Slut-Stud double standard

ThorLives · 2014-03-28T20:54:03+00:00

There's a big assumption in that question - that men gain social status and women decrease social status with sexual promiscuity.

I had recently read some research studies on this. They asked two different groups of people (college students and anonymous internet survey) about their opinions on men and women who slept around - they asked them to rate them (from 1 to 5) on a variety of characteristics. What they found was that, in the college student survey, men's reputation decreases when he sleeps with more girls. However, women's reputation decreased more quickly when she slept with more people. (The internet survey actually found that the reputation of men and women declined at the same rate as their number of sexual partners increased.) The researchers conclusion was that the idea that men's social status increased with his number of sexual partners was a myth. They concluded that there was a "weak" sexual double standard (meaning that men and women both suffered a reputation decline with an increased number of partners, but women's reputation decreased more quickly).

One interesting thing about the study was that, when you looked at all four groups (men with fewer sexual partners, women with fewer sexual partners, men with many sexual partners, women with many sexual partners), that women with fewer sexual partners were rated more highly than any other group in terms of things like "is a moral person", "is intelligent", etc. Basically, women were perceived as most positively at the outset, though their reputations declined more quickly than men.

In a followup study, they wanted to find if "confirmation bias" was involved in the belief that men get a social status boost and women suffer a reputation decline. They had study participants read a story about a male or female who slept with somebody, then they included positive or negative comments in the story (either praising the man/woman or disparaging them). Even though the stories and the comments were identical (with the exception of changing the gender of the person in the story), they found that people were more likely to remember negative comments about the woman sleeping around than they were for the male sleeping around. This showed that people tended to show confirmation bias of the belief that "men tend to gain social status with sexual promiscuity, where women tend to lose status".

Link to the articles:

"The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction?" http://psych.nmsu.edu/faculty/marks/pubs/M&F2005.pdf

"Conﬁrmation Bias and the Sexual Double Standard" http://psych.nmsu.edu/faculty/marks/pubs/Marks2006.pdf

roe_ · 2014-03-28T20:19:05+00:00

Women are consensus-seekers, and a guy who's slept with many women is "consensus approved" - that's why "pre-selection" works. (You don't necessarily have to have "slept" with many women - they just have to all want to sleep with you)

Guys are hierarchy-creators, and success with women is both a side-benefit, and a marker, of having a prominent place in the hierarchy.

"Sluts" lower the "price" of sex by giving it away too easily, which is why women tend to disapprove - since obtaining a man's loyalty is super-important for the resources and protection it will afford her during the vulnerable pregnancy time, and also paternal investment in the rearing and protection of the child itself. And sex is a good lever in this respect - as long as no one is giving it away too "cheaply".

Men don't respect sluts (but will have sex with them) because they see them as a bad (paternal) investment - they are more likely to "cheat" increasing the chances of cuckoldry, and since they've put a low "price" on sex, men take advantage of the sale, so to speak. There is a strong instinct or preference in men to emotionally distance themselves from "sluts" after sex, because emotional entanglement would be a signal of willingness to invest paternally. Why do that when you can't even be sure the kid she's going to have is yours?

A woman who invests in a pair-bonded relationship with a male "slut" might have to accept from him some cheating - but that's just sharing out his "resources" to another women. If he controls a huge amount of resources it's no biggie.

A man who invests in a pair-bonded relationship with a "slut" will be risking his life (protection) and his time (child-rearing) on a kid that's not his.

One would think a lot of this stuff would be nullified by birth control and progressive attitudes towards sex, but apparently many of these attitudes, instincts, preferences - whether they are innate or culturally transmitted - seem to continue to be strongly in play.

TL;DR - Wombs are precious, sperm is cheap.

mudra311 · 2014-03-28T18:07:45+00:00

Something that hasn't been said yet is status. Women want what other women want.

Men like to feel like they've overcome a challenge. Women who have fewer sexual partners are seen as challenging because they are selective.

Perrodepaz · 2014-03-28T17:01:26+00:00

Sex is much easier for young women to get than it is for young men. A man who has slept with a large number of women has done something most men cannot do. But a woman who has slept with a lot of men has done something almost any young woman can do.

Women are perfectly allowed to reject men for promiscuity if they chose to. The fact that they don't isn't men's fault. Sort of like men are perfectly allowed to reject women for not making enough money, and the fact that they don't isn't the fault of women.

jacks1000 · 2014-03-28T17:23:39+00:00

Why do men tend to gain social status with sexual promiscuity, where women tend to lose status?

Why are tall men considered attractive but petite women are also considered attractive? It's a double standard. Women should prefer short guys.

Joking aside, it's because women like slutty ("experienced") men while men tend to not want slutty women for LTRs.

Who is bestowing "social status" on slutty men? Who is calling these slutty men "studs?"

spongegloss00 · 2014-03-28T18:49:10+00:00

It's pretty much biological (that's the short answer) but also it's just way easier for a woman to get sex than a man. So for example, a hunter in a 3rd world country who manages to hunt down enough meat to eat like a king every day is way more impressive than some guy in Missouri who goes to KFC every day and orders a family bucket. They're eating the same thing, but one is just a lot more impressive.

I don't think it's "fair" and when I was single it bothered me (especially since the same guys who would judge you for putting out were also trying to get you to have sex as quickly as possible) but there is a gender-reversal equivalent: why is it that women who don't have much ambition or career still feel the need to find a man who is ambitious/rich? Why are there lazy women who don't get criticized for being lazy, but an unambitious or unemployed man is the butt of every joke?

