, or, in the case of William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress, insanity in Bedlam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(stock_character)

cmvmania · 2023-12-10T10:37:14+00:00

Let me go off a tangent and give a simple analogy. Why robin hood is considered a legend? because he steals from the rich who hoards all the wealth and shares with the poor.

Players, pimps, you name it. They hoard all the women either due to some innate ability/acquired skill. Replace women with money, we have the billionaires.

Sounds like I’m objectifying? maybe, or the notion of having a partner/sexually/etc. translates to a commodity or a social status/need? just like having and abundant resource/money does to someone. Social validation meets natural tendency to reproduce.

KayRay1994 · 2023-12-09T19:29:19+00:00

prior to the sexual revolution traditional values and christianity were heavily valued. There was also a sense of importance to a woman’s chastity especially and to ruin that would make you as the wrong party.

You have to think of it this way, as much as women were shamed for their sexuality, they were ultimately also viewed to be subservient and unable to make their own decisions; it meant that a man had to use that knowledge responsibly and not play a role in causing her downfall, as he was ultimately seen as the one leading her into this.

That being said, lots of men did sleep with prostitutes - though while that was frowned upon, it was viewed differently; ie. the prostitute is already ruined and there isn’t much by way of salvation, so doing things with her was, while not entirely acceptable, not nearly as condemned because she was a prostitute.

Fun_Push7168 · 2023-12-09T20:28:11+00:00

Yes and no.

While being a sought after man was still lauded, acting on it in certain ways was not.

If you got someone pregnant or took someone's virginity you could be expected to marry her, and you'd better be a better prospect than those she had.

While visiting brothels or seeing women whose prospects didn't have a dependence on her virginity was not nearly as big of a deal.

Adultery would still be more frowned upon, but again, it would depend on the outer consequences of that adultery.

Basically your honor was a measure of consequence vs your societal contribution.

NFthrowaway8302021 · 2023-12-09T20:40:27+00:00

If a man "ruined" a woman and wast caught hooking up or got her pregnant, he was usually forced to marry her. But there have always been kings and emperors with harems and figures like Rasputin that were powerful and influential and had as many women as they wanted. So the dichotomy between HVM and LVM always existed, low value men were always shamed while high value men did what they wanted.

DangZagnutsNewSon · 2023-12-09T19:51:16+00:00

I'm 35. In my parents time male players were referred to as Casanovas or Romeos. There has never been a stigma attached to men wanting sex. It's part of why prostitution is referred to as the oldest known profession.

Cethlinnstooth · 2023-12-09T21:45:10+00:00

Yes and no? Catting about... keeping a lover, seeing sex workers, etc was generally better accepted in the older, richer and more male people. But it was never a topic for polite conversation and a man who was known for that sort of thing would likely have trouble getting an ideal bride. He might have to marry down very significantly on some aspect that he wouldn't have to if he had a good reputation. There were only so many girls coming available every year and families had social obligations to each other.... nobody really wanted to have to accept a man who would get the household help.pregnant or have pillow talk with the village prostitute or lead their own sons astray into their home.

Also noteworthy is the very strong past association of excessive drinking and gambling with licentiousness.

YveisGrey · 2023-12-10T03:03:39+00:00

I think so, also looking at porn/ lusting after women. Being very sexual as a man was seen as animalistic and uncivilized.

StacksHoodini · 2023-12-09T19:19:28+00:00

If they weren’t contributing members of their community and just going around sleeping with whoever they could as some of those guys can now, yes.

The family unit was heavily prioritized back then so even if a guy wanted to have his Cate and Edith too, more often than not he’d at the very least be married and if he just had to sleep around he would have a mistress somewhere, maybe a couple if possible.

januaryphilosopher · 2023-12-09T19:30:50+00:00

They still are depending on the group, but there is now a bigger group of people who participate in hookup culture so won't shame them.

Willow-girl · 2023-12-09T20:23:20+00:00

It depends. In the old days, a certain amount of latitude was granted, but if a boy knocked a girl up, he was expected to marry her (providing she was a nice girl who came from a good family and/or had a good reputation). My understanding is that if a young man dragged his heels in this regard, the older men of the community would make life miserable for him. For instance, he would have a hard time finding work, and fathers probably wouldn't let him date their daughters. He would essentially be shunned until he fell into line and did right by the girl.

Hard_Corsair · 2023-12-09T21:15:02+00:00

As with many behaviors it all came down to class. If a wealthy man slept around then he was a playboy. If a poor man slept around he was a sleazy degenerate.

Silver_Switch_3109 · 2023-12-09T21:39:29+00:00

Casanova was imprisoned for it.

macone235 · 2023-12-09T19:43:22+00:00

No. The highest class men have always had multiple women, but it was just less significant than it is today.

Shaming was mostly reserved to lower-class men, and particularly men who committed adultery with other married women.

