On studs and sluts

DoktorTeufel · 2012-08-19T16:56:43+00:00

"To have a high volume of sexual encounters with women, men must: A. Have great sexual magnetism based on physical appearance, or B. Have visible economic success, or C. Significant social status among other men, or D. An operational understanding of women and their desires and the ability to manipulate those things, or E. The ability to project high self confidence in social settings, or F. A combination of two or more of the above. Now, to have a high volume of sexual encounters with men, women must: A. Have a vagina"

I myself have been touting this message (not verbatim, but the content is identical) for many years, before I was aware that there was such a thing as a men's rights movement. I've debated it on Internet forums in years past. I love to see it discussed elsewhere, printed in an article, etc.

Women are the gatekeepers of human sexuality and seem to enjoy that privilege immensely, yet feminists fail (or refuse) to understand that alongside that privilege comes a perception that women are much more accountable for their choice of sexual partners than are men.

avoiceformen · 2012-08-20T15:37:54+00:00

I'm an egalitarian male who is offended by some double standards regarding men and women, but this article is unsubstantiated and stupid. This shouldnt be an opportunity or forum to just straight up bash arguments made by feminists without substantiating your claims with solid facts. Be better than this.

truthman2000 · 2012-08-19T16:27:50+00:00

Those who think less of women for having sex on some level must view men as foul. If the difference between dirty and clean for a woman is determined only by her contact with men, then it must be men who are the problem

This is a fallacious argument. If I don't want to have sex with a woman who has had sex with 30 "alpha" males who each have had sex with 30 other women, it doesn't mean I hate men - it means I hate STDs.

yourfaceyourass · 2012-08-19T20:18:24+00:00

The second half of the article is just a complete victim mentality, and ignores any rational understanding of human behavior.

It also somewhat dodges the premise of the argument, and instead says that women shouldn't sleep around with men, but men are allowed to do so. Why is it fair that women who have a lot of sex with different men seen negatively while men who have lots of sex seen negatively?

I think there are good answers to this. But MRAs should not be trying to completely destroy the notion that women can be discriminated against and try to turn everything around as some mystical systematic attack on males. This isn't much better than what I read from many feminist blogs.

dakru · 2012-08-19T18:24:15+00:00

There is weirdly, a fair amount of data that says this double standard doesn't exist in the general population and both genders are looked on unfavorably the more partners they have. Perhaps its a myth thats just being kept going by small but vocal groups, like feminists, pua's and traditionalists and because of their noise, the rest of us just believe it to be widespread?

http://feck-blog.blogspot.ie/2011/03/slutty-studs.html

cthulufunk · 2012-08-19T19:08:38+00:00

Which is more impressive, the person who sits under the coconut palm and waits for coconuts to fall, or the person who climbs the coconut palm with a rope around their legs and picks the coconuts.

That is a better analogy than the "lock and key" one that gets thrown around often.

mayonesa · 2012-08-19T20:10:09+00:00

I feel the same way I do about all of the Paul Elam articles I've read. Like I'm wading through shit and piss to find a diamond. He makes some relevant and interesting points, but there's so much bullshit about how women are this way, and men are that way.

dakru · 2012-08-19T20:56:24+00:00

This article is... interesting. He has some actual really interesting points, but they're mixed in with a lot of ridiculous crap.

The core argument - that men have to work for sex and women don't, hence the slut/stud dichotomy - is an interesting one, and makes sense. I'm also interested in the thought that slut shaming is mostly done by women, because if a woman is having tons of sex, obviously the men don't seem to care that she's a "slut".

Dolanduckaroo · 2012-08-19T16:34:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Gemma_Lou · 2012-08-20T19:11:09+00:00

But, of course, I am not ideologically inclined, and don’t much like cheap cop outs, especially those that are egregiously insensitive.

This is the kind of rigorous self-reflection that makes Paul Elam my favorite MRA figurehead.

EpicJ · 2012-08-19T16:12:29+00:00

Until men learn to evaluate women on their character,

they do, that is the difference between having a 1 night stand with a girl and forming a relationship

truthman2000 · 2012-08-19T16:15:09+00:00

The article started off well but stopped making sense toward the end.

