For men, the ability to get a sexual encounter is rated as an achievement because they have managed to seduce a woman, which amounts to being accepted by her as worthy. Other men envy the male who has that credibility. For women it is a question more of selection. If she selects "too many" men then she loses her value both in the eyes of men and women. You say that you don't like being called a slut and that is certainly not a nice thing to be called. But it depends on social values and behaviour whether you will be labeled a slut. The fact is that some women can be called sluts. But where is the line drawn? I think most people have a pretty good idea and I think our idea of the definition is mostly fair.

I think that men should sometimes give greater consideration to whether they are acting like sluts, but the issue does not seem to come up as often. I don't know whether you are still at school or in the workforce but school is definitely a place where this issue is pretty intense. Most males never get a chance to have sex, from my observations, while a certain small number seem to have "success". The same seems to be true of the girls, but for them the issues and morality are colored differently. There is not the same emphasis on promiscuity as a "successful" activity although I think subliminally this must nevertheless be a feature.

Some girls are extremely 'popular' and can have all the sex they want. However if they give in to the desire, and the attention that this power provides there is a danger that their status can dive. Form being adored and desired, because she is beautiful and sexy, she may give the impression that she is "cheap", which starts to make males think that she is no longer so unobtainable and they become arrogant and disdainful about her. Many males then no longer think about how unobtainable and beautiful she is but more about trying it on with her.

I think the posted article is right on the money in terms social and economic misnomers among younger feminists as well as people in general who are just looking to pick a fight. As long as we have these underlining battles and personal attacks dominating our conversations, we are always going to be left ignorant and running in circles of the real issues at hand. I don't think I have seen one episode of "Politically Incorrect" in which sides were not eventually taken between males and females, as well as black and white, rich and poor. This creates a personal battle of backing up ones own sex, race, or class and it consequently blurs the discussion at hand.

Skip to next archive (January 00)