Jump to content
Da_Latios

"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

Recommended Posts

Isn't that what I just said, though? Sex with many people while being trashy/irresponsible/etc = slut.


hzvjpwS.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that what I just said, though? Sex with many people while being trashy/irresponsible/etc = slut.

 

No, according to society, being a slut means having sex with many people, even if you're being responsible about it. And I say that's bs

  • Like 1

77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll simplify.

 

Male getting lots of sex = jock, bro, awesome, etc. All good-favored things.

 

Female getting lots of sex = [bleep], slut, virgin-less. All bad-favored things.

 

"Whats better? A key that opens many locks, or a lock that opens to many keys."

 

It's very one-sided, very hypocritical of society, thus very irrational.

 

I understand this. I do. I'm not an idiot. But it doesnt mean two people cant feel the same way.

 

Sorry Gabe, that was reflected towards Constrictor's post.

  • Like 1

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that what I just said, though? Sex with many people while being trashy/irresponsible/etc = slut.

 

No, according to society, being a slut means having sex with many people, even if you're being responsible about it. And I say that's bs

 

Very well said. I try not to judge anyone based on their sex life but sometimes it's hard not to just think, "wow, she gets around".


Tg_Ibe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at it from the context of evolutionary biology, slut shaming is not entirely irrational.

 

I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, not in this day and age. But it's not completely irrational either.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. It's different when you're like 50.


Tg_Ibe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Can't over-50s have sex, or something...?

 

Nobody is going to call a 50 year old woman a slut


Tg_Ibe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mods please rename thread to official golden girls appreciation station

  • Like 2

FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooo, I've never seen an episode of golden girls in my life :(


Tg_Ibe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ermmm..women after 50 can still be "sluts", actually, I'd argue by that point they tend to be even more trashy etc then sluts who are younger, they're just not as obvious about it on social network sites. Loool.

 

Also, as I always say, if it's a stereotype, it's a stereotype because it's true (or at least at one point in time was true).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it isn't.

 

65% of over-50s are sexually active, yet according to stereotypes, it "just doesn't / shouldn't happen".

 

Personally, I think the stereotype is more that people over 50 have more sex then we are comfortable (we being younger generations) and thus we just say they don't perform coitus at all to qualm our "fears".

 

In nearly every other stereotype, however, they are normally true, brute generalizations to say the least, but generally true as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that they are true. Doesn't that ignore why stereotypes which act as self-fulfilling prophecies may be flawed?

 

Listen, we all stereotype because it helps us to save time in understanding the world around us, but you seem to be accepting them as inherently true, or at the least 'excusable', which is... puzzling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that they are true. Doesn't that ignore why stereotypes which act as self-fulfilling prophecies may be flawed?

 

Listen, we all stereotype because it helps us to save time in understanding the world around us, but you seem to be accepting them as inherently true, or at the least 'excusable', which is... puzzling.

 

Not sure entirely what you mean in the first part.

 

In respect to the second half, I agree, we stereotype to compartmentalize how we view the world, because quite frankly our natural state is ease/laziness. However, I don't think that just because a stereotype is true that it is excusable.

 

Example being, just because it is stereotypical for a slut to be trashy doesn't mean it's ok or should be expected, however, the reason it is stereotypical is because over the years, society has noticed that, in this example, sluts tend to be trashy.

 

I am not condoning sluts to be trashy or am I saying all trashy people are sluts or vice versa, however, the stereotype is there for a reason, and so it's not like society is viewing things all wrong because it is stereotyping a certain action etc

 

But this also brings to rise that people are individuals, and they are unique, and so as much as stereotypes are/can be true, they also are not, because every person is different, every experience is had, viewed, and applied differently.

 

So when discussing stereotypes, well honestly it'd be wise to challenge them but not claim them as false just because it was society who chose them. And on the contrary, when discuss individuals you should take each instance as it is: a unique and different experience for each unique and different individual.

 

Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at it from the context of evolutionary biology, slut shaming is not entirely irrational.

 

I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, not in this day and age. But it's not completely irrational either.

 

What makes you say that? I can't really think of how it could be considered rational from that perspective


77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as evolutionary biology goes.

 

Our attitudes towards sex are based in economics. The economic situation of caveman was tribal communism where you dont quantify your share of the hunt and even if you did food spoils quickly so its not like you couldve built a surplus. In this situation communal sharing was the best plan. Cavemen and many tribal peoples today did not pick a wife and raise "their children" as we do today. Cavemen hunted as a tribe and fed "the children" collectively. In those societies there was a huge degree of promescuity and sexual openness, which especially offended Europeans who encountered many of these tribal peoples in the 17th century, where things like orgies were common. Things like marriage and monogamy didn't make sense because private property didn't exist and you were responsible for feeding the tribe not your nuclear family.

 

Enter agriculture. With agriculture private property (specifically individual land ownership) emerged. In this system a man was at a comparitative advantage at producing food and defending their land from invaders, so the old gender equality ended in favor of men. Another new thing that happened was that men who could produce more food were no longer responsible for the tribe but their individual self and their immediate family. Naturally in this system female monogamy starts to matter since you want to be sure that the kids your feeding are actually your own.

 

This is why ancient societies were very harsh to an adulterous woman or women who had sex before marriage. In the torah (which is in both christian and Muslim religious books today) you see punishments for either being execution with a very minor wrist slap for men.

