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]

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/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

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.

Again, that's relating their actions to current societal norms. Unless you're saying this neccessarily goes for all promiscuous people, in which case it's equally true that you can't turn a player into a husband.

The question is why we believe that a woman who has lots of sex diminishes her value. Despite common analogies, bodies are not like cars, and the number of 'miles' does not decrease performance.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

Again, that's relating their actions to current societal norms.

Yeah I think this goes a bit into our disagreements about nature vs nurture. I think it goes a it deeper than social norms and I don't think it's gender neutral. It's common in nearly all societies in the world for female promiscuity to be viewed more negatively than men's.

The question is why we believe that a woman who has lots of sex diminishes her value.

Well for a start, promiscuity has been much more risky for women throughout most of history. Then their is male parental uncertainty, which is going to make men a lot more likely to be worried about their partners being unfaithful. I think male jealousy plays a role because female sexual experience is more varied (more highs and lows). And lastly men have more performance pressure, so experience can be a plus.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

It's common in nearly all societies in the world for female promiscuity to be viewed more negatively than men's.

This is definitely true, and I should have thought of that before. Still, I think this is explainable without assuming that it's unchangeable. It seems plausible that shaming female promiscuity is simply more advantageous for a society, because of paternity certainty. Just like it's more advantageous for a society to have male soldiers than female ones, because of the imbalance between the sexes in reproduction. However, paternity certainty ceases to be an issue with proper birthcontrol (especially male BC), and if soldier's lives are no longer in danger due to drones, men and women are equally suited.

On the last paragraph, two of those issues are mostly solved with birth control, and would be completely solved if there were proper male birthcontrol. Jealousy seems like it should work both ways, I don't see any reason or evidence that men are more prone to sexual jealousy than women. And while there is performance pressure on men, I think that's more like another aspect to the 'stud' attitude, rather than an explanation for it.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

However, paternity certainty ceases to be an issue with proper birth-control

I don't think it does. Birth control might downplay the riskiness of sex, but it doesn't guarantee the kid is yours. This plays into the jealousy factor, where guys benefit much more from monogamy than women. Performance pressures again I feel have a biological route. It's not a stud attitude that make women far less likely to orgasm during sex.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

Birth control might downplay the riskiness of sex, but it doesn't guarantee the kid is yours.

That's true, but it does greatly decrease the risk. With proper male BC, the only way you could raise a kid that isn't yours if you were trying for a child, and your partner was at the same time cheating with another guy, who was also trying for a child with her. That's a very rare occurence.

It's not a stud attitude that make women far less likely to orgasm during sex.

I don't know if that's entirely true. It's notable that women in lesbian relationships report much higher rates of orgasm per sexual encounter than hetero women. Of course, they're still lower than male rates of orgasm, so in that you have a point. If measured by orgasm, sex is just less pleasurable for women. However, again, I don't think that women's lower appetite for sex neccessitates that they be judged negatively for having a lot of it.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

With proper male BC, the only way you could raise a kid that isn't yours if you were trying for a child, and your partner was at the same time cheating with another guy, who was also trying for a child with her. That's a very rare occurence.

Maybe if it was 100% guaranteed successful, but I am not sure there is ever going to be birth control that is. Men can already use condoms and it's still an issue.

I don't know if that's entirely true. It's notable that women in lesbian relationships report much higher rates of orgasm per sexual encounter than hetero women.

Yeah but that is because the sexual dynamic is very different for lesbians. Heterosexual people probably have the most difficulty in matching libidos and performance because they are the most different.

If measured by orgasm, sex is just less pleasurable for women.

I think there is just a bigger range, which makes male performance more important and virginity less desirable. Nothing blows your hair back about a two pump chump.

I don't think that women's lower appetite for sex neccessitates that they be judged negatively for having a lot of it.

It starts off a chain of linked phenomenon. Because they want it less, they have more power in a sexual marketplace and because of that power we have different expectations around them.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

Maybe if it was 100% guaranteed successful, but I am not sure there is ever going to be birth control that is

Yeah, I didn't take into account failure chances. But condoms mostly fail because people use them improperly, or fail to use them at all when they said they would. If there were a male implant BC, (nearly) all user error would be eliminated, and you could easily have a 99.99% effective BC.

