I got the idea for this thread from some of the
comments made by posters on the previous thread
of mrs pierno. I thought it best not to de-rail hers - hence
I decided to start my own on the topic of 'Double Standard.'

I'd like your comments after you read the following
website:

http://www.jou.ufl.edu/sji/1999/opinion_03.htm

Hopefully we can have an interesting discussion.

I have always found the double standard here to be abhorrent. BUT..... I still find myself thinking less of girls who would be classed as easy or "sluts". I wonder if it is a hard wired biological thing. Men find "pure" girls more attractive while women find more "wordly, experienced" men attractive.

It is a strange quandary and Im not sure we can change it no matter how hard we try. Maybe in the future if we get rid of the weird and unnatural religious attitudes to sex that have prevailed in the past. Im not sure. I also worry about debauchery and where that leads.

One thing not noted in the article is the fact that the guy in question was probably lying and a good chance he was still a virgin. Both sexes lie when it comes to sex. Men say they have had more. women say they have had less.

I am also not sure how representative that article is. From what I see young people today are in general far more laid back about sex than earlier generations and it is as much females as it is males. I am sure they can use these prejudices (and others) when it suits them to bully and harass their peers. Especially the girls. Nothing more capable of spite than a teenage girl.

Im glad im too old for all that s%^t. :)

It's a fraction disappointing your article only laid out accusations and left out reasoning.

I'd like to pre-empt my comments stating I'm no social scientist and I definitely agree with the double standard suggestion.

BUT.

I think you'll find that double standard goes right back to when we were more tribal than we are are now and the Alpha Male was a dominating force in the survival of the tribe itself. Men were measured on their skills as hunters, warriors, and those that succeeded above the others were given the pick of the women to breed with.

I think that traditionally the nurturing parent concept lasted up till the kid could walk then the male either was beaten by another Alpha Male or needed to breed with others for the benefit of the tribe's survival.

I think you'll find the plight of women being a product of similar factors.

The attitudes today are just a clash of the hangover from those ideals and needs with the modern day demand that EVERYONE, "weak, or strong" has a right to breed and dominate their own little slice of the planet. We don't win those rights any more, they're demanded.

We're not that far out from being a tribe and many cultures still run that way while coexisting with this modern culture.

It's like waves hitting the beach. The beach being our ingrained tribal ways and the water being change.

IT'll happen. But it'll take time.

Welcome to the wonderful world of human secularism where morals are almost non existent. I suppose that is why so many turn to environmentalism as it gives some sort of an outward morality once the inward morality is destroyed.

Personally, I think you need to go right back, to when humans were little more than clever monkeys. Our social structures and attitudes now are a reflection of the genetic imperatives of those times, it's innate.
The double standards we see now are the result of attempting to build a group that is far larger then Nature ever intended. We have not yet outlived those genes, they haunt us all. In Survival of the Species terms, it all actually makes sense, but we as a species have moved on. I agree about the youth of today, though the underlying attitudes are still there too.
There are many double-standards around us, just look to the court system, women get far less custodial sentences, and lesser ones when they do, and they only have to claim some sort of masculine oppression to get the sympathy of the court, without any discernible need to prove it. Any male brought before the court on a sexual charge is required to prove his innocence, no matter what the Law says, a females word is often enough for conviction, and even if he escapes that, the mud sticks, as we all know. I was a single father of three, with one daughter, and was offended many times by parents, teachers, and many others, digging around trying to discover if I was molesting her! Right up to direct questioning! The assumption appeared to be that I MUST be a weirdo, just because I was raising them alone! I found it near impossible to secure work, for that reason, yet single-mums were considered reliable employees, for the very same reason! The same applied to credit-providers, Gov' depts, and most people.
I also suspect that a lot of societies ills are a direct result of us raising kids in a way that conflicts with those same genetic imperatives, it sets up a very basic distortion in their make-up, an unconscious sense of "wrongness", and this doesn't provide a good foundation for their personalities, or lives. Again, careful education can surmount this, but, honestly, how many get that?

Foxy, if you are interested in all this stuff, it would pay to
read up a bit on evolutionary psychology/biology, for its been
analysed to the max and there are good reasons for the way things
are, all tied up in our genes and our past.

In fact, alot of this stuff applies to various species that pairbond,
not just humans.

In evolutionary terms, its in a males interest to spread his genes
as far and wide as possible, due to his relaively small investment
of a mere ejaculation. Even if he lies, is deceptive etc, its still
in his evolutionary interest, so his genes spread further.