Or on a sillier level, why does nobody care what height a woman is, but men under 5'8" have such a hard time dating?

Basically, men and women value different things in each other, so sometimes their preferences or perceptions will be a little hypocritical. Although for what it's worth, my fear of "players" has led me to see promiscuity as a turnoff with men.

sh1v · 2014-03-29T01:30:56+00:00

Why do men tend to gain social status with sexual promiscuity, where women tend to lose status?

Because promiscuous men tend to be attractive to women, while promiscuous women tend to be unattractive to men. Fairly straightforward. Doing (or failing to do) something and thereby inspiring disdain and revulsion deep within the collective loins of the opposite sex tends to have a negative effect on one's status.

If you're asking why the double standard in attraction exists, you could start with either gender, but just to be refreshing and novel, you could start by asking why women do not shun cads and players more than they do.

Canned_Wine199 · 2014-03-28T17:04:33+00:00

Thread's been done before, you may want to look back for very similar discussions.

I'll take this space to address why the lock-key metaphor is grossly oversimplifying, and absolutely retarded -

If a key can open 100 locks, what's that actually say about the key's success rate? What if the key has tried to forcefully jam itself into 100,000 locks and only 0.1% of them yielded? Does it say anything about the quality of the locks that were openned?

Who's to say the lock that's been openned by 100 keys isn't a quality lock? If 100,000 keys have made an attempt at a lock, it's yield rate is 0.1%, which is a very low yield rate, just like the above key's success rate. What does this speak of the quality of the keys?

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2014-03-29T22:59:36+00:00

Probably in part because it's not seen as particularly difficult for women to have many sexual partners whereas for men that is kind of an accomplishment.

assmunchinator · 2014-03-28T17:19:07+00:00

What I have noticed is that women generally want partners who are experienced. They don't want a virgin who might not be as confident or who might not be as good at sex. They want someone who knows what they are doing. For this reason, they generally don't care about a guys past sexual history (if its larger).

Generally guys want a partner with a low partner count. They prefer someone who has slept with fewer partners over over someone with lots of partners, at least as it pertains to LTRs.

It's really just preferences rather than a double standard.

Whisper · 2014-03-31T00:28:17+00:00

For the same reason that a key which opens many locks is an excellent key, but a lock which is opened by many different keys is an inferior lock.

In order to be promiscuous, a man must be attractive, charming, courageous, etc. All a woman has to do is not be repellent, and be willing.

GridReXX · 2014-03-28T18:08:51+00:00

I was discussing this with two of my closest friends, a guy and a woman.

I'll take a different approach... as to why it appears more men (on average) are into casual sex with myriad different partners, whereas women (on average) tend to vet a handful.

What he said is that sex is never bad for him. Yes sometimes it can be awkward or not fun, or not mutually satisfying, or not as sensual or rough as he likes, but at the end of the day his dick gets wet, the vagina feels good. So even when it's not great, it's good.

And me and my female friend had to laugh because that isn't our experience... for a long shot.

Sex can be terrible/numbing/painful, etc... or it can be heavenly bliss. And everything in between. Also sex for us doesn't = PIV exclusively.

Our payoff is different.

These as well as all of the consequences of sex (pregnancy, vagina is more susceptible to STDs, yeast infections, UTIs, etc...) are things we oftentimes unconsciously consider.

And many times what makes it better is a partner whose body and likes and desires we know and who knows our body and likes and desires. It takes a culmination of things to make the experience worthwhile... unless!

Unless you're one of those women who can climax at the drop of a hat, then I imagine any new partner can promise that and thus there is no reason to vet (teach) as much.

TLDR: Payoff for sex is much different between the sexes... on average. And no, I'm not just talking about the "orgasm."

GaiusScaevolus · 2014-03-28T19:00:40+00:00

The answer is degree of difficulty and active vs passive sexual strategy. Women overall have a much easier time getting laid then men. Women are the gate keepers of sex, so they control the access to sex by default. Female sexual strategy is also very passive. Men do the approaching, the wooing, and arrange the various elements and romances of courtship. In contrast, women tend to be wooed and select an acceptable partner out of her multiple suitors. In short, when a man has sex, he has achieved something. He has been deemed sexually 'worthy' by a woman, through his active participation. When a woman has sex, she has chosen a man that interests her and given him sexual access. She has not achieved anything other than passive selection.

caxica · 2014-03-29T11:35:45+00:00

a key that opens many locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.

Seriously though, women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

AptCasaNova · 2014-03-28T19:15:01+00:00

It depends on what peer group you're talking about - amoung fellow men, I'm sure a playa dude is considered high-status. Amoung women? Not so much.

For women - it's much more complicated. Sex = risk of pregnancy, pregnancy = vulnerability in society, especially without a partner. Sex, therefore, should be treated with caution. Really, a "slut" can just be translated into plain ol' stupidity.. and women recognize this.

Men view promiscuous women as opportunities.

[deleted] · 2014-03-28T20:52:46+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ye6uh/science_confirms_what_men_and_women_value_in_a/

Title	Slut-Stud double standard
Author	Perrodepaz
Upvotes	10
Comments	84
Date	March 28, 2014 4:57 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/21ls7r/slutstud_double_standard/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/slut-stud-double-standard.286021 https://theredarchive.com/post/286021

Comments