There are plenty of logical reasons not to want to be with promiscuous women. First of all they're more likely to have STDs and more serious ones. Second there's a higher risk of infidelity when a woman has more previous sexual partners. Third... I'm an MRA, why would I want to settle down with some woman who spent her better years riding the cock carousel and has now decided she wants to settle down with me as her provider white knight? If anything, promoting the idea that men shouldn't judge women for being promiscuous is the real misandry.

Slut shaming is only a surface attack on women. The real destructive nature of engaging in it is to men.

Oh geez. The latter half of the article could've been written for Ms. Magazine or The Good Men Project.

AlexFeiton · 2012-08-19T17:53:55+00:00

Girls only have to have a vagina to get laid?

So a guy is basically always willing to have sex with a girl? No reason not to, since she has a vagina? Where have I heard that before? Oh wait. Feminists.

Guys are just as picky, just as discerning, and just as in control of their decisions about who to sleep with as women are. The people who say all a girl needs is a vagina are the same people who say men can't get raped because they can't not consent. If a man can have reason to not consent to sex with a woman, then doesn't that mean there must be some other criteria than "have a vagina" involved in his decision making? If so, then I don't think all women have to do to "get laid" is have a vagina.

Most of my good friends are female, and when we go out, they take all kinds of care for their appearance. They pay attention to every word they say when talking to a guy. They don't want to look like they're trying too hard. They don't want to sound stupid. They spend just as much effort trying to "get laid" as my male friends, if not more.

Look, if a girl is sexually attractive, she may get sexual attraction. If her personality is attractive, she may get attraction to her personality. If her humor is attractive, she may get people laughing. This is a simple, sensible pattern of reactions. As long as women apply it to men just as much as men apply it to women, everything's okay. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

NorthernSkeptic · 2012-08-19T19:58:35+00:00

"Now, to have a high volume of sexual encounters with men, women must:

A. Have a vagina

Yep, I am afraid that listing the qualities or accomplishments that women need in order to get more than their share of enthusiastic male sexual partners will not put any undue stress on the English alphabet."

This is pure hyperbole.
It's statements like this that make MRM not likely to ever become a viable political movement IMHO.

2012-08-19T23:55:53+00:00

Most people don't think that; most people don't think that men who sleep with hordes of women are awesome and cool, and women who are too sexual are sluts. Or at least, I've never met anyone over the age of 14 who thought like that. Honestly, I think some feminists want these stereotypes to exist, because they warrant a necessity for feminism.

deshki · 2012-08-20T04:18:55+00:00

I agree with the general sentiment of the article, but this is a such a stereotypical "male" written article it's fucking embarrassing.

NorthernSkeptic · 2012-08-20T04:39:50+00:00

tl;dr herp derp whuddaya know this is women's fault as well, just like everything else!

2012-08-19T18:27:16+00:00

Yep, I am afraid that listing the qualities or accomplishments that women need in order to get more than their share of enthusiastic male sexual partners will not put any undue stress on the English alphabet.

This had me in stitches but frankly it's true. I have seen some very unattractive (emotionally and physically) girls have sex with lots of different guys. Well I've not actually watched, but you know what I mean.

As I'm still trying to maintain a sense of humour about all this, an old joke from Bash.

#908184 Twig: I just had an argument with a girl I know. She was saying how it's unfair that if a guy fucks a different girl every week, he's a legend, but if a girl fucks just two guys in a year, she's a slut. So in response I told her that if a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a shitty lock. That shut her up.

2012-08-19T17:56:47+00:00

Well done!

robert32907 · 2012-08-20T02:35:44+00:00

Excellent article.

CharlieTango · 2012-08-19T21:09:18+00:00

If a key opens many locks, its a master key.

If a lock is opened by many keys, its a shitty lock.

notcaptainkirk · 2012-08-19T21:23:59+00:00

tl;dr: Comparing "studs" to "sluts" is a false dichotomy.

madarapt1 · 2012-08-21T01:06:51+00:00

my friend seth can easily fuck 10 women a week and has done so. i look down on him for it. he needs to get his shit straight. he is also in love with a few yet continues to fuck around. literally.

Title	On studs and sluts
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	82
Comments	111
Date	August 19, 2012 3:58 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yh4rg/on_studs_and_sluts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/on-studs-and-sluts.1015517 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015517

Comments