Given that the female gives birth to limited offspring, its in her
evolutionary interest to pick the best genes available. That might
even include a quicky on the side, to spread her genetic risk,
as long as she has a partner which provides the resources to feed
those offspring.

IIRC, all this is referred to as the madonna/whore dichotomy.
ie. Men will want to sleep with any willing females, but select
one to marry, which hasn't screwed around, as the chances of
the offspring then being theirs, is much much higher.

Yes, a guy who screws around is held in high regard, for that takes
skill, not all are good at it. Much the same as a girl is held
in high regard if she marries a rich guy, ie. one with lots of
resources, again that takes skill and good looks.

But to understand all this you need to step back from what Foxy
thinks about her own situation. You are just one single female, so
hardly statisically significant. You have to step back and see how
men and women in stereotypical fashion behave, beyond your own
personal situation.

This is turning into an interesting discussion
as I had hoped it would be.

Thanks to you all for your inputs thus far.

I apologise that I only gave the one website
in my opening post - and that it was one-sided.
My aim was to get the ball rolling on the topic.

However, the following website I hope, will balance
things out a bit:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1375083

Over the centuries, women have submitted to extraordinary
physical constraints demanded by men, from thirteenth-century
chastity belts, designed to keep women faithful while
their husbands were away, to early twentieth-century footbinding
in China, where men admired dainty female feet. To the
late nineteenth century rigid corsets that produced the wasplike
waist that men expected in that era.

Today, the emphasis is on body-shape, youth, and breasts...

Compared to women, men have three times the suicide rate,
three times the rate for severe mental disorders, and six
times the alcoholism rate. Men commit most serious crimes,
and constitute the largest number of prison inmates. They're
also far more likely to suffer from stress-related diseases
like ulcers, hypertension and asthma. They also die earlier.

As for sexual experiences - men and women are exploring a
wider variety of possibilities. More options are becoming
open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Another little datum: There were extensive studies done in the UK, and a smaller one in America, genetically testing the parentage of new-borns. In all the studies it was found that in over a third of cases the father was NOT the one on the birth-certificate, despite the marital/relationship situation of the mother. ALL these studies were halted as soon as the evidence began to surface, as an "infringement of a woman's right to privacy" ! How about a man's right to know if he's the father or not? How about the child's right to know their parentage?
How about the TRUTH?
Why exactly do "women's rights" over-rule anyone else's? Try getting your child tested, you can't without the mother's permission, hardly likely if she's been "playing away". Why is this so? Considering the costs, financial and emotional, associated with child-rearing, I feel it should be done to ALL children at birth, this would vastly simplify many problems, and eliminate some, the only problem I see it causing is if the woman has been naughty, and that's on her own head, she should be willing to "own" her behaviour, just as women demand that we men do, goose and gander situation methinks.

Scientists argue that our biological or evolutionary instincts mean men are apt to want to spread their "seed" around,particularly to younger women because they are more likely to fall pregnant. Women by the same token as "natural mothers" tend to remain faithful because of the importance of the family unit and caring for their children. It was also vital that the father knew he was the actual father of any child.

I would suggest these evolutionary factors may still play a part of who we are today. This does not mean that all men are unfaithful or that all women are faithful.

Women cheating has always been frowned on because of the difficulty in ascertaining the father of any children. This is probably why women who sleep around get labelled as "sluts" while men have the more complimentary label of "stud".

Not all gender differences are due to inequality sometimes there were very valid cultural reasons. I read somewhere the reason that women lost the Miss and became Mrs was because it was men that made the first move and one had to distinguish between the available and non-available women.

There are double standards on both sides of the great gender divide in law, sex and work. In the washup, I figure it works out about equal in terms of discriminatory practices although within the domestic violence issue I would argue women are the bigger losers.

It's interesting. The sociologist Ian Robertson
feels that "the double standard of
sexual conduct for men and women is changing
to a certain degree, partly because of the greater
equality of the sexes and also perhaps because
contraception freed many women from the fear of
pregnancy. In sharp contrast to the
situation that existed a few decades ago, today
only a small minority of people (of both sexes) would
worry whether a woman was a virgin at the time of marriage."

However, Robertson concurs that," promiscuous behaviour
in a woman is still more
likely to attract a stigma then similar behaviour in a man.
Although, a strong sexual appetite in a woman is no longer
likely to be seen as a psychological disorder - 'nymphomania.'"

