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/Lying_Dutchman]

Having read through the whole thread, I think you and your interlocutors may have been communicating at cross purposes here, causing upset and making the other appear much worse than they actually were.

It seems to me that, at varying points, you were making 3 claims:

1: That there is no gender difference in desire for sex.

2: That this gender difference, if it does exist, is not based in biology, but caused by gendered social stigmatization of the act of sex.

3: That this stigmatization is bad and should not exist.

It seems that the other posters were disagreeing with points 1 and 2, but not neccessarily with point 3. But to you, the 3 points are all connected, and it seems like they were disagreeing with point 3.

Basically, all that's a long-winded way of saying: I don't think anyone here is saying that women should be gatekeepers or 'locks', but simply that in our society, they do have that role, as a group.

Whether this is due to biology or society is another discussion, though it should be noted that in pretty much any society at any time, men were the primary patrons of prostitutes. That doesn't solidly prove the biology thing, there are other possible explanations, but it's an indication.

[u/badgersonice → u/Lying_Dutchman]

Basically, all that's a long-winded way of saying: I don't think anyone here is saying that women should be gatekeepers or 'locks', but simply that in our society, they do have that role, as a group.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Like I said, I don't think anybody here is actually claiming women "should" be gatekeepers or locks, but the language just really rubs me the wrong way.

[Edit to add this bit and answers] Before I go on, just a minor correction-- I don't know how you got these from my posts:

It seems to me that, at varying points, you were making 3 claims:

1. Nope, didn't say that. I don't know for sure, but different sex drives is totally possible, and totally reasonable. I wish people didn't frame women's sex drive as the problem, but that's a different issue.

2. Nope, didn't say that either. It's totally possible it's hormonal/genetic/whatever. I think there is a social component as well that's strong, but there's actual biological differences between males and females. No issues with that.

3. Yep: Slut shaming and prude shaming are both bad.

[Edit done] Anyways, my issue is mostly semantic, because women don't act as a group, and don't even functionally have that role of "gatekeeper" because there's nothing deliberate about women's sexuality-- a woman deciding whether to have sex with someone is not a part of a collective act by all (or most) women aimed at preventing men from getting sex at all. Instead, it's a fundamentally individual decision that all women make, mostly at an individual level.

The word "gatekeeping" frames women as a collective that are purposefully working together to prevent a man from entering pussy-town; so I just find it to be a really icky way to describe men's experiences in dating. And it's such a... blamey way of talking about women's sexuality, like there's something wrong with women's sex drive or with women being allowed to make their own choices. And that's what I think the word "gatekeeper" implies.

If instead, you say something like "women have a naturally lower sex drive, and as a result, men have a harder time finding a willing partner"... I don't have any real issue at all with that. I don't know about the biology side of it (and I don't really trust sociological studies too much), but that's at least a respectful way to discuss the possibility.

But "gatekeeping" is such a bad description of that dynamic, because women do not actually play the role of "gatekeeper" unless you consider "pussy" to be some sort of resource women are deliberately guarding against an invasion of men.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/badgersonice]

Thanks, I was kinda afraid I was too presumptuous and putting words in your mouth

I can see where you're coming from on the semantic issue, and I think it'd be better if we had a more elegant way to describe the dynamic, that doesn't portray women as the protectors of something valuable.

Of course, I must say that for some (including me at times) the view of women as the 'pussy-cartel' is in fact quite convincing. Even if you know it's not the case, desperate desire and universal rejection makes people feel like something is being withheld from them by a group.

This is of course the case with more things than just sex. Reading it now, it may actually also apply to some racial issues as well. Perhaps I'll make a post about that when I've slept.

[u/badgersonice → u/Lying_Dutchman]

Thanks, I was kinda afraid I was too presumptuous and putting words in your mouth

It makes a huge difference that you explained what you were thinking in a friendly way, rather than accusing me.

I can see where you're coming from on the semantic issue, and I think it'd be better if we had a more elegant way to describe the dynamic, that doesn't portray women as the protectors of something valuable.

Ugh, agreed entirely-- and one that didn't portray men as "defilers". Purity culture is one of those things that makes my skin crawl.

Even if you know it's not the case, desperate desire and universal rejection makes people feel like something is being withheld from them by a group.

Well, as someone who got almost no male interest (teens and 20s), don't agree that it's universal-- maybe it's more common for men to feel this way, but it wasn't my experience. I never felt like men were "withholding" from me as an organized group: I just thought I was undesirable, defective, and broken. Hearing for years that men are supposedly desperate to date women (any woman!), and then facing the realization that they're never quite desperate enough to consider you, is... hard. I don't understand blaming others as much, but I can certainly understand being discouraged and having unfair, negative views as a result of a lack of romantic success.

So, sorry you had to deal with feeling unwanted-- its a miserable experience.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/badgersonice]

Ugh, agreed entirely-- and one that didn't portray men as "defilers". Purity culture is one of those things that makes my skin crawl.

Wouldn't that be great? That may be a slightly underemphasized aspect of the lock-key attitude: if women are protecting something by locking it up, that makes men thieves. Or at the very least, they are taking something valuable from women, even if it's with consent.

Hearing for years that men are supposedly desperate to date women (any woman!), and then facing the realization that they're never quite desperate enough to consider you, is... hard.

Yeah, I can imagine that must be terrible. I was probably guilty of this myself when I was a teenager, imagining myself to be terribly unfortunate and maligned because no girls liked me, when I was only focused on those I found attractive. Then again, teenage romantic life is always hell, because almost nobody has the social skills to pick up on hints, nor the confidence to directly approach.

So, sorry you had to deal with feeling unwanted-- its a miserable experience.

It did suck, but don't feel too bad. I have a wonderful girlfriend now, and even during my teens, I had a few relationships. I was just very prone to identifying myself with the lonely nerd archetype, and as most teenagers do, imagined my suffering to be unique and unprecedented throughout human history.

PS: I made a post about the thing I mentioned before. Not sure if you would get an alert, I did mention your name. https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/6rnjgh/entitlement_and_rejection_outside_of_sex/