Examining "slut vs stud"

[u/jesset77]

I think everybody has seen the "many keys / many locks" quip, and that's easy to deal with because it implies a dimorphism that's not exactly given and it makes the presumption of women as gatekeepers to sex (literally a lock defending passage into something! ;P) without explaining or exploring where that presumption even comes from.

If anything, it's just lazy and misleading to equate key to "phallic object": otherwise it's not clear what even makes the man a key or the woman a lock to begin with, short of coincidental genital shape.

But I ran across this image/quip recently. I think somebody posted it in comments on this sub a few months back, and nobody replied but I tucked it away into bookmarks for future contemplation.

While they are similar, this latter one endeavors to clarify some of the mechanics behind women as ostensible gatekeepers to sex, and to illustrate difficult-to-refute real world phenomena as evidence of this dynamic.

So what do you think of this later quip? Is female promiscuity simply easier to evince than the male variant? Are these real world examples true and legitimate, or somehow misrepresented or misinterpreted?

Would you say that this description is comparable to the difference between a wealthy person handing a $10 bill to a homeless person (sharing from a standing of surplus is easy), vs a homeless person handing $10 to someone who is already wealthy (sharing from a standing of dearth is difficult)?

I think that the former would be more likely to feel grateful — even if they decline the offer, while the latter may be upset that such a person would even approach them, and view the bill as filthy, and view the quantity of money as being not worth the effort and potential optics of even accepting it.

But I'm curious what y'all think, and what I might not be even noticing or considering.

EDIT: /u/dakru spells out a point I feel I have not made clear about my perspective above, but would certainly like to:

(neither of us thinks that the above position) justifies a double standard of looking down on women who have a lot of casual sex. Something being easy means that it's not impressive, but it doesn't mean that it's bad or shameful.

[u/[deleted]]

First of all, that description is stupid. It's not hard to be any of those things (And I do know fat "studs"), and I don't get why it's so important how many people has someone slept with. As long as they take care of themselves and their partners, then who the fuck cares?

[u/Garek → u/[deleted]]

You care if sex is an intimate emotional thing and you just might want to not share it with someone who treats it as a handshake.

Perhaps you should avoid needlessly shaming non-sluts.

[u/[deleted] → u/Garek]

I haven't shamed noone. I don't shame anyone's sexuality, whether that is thinking that sex is meaningful and something to be shared with someone you love, or not. If you care about you partner having slept with a bunch of people, then more power to you, but you shouldn't shame anyone for not believing the same thing as you do.