The Double Standard: Is it REALLY a double standard?

[MichelleZed]

Those are some cute theories, Sociopath, but I can't say I've found them to be true in my experience.

For instance, I'm a woman who did cheat on her handsome, supportive, sexually skilled husband. Why? Just because I wanted variety. I wasn't moving to greener pastures. I just wanted to mix it up!

I sort of feel like most people have the urge for variety but then suppress it if they're trying to be monogamous. And that's all there is to it.

[bassman]

Originally Posted by Sociopath

..... you want to go down on her even if she hasn't showered in a day?

you make that sound like a bad thing ????

I * L * O * V * E * it like that - yum!

[rory]

Starting a post with that headline is a bit like starting a sentence with "I'm not a chauvinist, but...". It just doesn't help a bit when it's followed by bunch of chauvinist bullshit.

[Vinccenzo]

Your theory is an easy one to dismantle.
Monogamous species present with the genders equal sized. Polygamous species have the males twice the size of the female. A good portion of the species we are taught to believe are monogamous are actually NOT. They may only take one den partner, or are monogamous for one mating season but they have many other sex partners.
We are a promiscuous species, not monogamous or polygamous or polyandrous species and this is evidenced in one way by a smaller average size difference between the two common genders. If we were a or suppose to be a polygamous species YOU would have a tiny penis, internal testes and a much lower sperm count. Women would NEVER cheat. The only deviation from monogamy for them would be rape. Since we are a promiscuous species, you will find a wide variety of who fucks who and how and why.
Did you know that a woman can get pregnant by two different men and give birth to two different babies, one by each man? "Oats" is much better defined as "curiosities" or "desires" which everyone has no matter what their gender. Your reasoning and analogies are stale, already tried and already failed by many who came along before you in attempts to preserve sex as a male right and minimize the roles women wear in sexual pleasure and mating. It has also many times over, been used to argue why homosexuality is "unnatural". And in the same fashion as those misguided people before you, it is a self stroking and easy to justify your own behaviors tactic. Try reading some biology books, it can only help.

[Magdlyn]

A troll by the name of Quagmire?

lol

Giggity

[Sociopath]

Ah, so this is what happens when I bring my colloquial knife to a fight fought by limp-wristed academics, pulling triggers softly like dandelions. "Nyah, nyaaaaah."

AnnabelMore:

A little girl-on-girl has potential to be alluring, under the right circumstances, if they're both hot. Right on.

But the male friend who was so daft as to not see that a woman has been eyeing him, for several years, is not customarily the kind of guy who attracts especially attractive women (read: readily fertile, genetically healthy, and at the forefront of contribution to a more fit species).

Now, this is just one aspect of what makes him a beautiful, special person, blah, blah, blah. But how sexually and romantically appealing a person is to one or just a few other people is hardly a reflection of how, on a wider scale, attractive that person is to a larger chunk of the ones ready and willing to mate.

Life's not supposed to be all about something as, fun, but inconsequential as sex, you say? Yeah, well neither is life supposed to be about finding food, and shelter. And survival? Right, because we are a special species who've evolved arrogance at a pace faster than we've evolved intelligence.

"No one in my life fits into your boxes, sorry." If I had to describe, in a few words, what a polyamorous person is, to somebody who's never heard the word, I'd include the characteristically vehement hatred for "being labeled." This one's particularly curious, because I've come to believe, through empirical observation, that those who are most comfortable with who they are, shrug most effortlessly and with much indifference, at anyone daring to question what might be the legitimacy of their way of life.

The only approach that makes sense to me is a logical A = A, B = B, A isn't guaranteed to equal B approach. Too many people learn everything they know about love and sex from wives tales, Cosmopolitan, and movies. I thought that people who've at least pondered over various forms of love would be closer to coming up with an accurate, consistent explanation for much sexual behavior in humans.

Now I'm in the impression that it's all a very whimsical, anything goes as long as you're true to yourself, it's all about feeling good and feeling the love... thing.

AnnabelMore,

It's just an aside.

AutumnalTone,

Let's think about this one step-by-step. If I was a troll (hah, add that to the list of mythical creatures), my predominant motivator to post here would be in driving you nuts. If indeed I was so set on driving you nuts, wouldn't I just come back under a different name to repeat the process?

Escorting out, in that case, would serve no purpose, as it would be ineffective.

It's the "just so you know" part that makes me wonder, "Holy crap. Is that one of those 'I know powerful people, I know many powerful people and lawyers. Don't mess with me!' empties?"

