Friday, October 30, 2009

Double Standards

z.g. always inspires me to post. He's absolutely right in insisting that certain double standards are de facto standards since they are held up by everyone around us. Famous examples of this dilemma include current social norms such as:
- men being expected to pay for dates (it's not an issue for readers of this bog, I am sure, but Joe Average learns in his teens that any woman will take note if you don't, even is she says it is okay)
- men being expected to buy (expensive) rings for the mere occasion of asking a woman to sign a contract that gives her access to at least half of a man' future income and wealth - and that is assuming he has a good pre-nup in place.
- female sexual predators getting less or no punishment in court
and so forth and so on.

But what about the Stud/Slut discrimination that women whine about?

Let's make it clear. Promiscuous men having a bias against committing to promiscuous women are not committing an ethical crime. In fact, I will argue that, anything but the accepted way of seeing things is wrong. Or, in other words, eliminating the Stud/Slut standard leads to a double standard in moral terms.
[If this seems contradictory to you, keep on reading. By the end of this post you might be surprised about how brain washed you were by society and mainstream feminism]

First let's talk about morals (BTW, have you ever noted how "morals" is always about sex while "ethics" is always about money?):

Double standards are a nasty thing. Imagine two groups of people, one just like the other. It turns out that, as long as there is any way to discern two groups, human beings are prone to treat individuals unequally.
And that is a bad thing, of course (especially if you are part of the group that gets discriminated against). History is full of examples, where one group of people discriminated against another based on arbitrary criteria, and it never had a good outcome.

The idea of political correctness is to rid ourselves of these cognitive biases. And that idea in itself is commendable. When people actually are equal, we should treat them that way.
But trouble starts (and political correctness fails) if they are not.

And women and men are anything but the same (Thank God!). Attempts at pretending that we are have lead to fatal outcomes.
So, based on that, our first premise is that:

1) Humans come in two kinds - and we should cherish that.

And there is another distinction we need to make that digs a little bit deeper into what is morally acceptable behavior and what is not:

2) When investigating a moral standard, it is not the action itself that counts, but its consequences
A common illustrative example is that telling a lie in an empty room is not (as) morally questionable than telling a lie in front of others. Even more drastically, imagine telling a lie to save someone's life, and contrast that to a lie that will lead to the death of an innocent (wo)man.

The two premises above, when combined, reveal something interesting (which explains the Stud/Slut standard, and why it can't be abolished):

The consequences of female promiscuity are different from the consequences of male promiscuity

In the age before contraception and DNA testing, things were clear. A promiscuous man could always walk away, while a promiscuous woman might end up in tragic circumstance. Mothers raised their daughters with that in mind. Things have changed. Not so female brains - the only law that is eternal is the law of nature. Last Minute Resistance is a very real and tangible reminder how a woman's genetic makeup interferes with her (sexual) decision making and behavior. Denial of the fact that women have an instinctive aversion against casual sex is like denying other biological realities such as the need to sleep or eat.

The Stud/Slut double standard help(ed) women circumvent successive loss of self esteem by adding a societal norm to one of their inherent biological preferences.

Now how does that go with the observation that women have become increasingly promiscuous during the past decades. Isn't that due to biological instinct as well (i.e. the female tendency to chase bad boys)?

Well, women's sexual decisions are marked by a strong dichotomy between short and long term mating strategies. The short term strategy is to collect sperm from "Lover" alpha male(s), who have high inherent fitness. The long term strategy is to get a "Provider" male to commit (even though women typically insist that they ultimately want both, in reality their Provider will never be an alpha).

The crux is that the long term strategy of having a man and family used to work under any circumstances, whereas the short term strategy only works in conjunction with having a long term Provider - otherwise she is prone to end up with a baby from a non-relationship material guy. And that left an evolutionary footprint in the female mind.

Yet, the promise of fitness-bursting sperm (genes) from a high status male is so tempting that a female frontal lobe frequently enough gets vetoed by desire. As a result, women's sexual decisions and behavior show a strong emotional (read: situational) component: sex with alphas is simply too hard to resist, no matter the cost. And without the societal foot (slut-branding) on the break, women will follow their crotches, uhm, instincts.

And the result is an increasing number of promiscuous women who are less happy. And, importantly, They do not feel guilty, cheap and dirty because society tells them so, but because the evolutionarily old part of their brain that is interested in fit offspring tells them so. This part of the brain does not know about birth control and feminist ideals. It does know, however, that the short term mating strategy alone is too dangerous to keep up until menopause.