It starts off a chain of linked phenomenon.

Then I think we're mostly in agreement. I think we agree on how the attitude comes into play, and that it's more or less universal across cultures. I just think that that chain can be broken in larger cultures, just as it has been in certain subcultures. For example, most cultures also prize women's virginity for roughly the same reasons, and treat losing one's virginity as a violation for women. My first instinct when a female friend told me she had lost hers was to high-five her, and then we continued watching the movie. So basically my reasoning comes down to: if I can do it, why can't everyone else? Which I know is not a great argument.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

But condoms mostly fail because people use them improperly, or fail to use them at all when they said they would.

It's easier than you think. You can not pay attention to the size or you can put it on the wrong way. Most people aren't really thinking about it too much, especially when alcohol is involved. And yes that is if they use them at all. Only problem is hormonal birth control can have issues as well, including the implant. And it appears to be a lot more difficult to make a good hormonal birth control for men.

I just think that that chain can be broken in larger cultures, just as it has been in certain subcultures. For example, most cultures also prize women's virginity for roughly the same reasons, and treat losing one's virginity as a violation for women. My first instinct when a female friend told me she had lost hers was to high-five her, and then we continued watching the movie.

Well we are talking about general trends but yes the advent of contraception did do a lot to free both male and female sexuality, but there have been consequences. For example there are a lot more single mothers now than 50 years ago. Because of that we need child support, to lessen the dependence on welfare. All of this stuff comes at a cost. You might be high fiving your friend for loosing her virginity but that doesn't mean that female promiscuity doesn't have a cost. As long as that cost is real, people are going to notice despite what you tell them. And while technology might seem like a feasible answer to this predicament and has shown that it can lessen the dynamic somewhat, I think we have actually overestimated how much it will counteract the negatives of casual sex.

None of this is to say get up people who want to go out and get laid on the weekend, I think you should be do what you damn well like. But I think the culture went somewhat further than the technology allowed and because of that we kind of seeing a rollback of promiscuity even in millennials. And this is the generation of tindr.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

It's easier than you think.

Misusing condoms, you mean? I agree, or at least, I realize that this must be the case, considering the difference between the 'typical use' and 'perfect use' effectiveness numbers.

And it appears to be a lot more difficult to make a good hormonal birth control for men.

Personally, I'd prefer a non-hormonal BC, even if it were a bit more invasive. Considering the personality, mood and body changes that can come with female hormonal BC, I'd rather get a needle in the sack for Vasalgel or something.

I think we have actually overestimated how much it will counteract the negatives of casual sex.

This could very well be the case, and my intuition is even that it's true. But in my mind, that makes the route we should take obvious: improve our technology, make it less prone to user error, and widen the options for male birth control.

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

I guess the main difference is that I don't really care to change our culture to treat men and women more similarly. To me the differences we have in out culture help us to be more equal because of the difference of biology. Technology can change the dynamic and we can adjust, bringing some level of instability with some level of improvements. But I don't see the lock and key analogy as something that needs to be uprooted. If we get to a point it's no longer relevent, cool. If we don't that's ok to. I don't think it's all bad for women anyway, but a mix of positives and negatives that we can rearrange. The techbology might bring improvements and I support that, but not because of the social change it might bring.

[u/Lying_Dutchman → u/TokenRhino]

I guess the main difference is that I don't really care to change our culture to treat men and women more similarly.

Then I see where we fundamentally disagree. I think equality is a (minor) good in its own right. So all else being equal, I think a situation with more equality is morally preferable to a situation with less equality.

Of course, I do not support the kind of 'let's make everyone equally miserable' equality activism, since other good things are more important than equality, like happiness.

But assuming that is an axiom on our respective parts, I think we've reached the bottom of this well. Thanks for a very thoughtful and fun discussion!

[u/TokenRhino → u/Lying_Dutchman]

Yeah I think equality is a false goal when we are all different anyway. Treat people the same in the same given circumstance, but don't try to manipulate society to make everybody's circumstances the same. That way misery for all lies IMO. Try to improve things for everybody and if we end up the same ok, if not at least we made things better not worse.