Robertson notes that, "One interesting effect of the changing
relationships of the sexes is that the responsibility for a
successful sexual encounter has largely shifted from the female
to the male partner."

In the past the sexual problem used to be female "frigidity.'
The inability of a woman to achieve orgasm or even to enjoy
sex. Today, Robertson tells us that "frigidity, has all but
disappeared, instead the same problem is more likely to be
labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male."

Which of course puts pressure on the male.

As Pelican points out - we have "double-standards," with
the great gender divide - in just about everything.
But, with time and the greater equality of the sexes -
perhaps things will change for the better in all areas,
(as we find roles that will be acceptable to both men
and women). As our society becomes more individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation the
restrictions of gender will no longer apply - ( all
possible options will be open and equally acceptable for
both sexes).

Men will be permitted a more gentle and expressive
personality. The image of the aggressive male - today
has less and less appeal. Like the feminine role,
the masculine role today will hopefully become more ambiguous,
more flexible, and more subject to interpretation by
the individual.

That all may well be true Foxy, though I'm dubious, but the basic humanities will remain, "nice" guys will still finish last, women will still sleep with the "bad" guy every time, given a choice, people will still be un-faithful, it's all written in the genes, and until we change THOSE, nothing else will, much. There's only so much education can achieve, e.g.: tell me you know of one single woman who hasn't been drawn to that arrogant, selfish "B" we all know, no matter how wrong she knows it to be? See? Many a man has fallen for that "sweet young thing", against his better instincts, yet despite women making a game of tempting men, it's always our fault if we fall for it? It's in the genes.
"Common-sense is a most un-common sense"

A female friend once told me that a woman will make a long list
of qualities that she seeks in a guy, but in the end she will
run off and follow her feelings. There is some truth in that.

Dear Maximillion and Yabby,

I'm beginning to sound a bit like a broken record.
Why do we have to keep promoting the idea that
men and women can be defined? As I've stated on
mrs pierno's thread - generalisations don't
account for individual experience.

Speaking as a young, happily married woman in a
very satisfying relationship - I don't find that
my husband's (and mine) sexual, personal and
emotional needs, need be opposed. We both have
hearts, souls, and bodies that crave satisfaction.
However there's more to our relationship then just
his erections and penetration. Our intimacy also
involves - good communication, awareness of our mutual
vulnerability, love and respect. We don't feel obligated
to be bound by our "gender roles." We're flexible.

We've come a long way from the constrictions of the past.
I often ask myself -' Did our society really think like
that?' and 'Why did we put up with it?' As we progressed
in our society, things began to change,
we discovered that women do have brains, and that men do
have feelings. We've come a long way - since the times of
the past when we had constrictions.

However, I can see that although we have come a long way,
we've still got far to go.

Foxy, I congratulate you on your successful relationship, long may it last. I agree about moving on from the past, though we should avoid the mistake of defining the beliefs and attitudes of the past in terms of your Ideology today, you can't, it was a totally different world.
Just because we've changed socially, does NOT mean we've got it right YET, the pendulum has swung too far, and is still swinging, as they do.
Life is growth, and we do have a lot of growing to do yet, all of us, but it must be ALL of us, together, and while the discussion is exclusively focused on the failings of men, and is defined in female terms and Ideology, there can be no real success, it is only a delusion. For 50 years men have been forced to confront what it means to be a man, and to change, hugely, to adjust to the new world we have all built, but I feel it is time for women to go through the same process, to "get over it", and accept that men, by and large, have changed, and TOGETHER build a new relationship model, one that allows men to be men, and women to be women, without losing anything of themselves. There cannot be any hope if we don't start that search on an equal footing, one that really accepts that there IS a difference between the genders. I rather like the old Socialist maxim for this,..
"FROM each according to his abilities, TO each according to his needs"
That would seem to be a good start for a relationship, as it recognises differences, and works WITH them, rather than trying to fit all into a single mould. Men are NOT women, and to expect us to think, relate, and communicate LIKE a woman, well, it's just never going to make anyone happy, is it, it is doomed to failure.

Maximillion makes extremely valid points there, Foxy.

Your relationship sounds wonderful, but just remember
that many women out there don't have your intellect
and don't think like you. So you speak for yourself,
not for all women.

For every nasty bloke, there is also a nasty female
out there.

Dear Maximillion and Yabby,

Thank You both for your inputs into
this discussion. I deeply appreciate them.