MichelleZed,

Forgive me for an uninspired response, but crossing all the Ts and dotting the Is with so many replies has exhausted me. I'll try to be fair and reply anyway.

With all due respect, the only flaw in relying purely on your experience is that your experience is unlikely to be representative of what happens in the whole population, far out of the reach of your experience. Careful observation, along with pray-to-God careful speculation, is the only shot at getting down to the bottom of things.

rory,

I'm not a chauvinist. I do not think men are better than women. I simply am pointing out the differences, and see no reason to appease the crowd who screams "No, the grass is NOT green, and the sky is NOT blue! They're both equal in color!"

I think the issue you're having is with what you have perceived, in your head, to be me insisting that women are somehow inferior to men or are less deserving of great, hot sex. C'mon, you know that's not how I think.

I don't hate women, but I do have a certain dislike for feminists with a bad sense of entitlement. It's like... either shave your legs or stop complaining about men who won't give you attention because of your hairy legs. Lose a couple pounds or stop calling that guy you used to like a pig 'cause he likes to cum inside skinny bitches.

This common point is amongst my favorites: a woman (yeah, yeah, with issues, I know, 'cause no woman 'cause possibly be interested in getting easy money for her money) shakes her ass around, then gets paid by men more money than she could earn in a "respectful job."

I think the stripper gets least exploited. She makes an easy buck by taking advantage of some guy's tendency to pay often hard-earned money to see a little bare boob. Sounds to me like the only women who hate strippers are those whose husbands leave them for a stripper.

When's the last time you saw a guy making more money swinging around a pole than he would as a revered doctor? I CALL IT! DOUBLE STANDARD. Why should women get to make more money than do men in the same profession?

Because women are different, that's why. Hell, people within the same sex are different from others within the same sex! If equality really was what ran things, then everybody would be equally attractive.

By the way... how DARE you say that the woman or man you're in bed with is more attractive than the woman or man you don't want to be in bed with? That's discrimination. Discrimination is based on differences, not similarities.

***

I need a breather. This is more labor than arguing legal matters.

[SourGirl]

Like, ...omg. Red is TOTALLY his colour.


- poly-board minion.

[dingedheart]

Darn I'm late to the party again. I'm not sure what got him banned but those of us who are serious sexual healer ( apposed to the weekend warriors) find his remarks about such uninformed and more than little condescending.

Viva la Sexual Healing....take that Socio

[tigrrrlily]

Arf. Well the joke is on Sociopath coz if you're gonna insist on some kind of biological explanation ("men and women are just different" - as if there were only two simple biological sexes, let's not even begin to talk about gender and gendering) then the biological evidence suggests that the shape and size of the human dick evolved in the cauldron of *women's* 'promiscuity'. (Exhibit A: the shape of the human dick head sluices liquids - such as cum from the last visitor - behind itself so that they are drawn out of the vagina. And its grown big enough (much bigger than any other primate's relative to size, as Vizzero pointed out) to get the swimmers right to the mouth of the womb.

Sociopath's also wrong about polyandry. There were (maybe still are) polyandrous (many-husband/male consort) societies: some place in Tibet ?or Mongolia? where people marry late in life and a woman's brothers take responsibility for her children and people expect active and varied pre-marital sex life); Some people in Nigeria where everyone makes multiple marriages (boy children stays with dads and girls move with their mothers). Parts of India, I think. They're not all kind to women (or necessarily men) I should add. I know nothing about European or the Americas marriage traditions but i;m sure you'll find similar there.

Of course Sociopath's wrong to assume in the first place that marriage conventions represent actual sexual behaviours in a society, or that actual sexual behaviours represent natural human tendencies.

[MichelleZed]

Originally Posted by Sociopath

MichelleZed,

With all due respect, the only flaw in relying purely on your experience is that your experience is unlikely to be representative of what happens in the whole population, far out of the reach of your experience. Careful observation, along with pray-to-God careful speculation, is the only shot at getting down to the bottom of things.

True, but you haven't shown us that the imaginary woman and imaginary man in your examples are representative either. So that doesn't get us anywhere.

I'm not sure how we get from there to women who hate strippers, but... I don't know any women who hate strippers, so I'm not sure your examples are representative.

When's the last time you saw a guy making more money swinging around a pole than he would as a revered doctor? I CALL IT! DOUBLE STANDARD. Why should women get to make more money than do men in the same profession?

The average stripper does not make more than a doctor, male or female. You've been swayed by cute stories of high-paid strippers--and they do exist--but they aren't the norm.