 

 

When this really becomes obsolete is with two things that have already happened. Birth control and industrialization. Birth control making sex and pregnancy two seperate events and industrialization bringing womens capacity to produce on par with a mans. Kind of a long winded post but all the evidence points towards our ancestors being very promiscous until agriculture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that they are true. Doesn't that ignore why stereotypes which act as self-fulfilling prophecies may be flawed?

 

Listen, we all stereotype because it helps us to save time in understanding the world around us, but you seem to be accepting them as inherently true, or at the least 'excusable', which is... puzzling.

Not sure entirely what you mean in the first part.

Self-fulfilling prophecy is the concept that if person A treats person B differently due to their expectations of person B, then the person being stereotyped will mimic behaviour which is consistent to the stereotype. In this example, it would be that the stereotype of voluntary celibacy in the over-50s would cause over-50s themselves to engage in less sex-seeking behaviour. The stereotype is reinforcing the stereotype, even if the original stereotype holds no validity otherwise.

 

However, I don't think that just because a stereotype is true that it is excusable.

I wasn't referring to the stereotyped person's behaviour being excusable; that's an ethical debate, not a sociological one. I was suggesting that you find stereotyping ubiquitously excusable, even when those stereotypes are proven to be the inverse of reality, as iBe had with sexuality in the over-50s.

 

Example being, just because it is stereotypical for a slut to be trashy doesn't mean it's ok or should be expected, however, the reason it is stereotypical is because over the years, society has noticed that, in this example, sluts tend to be trashy.

 

I am not condoning sluts to be trashy or am I saying all trashy people are sluts or vice versa, however, the stereotype is there for a reason, and so it's not like society is viewing things all wrong because it is stereotyping a certain action etc

See my point on self-fulfilling prophecy. If society labels people who are sexually active with multiple partners 'trashy', is it really so hard to understand why a person labelled in that manner would, indeed, act more 'trashy'? We all gravitate towards society's expectations on how we behave; negative associations are no exception to that.

 

Essentially, you've confused the causal relationship between a woman being perceived as 'trashy' and that woman being more sexually active.

So when discussing stereotypes, well honestly it'd be wise to challenge them but not claim them as false just because it was society who chose them. And on the contrary, when discuss individuals you should take each instance as it is: a unique and different experience for each unique and different individual.

Just because "society chooses it" (however you define that specifically) does not necessarily mean the stereotype has much validity, if any at all. Society once stipulated that "N-words" had smaller brains and were therefore incapable of equal intellectual capacity with their white counterparts. Society once also stipulated that gay men and women were gay due to mental illness. Society once claimed women were incapable of doing any of the jobs men traditionally did.

 

Did any of these stereotypes hold any validity? Perhaps the last one holds very little validity given very exceptional circumstances (mixed gender physical sport, for instance), but none at all otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at it from the context of evolutionary biology, slut shaming is not entirely irrational.

 

I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, not in this day and age. But it's not completely irrational either.

 

What makes you say that? I can't really think of how it could be considered rational from that perspective

 

GirlWritesWhat had a video where she explained it pretty well. Unfortunately with her I can never remember what video it actually was.

 

The gist of it was (if I remember correctly) that women are biologically more choosy when it comes to mates, because they bear greater biological risk when reproducing. As a result if she "gets around" she's more likely to become pregnant more often, and populate a community with many kids who may not be well cared for, etc.

 

Once again this is all from an evolutionary context. It doesn't apply so much in modern society.

 

This video explains it a lot more as well:

 


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a very interesting video, I like how he compared us to animals biologically. It actually made a lot of sense, lol.


Tg_Ibe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That man is always interesting.

 

Honestly, right now all I can think of is American Pie 2 explaining the rule of 3.

When asking someone about the number of sexual partners they've had MULTIPLY a woman's answer by 3, 'cause ladies don't wanna seem like the slut. When a man answers DIVIDE his number by 3 because he wants to seem like a player.

 

Anyway, Ginger has some excellent points about stereotypes, and their impact on behaviour. That is, we can show empirically that people in deindividualized situations (where a person has no identity, they do not believe they are being observed) will often display different behaviour. Off the cuff, there was a study that observed aggressiveness in males and females in a game where you drop bombs on each other. In the control, regular conditions, the males were the more aggressive gender, as expected, dropping more bombs on average than the females. In a deindividualized setting, the women were more aggressive, suggesting that women may actually be the more aggressive gender. You don't see it day to day because, much like being sexulay promiscuous, agressiveness is rewarded in men, and considered to be undesirable when women display the same traits.

 

You can see it in men too, probably within your own circle of friends. There is a point where a lot of men become embarrassed to admit they are virgins. It's not something you typically see guys be proud of. It's the reversal of the promiscuity stereotype. For us, it can be considered a virtue (on the flip side, some guys don't want a girl who has no experience), where it can be considered a failing in men. People lie, or you even end up with American Pie or, more recently, Sex Drive. I'm can't say for certain that guys never go out of their way to try and get their male virgin friends laid (though I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't), but the movies wouldn't be there, making money, if they didn't speak to people.

 

It's all a very long way of saying that stereotypes are not based purely on observation, because they create social pressure of their own, and thus have an influence on the behavior they observe. We are social creatures who try to fit in, which means trying to conform to stereotypes on the whole.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.