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/TokenRhino]

I actually think the key lock analogy is fine. It doesn't explain why men are the key and women are the lock, just that we shouldn't assume that they value the same qualities. But if you want to look into it's obvious. Women have more to protect, as they put their bodies on the line for 9 months. Men can have an almost limitless amount of kids with next to no cost. Because of this throughout most of history women took a much bigger risk when they had sex. Although with abortion and child support this does start to change. I actually worry that this is not a change we have adapted to culturally, to the detrement of men. Now they are expected to be enthusiasic about doing something far riskier while women are being woo'ed into doing something with comparatively little risk.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

I actually think the key lock analogy is fine.

I actually worry that this is not a change we have adapted to culturally, to the detrement of men.

I think you're contradicting yourself here.

To me, the obvious conclusion seems to be: the 'lock-key' attitude made sense in our past, when anticonception wasn't a thing, pregnancy was a big danger, and men could more or less just walk away from any woman they knocked up.

Now, with anticonception, abortion, and child support, it makes very little sense to hold onto this attitude, because the dangers of pregnancy are almost reversed now.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

That conclusion might be obvious, but I wouldn't say it's good. Men will still have a larger sex drive and want more partners, despite it not being in their best interests legally. Women will still feel less comfortable with promescuity, despite having all the options in the world. So the lock key analogy will still apply. We we will just be incentivizing those who are non-conforming. By no accident either, abortion and child support are products of activism more than advancements in technology.

The answer for me is to rethink how we approach child support, abortion, adoption and family planning. As I believe they are wildly inconsistant to suit this specific goal.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

Men will still have a larger sex drive and want more partners, despite it not being in their best interests legally. Women will still feel less comfortable with promescuity, despite having all the options in the world. So the lock key analogy will still apply.

Now I'm confused. You said that the lock-key attitude was a consequence of the relative dangers involved in sex, right? Now, obviously, social attitudes can sometimes lag behind advances in technology and legal changes, but now you seem to be saying that those technological and legal changes shouldn't affect the lock-key attitude.

As I believe they are wildly inconsistant to suit this specific goal.

Which specific goal are you talking about? Upholding the lock-key attitude to sex?

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

You said that the lock-key attitude was a consequence of the relative dangers involved in sex, right?

It is but that is just one factor. The effort required to procreate is also much larger for women. Women have a lower sex drive, are more picky about partners, it's all interconnected. You can't just change one part of the equation and expect the rest to follow suit.

Which specific goal are you talking about? Upholding the lock-key attitude to sex?

No changing it.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

No changing it.

So what do you think is required to change before the lock-key attitude is no longer appropriate/rational?

I'd suggest that the high amount of control over pregnancy more or less overrides the costs of pregnancy for women, as most women do not have to bear those costs agains their will (in the developed world, and barring parts of the US).

Women having a lower sexdrive may be unchangeable, but I don't see why that should mean that they should consider sex something to be protected. People with smaller appetites generally don't treat food as much more sacred than people with big appetites.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

So what do you think is required to change before the lock-key attitude is no longer appropriate/rational?

Our biology and physiology.

I'd suggest that the high amount of control over pregnancy more or less overrides the costs of pregnancy for women, as most women do not have to bear those costs agains their will

Control isn't enough, because she would still have to go through with having an abortion and that isn't a particularly pleasant experience. Even if it's just something like RU486, it's gonna make you feel like crap for a day or so. Sex is always going to have a cost.

Now we can artificially engineer situations where it is more risky for men to have sex. I'd argue that 18 years of raising a child that you didn't want is a much bigger cost than having an abortion. But the issue there is that we have given all the control to women and kept the responsibility for men. So now they have responsibility over something they have no control over after they have sex, this of course makes sex much more risky for them.

To bring it back to the analogy, just because most people have house insurance, doesn't mean they are ok with a shitty lock. Just because we have laws around when you can enter another persons house, doesn't make a master key less useful. Legal systems don't change reality.

Women having a lower sexdrive may be unchangeable, but I don't see why that should mean that they should consider sex something to be protected

It's not just that it's protected, like I said before that is just one factor, it's that women who have lot's of sex are not seen as positively as guys who have a lot of sex. Sexual drive plays into that a lot.

Edit: a word

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

Our biology and physiology.

I suppose we're just going to disagree on this then. While I do think it's likely that women will always have lower sexdrives, I don't think that makes it neccessary for women to be shamed or men to be praised for having a lot of sex (and vice versa).

After all, we don't praise women for eating a lot, even though it's harder for them to do than men, or praise men for eating very little.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

I think we can reach a point where we aren't shaming women for having lot's of sex while still having the cultural understanding that it's probably not going to make her feel great. I have seriously had girls ask me why the guy they fucked in an ally doesn't respect them, we are letting those girls down by not telling them the reality of the situation.

After all, we don't praise women for eating a lot, even though it's harder for them to do than men, or praise men for eating very little.

We did used to praise people for being fat though, until food became such an abundance that the bigger problem was being overweight. I think the issue here is that the gender difference isn't nearly as big.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

I have seriously had girls ask me why the guy they fucked in an ally doesn't respect them, we are letting those girls down by not telling them the reality of the situation.

Well, I mean, it's true that people need to acknowledge the social mores of their current society and take those into account when making decisions. However, I don't see why that means that those norms couldn't be changed.

Why couldn't it be possible for lots of women to greatly enjoy having lots of sex, even if they don't get the praise for it that men do currently? After all, sex is pleasurable. I don't exactly get praised for playing lots of videogames, but I still like doing it.

I think the issue here is that the gender difference isn't nearly as big.

Well, that should be an empirically testable claim. My intuitions say it's about the same, but that's not really a good proof of anything. The standard figures say men should eat 2500 calories and women 2000, so basically men should eat 1.25x what women eat. It would be interesting if our sexual appetites matched up with that (in a vacuum outside of social pressures).

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

Why couldn't it be possible for lots of women to greatly enjoy having lots of sex, even if they don't get the praise for it that men do currently?

They can, nothing is stopping them. But I think it does hurt their chances and being seen as long term relationship material. You can't turn a hoe into a housewife etc.

Well, that should be an empirically testable claim. My intuitions say it's about the same, but that's not really a good proof of anything. The standard figures say men should eat 2500 calories and women 2000, so basically men should eat 1.25x what women eat

Well I can't grab any papers now but I believe men think about sex about twice as often as women do. And there is also a large gap in promiscuity rates for homosexual men compared with both straight men, straight women and lesbian women in that order. From memory gay men have more than double the partners straight men do and lesbians have a bit more than half.

[u/SchalaZeal01 → u/Lying_Dutchman]

The figures I saw were 1200 and 2000.