And there is more to the influence of biological differences on morals. Because part of the equation are men. And men have inherent cognitive biases, too. Any behavior that goes against these biological norms will inevitably result in suffering - it is the brain's way of flagging a warning sign to its owner:

For men, women who had many sex partners are less desirable

Ever wondered why men would rather have sex with a virgin than an escort? The reason for this is fact is that men who loved whores got weeded out during evolution because they were at higher risk to get an STD, and women who have (had) many different partners increase a man's paternity uncertainty.

It should be obvious that a woman who sleeps around is at higher risk to bring home another man's child. But there is more to it: past promiscuity (strongly) predicts future promiscuity. And that puts a guy who commits to a promiscuous woman at risk of her cheating on his guts (which again puts him at risk of paternity theft).

 In conclusion, the Stud/Slut standard is not an arbitrary social construct. It is a well grounded distinction based on biological differences between the genders.

Eliminating the Stud/Slut standard creates a new double standard based on the wrong belief that women and men are completely equal and thereby increases the suffering of both, women and men.

Women suffer because as a a moral norm, the Slut/Stud standard helped them to deal with momentary temptation, and thereby prevented females from suffering  the twofold loss in life quality that marks Western women in their thirties today by being:
- unable to attract the guys they got sexually imprinted on
- unable to attract the guys who would satisfy their desire for commitment and family

It is not just women who suffer from dropping the Slut/Stud standard. And ironically it is not the Studs who get hurt. Instead, sexual political correctness lead astray hurts Provider males who are interested in marrying a young, attractive, loyal woman. The mating market value of these men has dropped now that women can get sex from more arousing alpha males without the risk of unwanted pregnancy. And at the same time, these men are facing the dilemma of an ever increasing number of females who are unattractive based on sexual history alone. If you are one of these men, keep reading this blog and explore the links on the side bars.

As long as our society allows women to negate the negative side effects of female promiscuity, men fare best at catering to a woman's short term mating strategy.


  1. It would be interesting to hear your take on polyamory

  2. @Talleyrand - just saw your post. Some minds think alike.

    @Glowing Face Man - polyamory is a complex issue.

    First of all, I am talking generalizations here. And what works for 80% of the normal distribution might not work for all.

    Biologically speaking, though, it is not a good strategy to invest resources in a woman that provides low paternity certainty. Accordingly, men are capable of murder if they find out that their wife sucked up another dude's cum. Given that premise, a man might care less if he's not that heavily invested, and/or on the receiving end of resources.

    Be as it may, I haven't mentioned anything about the "Stud" part in this post for a reason. One of the upcoming posts will be about (amount of) sex and its relation life satisfaction. The stats on the matter reveal some interesting gender differences as well.

  3. Isn't male promiscuity an indicator of more male promiscuity and STDs? So why aren't women turned off by male promiscuity?

  4. @Anonymous:
    Yes, theoretically women should be warry of promiscuous men, too. But obviously, the benefits outweigh the cost. A man attractive enough to drop many panties has an enormous prospect of "fit" offspring. Just how strong that effect is can be seen by the effects of any study on social proof/preselection: men who are wanted by other women always seem more attractive.

    There is an interesting twist to that. Women always want the number one guy, and tend to accept that men's promiscuity. The resulting harems should be rather tight against STD's since that alpaha guy guy is the only node in the sexual network that these women have sex with.

    A whore on the other hand will have sex with many (lesser) men who might frequent other whores....

  5. Am honored.

    Anon, male promiscuity is an indicator of more male promiscuity ans STD's.... for men.

    For women it means he is a man who is able to be promicuous, because he is wanted by women. So, for women male promiscuity is a sign of his attractiveness, and may be even what dictates his attractiveness.

    This is why this standard is so hated by women, especially the promiscuous ones.

    For them the men they slept with were the ones who had the option to be promiscuous, they were the attractive men, so now the women want the same criteria to work for them too, mainly that they are more attractive to men becaus the oh so difficult task, having been able to bed many men. Wow.. That must have taken a lot of effort. She must really be attractive.

    Uhhhm no. She just showed me there is no need to invest into her sexuality.

    See, anon,

    For women, promiscuity is a choice.
    For men, it is a choice, if they have the option.

    So promiscuous man = man with that option

    Less than 10% of the men will ever get close to having that option. I know of so many guys who are living sexless lives, in spite of being a normal dude.No deformation, som wits, intelligence, finance, humor, not fat, not ugly, no sex.

    If women were not running after guys with options, seeing promiscuity a a sign of attractiveness, but were actively acting against the guys who are promiscuous, not choosing them, but choosing the other men who are not prmiscuous, then I would be considering making some adaptations to the standard.

    Alas, they are waiting in que for the guy to take his dick out of the previous woman and into the next one.

  6. 11,

    Am not sure but isn*t it so that for any given STD, more women have it than men, proving the idea of 80/20, 90/10 etc, that most of the female sexuality is dished out to a minority of men?

