Why the double standard

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
I'm coming to the realization that men are about or more emotional than women, only that men are taught to control their emotions and thus why women appear more emotional; just as women are about or more sexual than men, only that women are taught to control their sexuality and thus why men appear more sexual.

A) Men seem to fall in love faster than women. B) If a man pours out emotion within the first few dates, he's considered by women as an 'emotional slut'; women just don't respect men who show too much emotion, women considering such men 'pathetic'.

On the other hand, women generally have more sexual partners than men, but will generally lie about it if people will find out.

I think the idea of a human double standard being the source of the double standard is nonsense. There are two types of equality: absolute equality and balanced equality. Nature prefers balanced equality, otherwise known as polarity. The social double standard is rooted out of Nature.

I find there is no inherent difference in desires between a 'slut' and a 'good girl'. They both want the same thing the same way, only one tends to act on it and the other to a lesser extent. Therefore, it's rather pointless to label women sluts, except to remind oneself that she's a sexual being.

A 'good girl' is still a 'good girl' if she sleeps on the first night, a 'slut' is still a 'slut' if she waits two months.

There was one time long ago, and for two months or so, where I had just crossed over from the nonsexual realm over to the sexual realm. Being still in the nonsexual mindset, and suddenly I'd find women acting all sexual around me, I'd say to myself "My god what sluts women have become!" Conflict between self-image and reality. I stopped labeling when I realized that their desires were no different than mine and were actually rather good signs, showing interest. They were just female equivalents of me, so I realized I was only damning myself by labeling women sluts, and thus stopped.
 

Sexy_Malibu

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
5
Location
NY
Originally posted by MR_PERFECT
Another thing I've noticed about women that sleep around vs. women in steady LTR. Women that sleep around, from what I've experienced, really take good care of their skin from head to toe. On the hand, they usually aren't as good in bed as the LTR women.
That's interesting. Why do you think that is?

I don't know if it's necessarily true that all women who "sleep around" aren't as good in bed as the LTR women. It might be because when you're in a LTR you learn exactly what your partner likes, you get used to each other, etc... I mean my best sex EVER was in a LTR, (but that's not saying the other sex wasn't damn good too)...

I find that ONS sex is a toss up, it can go either way, but if you have a recurring booty call or something like that, then the sex can be just as good as in a LTR... but you can still be sleeping around.
 

myfriendblu

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Sexy_Malibu

I find that ONS sex is a toss up, it can go either way, but if you have a recurring booty call or something like that, then the sex can be just as good as in a LTR... but you can still be sleeping around.
Definitely agreed there. Each girls sexual ability is often drastically different from girl to girl. As far as BOOTY CALLS go, they have to be at least half way ok for me to go out of way at like 1 or 2 am at night on my way home from god - knows - where, easpecially if I have had a few in me(not worth the risk driving unless there good)

As far as how high or low maintenance, or heck, looks often go, i find that self esteem has A LOT to do with it. In general, the lower the self esteem of a girl, the better looking she will be. The higher her self esteem, the more, say average or "Homely' she will look.
 

bugsquish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
569
Reaction score
13
Age
45
Location
UK
Deep Dish, you got me thinking about our evolution. Here's a theory for ya.

I don't think Man the Hunter had a great need for being emotional in the sense you describe. He needed to be competitive however, hence jealousy, hence wanting to keep a woman to himself. All that mattered was his physical strength, skill and ego to attain and keep the woman.

I'm sure in such barbaric times "his" woman was treated to similar retribution as intrusive males if she strayed from him. At the same time, if HE wanted to go screw another cavewoman, then what the hell was "his" woman gonna do about it? Nothing because they all operated on a primitive, animal and largely non-communicative basis.

As society developed obviously the violence of the whole relationship setup disintegrated. Instead mankind integrated this ancient attitude into cultural beliefs. Look at the Mormons.

Comments?
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
I don't know about that. I simply don't know. Have that theory if you want, though.

I'm one of the belief that human nature does not evolve. It's not like we're on Human Nature version 10.0. Nature is simply how things are, how things have been, and how things will always be. There are some, like the musician Jewel Kilcher, who wrongly believe that "what we call human nature is in actuality human habit". Despite milennias of habit indocrination attempts of elder generations on the young, humans nature has not changed one bit.

At any rate, in nature, wherever you are strong you will be vulnerable in the opposite. Ying-Yang. Polarity.
 
Top