I agree with the points that you've raised.
And, indeed, men and women would
achieve much more if they admitted that they both
have hearts, souls, and bodies that crave
satisfaction. If they realised that their
sexual, personal and emotional needs, need
not be opposed.

Here's to a better understanding between the
sexes in the future.

Now if I may, I'd just like to add - that you
both sound like very caring, compassionate
men - that any female would be lucky to call
her own.

All The Best.

This discussion strikes a chord with me. When at high school, I remember a (male) friend saying that despite teenage girls stating that they don't go for image in a guy, that's the very first thing they go for. Some instantly being interested by a guy having a cigarette is a common one.

Another thing I observed from my school days, is that the most full-on kids at school (whether they be promiscuous, rebellious etc) generally turn out to be the ones with the biggest problems later on in life.

I reckon it's the balanced, quiet, clean-living ones that generally do the best for themselves in the longer run.

At my HSC class's 20-year reunion, a (nice) girl who was always ditzy and in a girly tizz when at school turned out to be surprisingly down-to-earth once she married and settled down. In comparison, one guy, a very quietly self-confident bronzed and muscled adonis lifesaver and good sprinter who always pulled the girls at school, ended up having serious problems and was only a shadow of his former self 20 years on.

So, for good or ill, one can count on the passage of time to even up old imbalances.

Foxy and all,
Interesting topic. And I too congratulate you on a successful marriage in the absence of crystal ball that works I would add thus far. Not in any malevolent sense but simply reinforce the concept that a marriage isn’t a guarantee of forever happiness, rather an intention and continuing effort by both parties.
My point is that marriage biologically speaking unnecessary for the urge to reproduce the species. Anthropologically speaking permanent bonding has many seconded usages yet that hasn’t always been so.

e.g. the ancient Spartan Culture dictated that a male didn’t marry until he was in his early thirties he was busy being a soldier etc. The mother raised her children until about 7 they were communally raised by a sort of den mother. The boys at 12ish went into the army. After 20 yrs retired and the process began again.

This indicates that the concept that “marriage” being an extension of providing protection for the family as a unit as being some what culturally inclined.

To better understand the cultural nature of male dominated society one needs only look at our nearest cousin the Bonobo in their community both Females and sex as a means of bonding predominate.

Then we need look at some of our earliest cultures specifically those from Asia Minor. In those women were dominant and in an attempt to understand the process of life they deified women as a symbol of fertility and life. In many ways this continued in many cultures until society became expansionist at which case men the protector took prominence and the key was to have a continuous line of accession.
These concepts of women= fertility, men= protection/power were taken up by most religions and “ultimately” Christianity. The power having been established then came the artificial concept sexual shame outside of marriage along with this came the double standards.
As for sex see my post on Mrs P.
I rather support the emotional needs of relationships and reject the irrational emphasis on purity and sex as irrational cultural primitivism.
Tragically the laws are based on this ICP.

Dear examinator,

I read your post to mrs p. and I Congratulate you
for your beautifully expressed sentiments. Your
partner is a lucky woman, is all I can say.

As for the "forever" concept - that's not something
I can even begin to contemplate in my marriage.
Because I don't want to fall into the trap of taking
anything for granted. You know the Aztecs were terrified
each night when the sun set that it would not rise again
the next morning. They were grateful for every dawn.

And so am I. -I'm grateful -
That we managed to find each other, that we get to begin
our days together, share our lives together, respect
each other, support each other, and let the other be.
To discover the joy of living with a lover and a friend.
However, I don't mean to suggest that our marriage is
without its problems. What marriange is?
Life is a journey - and who knows where it may yet lead.

The following words sums it up rather well:

"Come my love and we shall wander,
All of life to see and know,
In the season's lostward rambling,
All things come and all things go.

We shall climb the snowy mountains,
Sail across the rolling sea,
We shall live for one another
I for you and you for me.

We'll go down to green grass meadows,
Where the cold winds never blow,
If we taste the wine of loving,
Only you and I shall know.

Come my love and we shall wander,
Just to see what we can find,
If we only find each other,
Still the journey's worth the time."
(Sorry I can't remember the author).

All The Best.