    If there was an equal distribution in the men getting laid statistic, then we would see similar numbers for given std' in both sexes.

  7. "A man capable of dropping panties... enormous prospect for "fit" genes."

    Agreed. I just think the structure of the post is misleading. The fundamental reason for the different mating stategies between males and females is that females bear an initial cost of pregnancy, thus being more selective. This is why promiscuity is an indicator of fit genes for males and not females. Talking about the consequences of promiscuity is irrelevant. It's not the consequences that matter, but the things it indicates. And I am not convinced STDs have anything to do with it. Were STDs even a problem in the ancesteral era?

  8. females bear an initial cost of pregnancy, thus being more selective. This is why promiscuity is an indicator of fit genes for males and not females.
    You are right - this is an important point I forgot to mention.
    This is what z.g. was getting at in his comment above, too.

    A promiscuous man = man with options
    A selective female = female with options
    and vice versa

    Whether or not it adds or trumps the paternity uncertainty argument above, there is a biological reason why men dislike committing to promiscuous females if given the option.

    This in itself is not sufficient for a moral argument, though.

    Accepting the "is" amounts to the naturalistic fallacy. Morals are concerned with the "ought", and based one that one could argue that despite an evolutionary-based reason for the Stud/Slut standard in men, women suffer from its societal implementation. Accordingly, the argument goes, men just need to overcome their bias (assuming that this is possible).

    This is why I focussed on the consequences - the gold standard of moral reasoning.

    My argument is that both women and (the majority of) men actually suffer more from dropping this standard than from accepting it.

    What I should have emphasized is that it goes both ways - female promiscuity leads to increased unhappiness in the long run in a way that male promiscuity does not. Hence the Stud/Slut standard is morally acceptable over its alternative of faux gender equality..

    Were STDs even a problem in the ancesteral era?
    This is another interesting question. I doubt that all STD's share the fate of HIV and are a byproduct of modern times. In fact, there is good reason to believe that this is not the case since all primates suffer from STD's. Apparently there are references to STD-like symptoms in ancient texts. And while it is hard to find out more about the prehistoric age, the field of mummy-pathology is just starting out.

    Whether or not venereal diseases put on evolutionary pressure on early hominids is mere speculation, of course (the mortality of most STDs is pretty low, but some of them can lead to sterility).

  9. funny thing is, it's rare to find a girl who will admit that girls who try to be like men in this department are more unhappy than otherwise. for all the freedom, they cling to this idea that they can be like men in this regard. i would theorize that as men have long time been involved in more risky, dangerous, violent behaviors and professions, as well as facing combat more often, they have developed an emotional detachment component that women have not developed as succinctly over time. the weak men with no stomach were limited in genetic handing down, by stronger, more willing to be violent males in history. look at the theory that genghis Khan is the genetic forefather of millions of those on earth. one guy - a true alpha.....had that kind of genetic success.

  10. That's somewhat a misreading of the Genghis Khan DNA story.

    Yes Genghis Khan is likely to be the reason that males sharing the lineage marking mutation in a junk non effective region of his male chromosome, became so common in central and eastern Asia. However the mutation probably occurred in his great or great great grandfather. It's a marker for the paternal tribe he was part of in other words most likely. Genghis Khan was relatively non nepotistic in fact. He didn't just award territory to his offspring. The same can't be said of his descendants however, especially those ruling settled agricultural lands.

    It was likely Genghis's distant relatives at the time he was living that are so heavily represented in Asia in other words, not just his own descendants. He brought reproductive success for his group (though it was a related group).


  11. خدمات نقل الاثاث متعددة لدينا حيث يوجد لدينا خبرة في كيفية التعامل مع العملاء في تنفيذ اعمال فلدينا مدينة مكة افضل شركة نقل اثاث بمكة التي تتميز بالدقة في تنفيذ اعمال وتوصيل الاثاث من الباب لاننا نمتلك عمال متميزون في شركة نقل عفش بمكة فعليكم التواصل معنا من اجل الاستفادة من الخدمات التي نقدمها كل هذا ايضا تلاقه في مدينة الدمام من خلال التواصل مع شركة نقل اثاث بالدمام التي تمتلك فنين متميزين في اعمال الفك والتركيب كما لديها اسطول سيارات مجهز يساعدها علي الوصول الي منزلك الجديد فكل شئ يكون جاهز مع شركة نقل عفش بالدمام التي اثبتت انها نقل شركة لديها خبرة كبيرة في مجال نقل الاثاث
    كما يوجد لدينا خبرة في خدمات نقل الاثاث بجدة من خلال
    شركة نقل اثاث بجدة
    شركة نقل عفش بجدة