Scarce12 · 2023-12-09T19:42:40+00:00

Yes, it was called "womanizing".

Tight-Breeder · 2023-12-09T20:26:25+00:00

I believe it. I mean you cant get one without the other. Cant have high bodycount women without players and cant have players without women that will sleep with them.

Of course more focus will be on women since they control sex.

Turbulent-Tonight975 · 2023-12-09T23:02:45+00:00

These guys were shamed. Listen to 'papa was a rolling stone' by the Temptations. It is about a guy who is a player who has kids with multiple women and is a terrible father. The song has a bluesy feel to it and the tone is not cheerful.

This song wasn't modern hip hop rapper bragging about all his baby mamas and the hoes he is pulling.

AutoModerator · 2023-12-09T18:51:13+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

gopher_glitz · 2023-12-10T00:48:10+00:00

Because women where more 'pure' if a man stepped out on her it was seen as dastardly.

Now women sleep around so if you stepped out on a woman who's been around the block, people aren't going to feel as bad it seems.

coping_man · 2023-12-09T23:05:14+00:00

yes the difference is now women are selecting against male virginity more harshly than they did before

meangingersnap · 2023-12-09T23:55:37+00:00

Depending on when, yes. But go back a bit further and it was completely acceptable amongst men at least to visit the brothel

David-Metty · 2023-12-10T04:07:17+00:00

No society has ever encouraged its men to go out and fornicate with a bunch of women prior to marriage. Even today, promiscuous men are not viewed nearly as positively as some claim. This is just another feminist myth to justify female sexual excesses.

The fact is, there isn’t a sexual double standard. For it to be a double standard, the two groups would have to be nearly identical.

purplish_possum · 2023-12-10T04:19:48+00:00

My uncle certainly wasn't in the 1950s.

h1shman · 2023-12-10T06:14:30+00:00

Only example I can think of is references to “make her an honest lady” where society generally tended to shame men who got women pregnant into marrying them. I think these movies are around the 1950s

senecatrees · 2023-12-10T20:27:34+00:00

Men who sleep around are detrimental to the group. These men tend to be irresponsible and disloyal. They create misery and unwanted children. It makes a lot of sense that promiscuous men were shunned as they are a liability.

SecondEldenLord · 2023-12-10T22:54:00+00:00

Depends where you live. In Christian countries, such men were very much shamed for such promiscuous behaviour.

bluestjuice · 2023-12-11T15:32:32+00:00

It really depends a lot on when/where. And also social class (and sometimes actual class) often results in different expectations and behaviors being tolerable.

In America and Europe circa 19th century, there was a certain amount of discretion expected from upper-class men who were going to indulge in extramarital affairs. It was more broadly acceptable for men to do this than women (though to be clear, women did as well), but propriety required that those sexual behaviors be limited in certain ways, such as limiting dalliances to less-valuable women, not flaunting them in many social circumstances, particularly mixed-gender ones, and not acting in ways that cast doubt on your station or breeding by seeming too debauched or out of control.

Lower-class men had similar constraints though with fewer and fewer impacts on social standing the farther down the strata you look, but also fewer women who could be considered potentially appropriate targets (and therefore more opportunities for shaming if a liaison occurred outside those boundaries).

kexavah558ask · 2023-12-12T02:28:32+00:00

It was bifurcated.

A man who "corrupted innocent girls" (read: took their virginities) was shunned, forced into a shotgun marriage if single, and could be dueled by their family for their honor. Religious courts sometimes convicted them, but only major womanizers (as in 5+ women).

However, ~3-10% of females 12y+ were prostitutes at any given time, approaching 10-25(!)% over their lifetime, in most of the West from the low middle ages until the late modern period, with the arrival of the syphilis epidemic and proto-feminism. Some were born without family honor to start with and started very young, most were pushed to this life after being "corrupted" of becoming widowed. Men were presumed to buy their services regularly at least until they got married.

Also, that married men with money and power would have affairs or attend prostitutes was a given. Proto-feminism in the XIX cent focused on this,it was a movement of middle-class women outraged that their husbands were spending money sleeping with prostitutes.

The earliest that politicians having affairs was controversial was probably by the 1980s. Many American presidents cheated on their wives; French, even more. Our beloved Sá Carneiro in Portugal having an affair and de fact0 leaving is wife in the 70s is romanticized by our media, doesn't tarnish his image. Bill Clinton would've been in the clear just a couple decades before.

Title	Is it true that male "players" were shamed prior to the sexual revolution?
Author	LeagueSucksLol
Upvotes	22
Comments	50
Date	December 9, 2023 6:51 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/18ek7q5/is_it_true_that_male_players_were_shamed_prior_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-it-true-that-male-players-were-shamed-prior-to.1240252 https://theredarchive.com/post/1240252

Comments