Examinator, my thoughts re' marriage/fidelity etc:
IMO it really only began to matter anywhere once inheriting things/power/whatever began to be a social norm. Until then the basic tribal structure of human life had not leant itself to the concept of hereditary anything, beyond the tribe/clan that is. Once it DID matter however, men took control, and so women were restricted in whatever way developed in that particular culture. It was a typical male response to a given situation, genetically driven.
Now however we have come full circle, to where women are holding their own politically and socially, as they did in those days of yore. We now have the ability to determine parentage, with 100% accuracy, almost anyway. It would seem the logical next step to use that ability to simplify many aspects of our current gender-tensions. And I include especially evolving some new form of social contract to replace marriage as we know it, whatever you call it then.
Foxy, you lucky girl, I envy you you're situation. I once felt like that, but it didn't last for us, as many don't, so good luck with yours, in my post-apocalyptic wisdom it sure seems to me your on the right track.
As for women's feelings re' me, lol, my daughter seems to like me, I raised her (and her two elder brothers) alone, from 18mths till 18yrs, but I don't want to think what my ex might say!
But it did give me many reasons to think about all this, raising her, lol.

Dear Maximillion,

Thanks. I consider myself lucky as well.
However - as I've learnt and am still learning
it's a 'work in progress,' and still evolving.

As for future relationships between men and women.
Things are changing slowly.
My niece did things in reverse - She
became pregnant first, gave birth, and
then a year later, married her partner.
This would have been scandalous years ago. Now,
nobody thinks twice about it. Well, almost
nobody. The only people
that were upset in the beginning were my niece's
mother (a strong Catholic) and my niece's grandfather,
also a religious man -
who wrote his grandaughter a letter of condemnation.

I actually ended up giving grandad a ring - and
jokingly asked him whether he valued 'motherhood?'
He replied, 'of-course!' Then I asked, in that case,
why did he find it demeaning when the word "unwed,'
was placed in front of it?

Anyway, now that she's married - all's well.
Fingers crossed, it stays that way.

Hi Foxy.

That poem is in fact a song called Wanderlove, written by Mason Williams (yep, he of "Classical Gas" fame) in 1963. You can find a recording by Esther and Abi Ofarim on YouTube...

The male psyche is to adventure and conquor the unconquered. He doesn't want used goods, or to climb where others have climbed. But is why girls look for an experienced achiever. The female psyche is to be accepted and thought of as beautiful that is why some girls who have been mistreated or neglected by their fathers seek multiple male approval from many lovers. Girls will spend five times longer preening themselves that boys. The average shower time for teenage girls in my home is about 20 minutes while boys is four max.

True soul mates are the ones who place their exclusive partner as their number one lover.

Max said:

"There are many double-standards around us, just look to the court system, women get far less custodial sentences, and lesser ones when they do, and they only have to claim some sort of masculine oppression to get the sympathy of the court, without any discernible need to prove it. Any male brought before the court on a sexual charge is required to prove his innocence, no matter what the Law says, a females word is often enough for conviction, and even if he escapes that, the mud sticks, as we all know."

I could not agree more on both, and this is one of the most descriminatory results of Political Correctness from the 1970s onwards as described by "old style" [true] feminist Helen Garner. Her first book "First Stone" has just been repeated [ie the mud sticks as you say] with the Brett Stewart matter.

Her second book "Joe Cinquie" was about your other matter where a brutal murder by a young female law student was judged to be manslaughter

Dear Pericles,

Thanks for the information.

It's been one of my favourite poems.

I'll now be able to enjoy it even more.

Dear Philo,

I actually don't spend that much time
in front of the mirror. I'm more focused on
running every morning and evening.

As for multiple-partners or soul-mates?
I guess it's to each his own...

Foxy,

I'll reply here as I've wasted my limit on the other thread, this thread has taken it over, and I've just read

'"One interesting effect of the changing
relationships of the sexes is that the responsibility for a
successful sexual encounter has largely shifted from the female
to the male partner."'

Too true Foxy:-) That's what I am talking about on the other thread that you are arguing against.

'It's going to take decades to re-educate
these men into understanding that their identity is not
based on erections and penetration. And even longer for
them not to pre-judge females for their lack of performance
in this area.'

I think someone's identity is their own, and they can base it on whatever they like. It's a bit twisted and 1984-like to attempt to 're-educate' these men.

'These men need to find out the reasons why their partners are
not being turned on by them. And not blame it on female
repression. The problem may just lie with poor male performance.'

People are responsible for their own sexual enjoyment, and communicating their needs, and if their needs aren't met doing something about it. Part of being an adult really. There is NO reason a male should have to 'find out' the reasons their partners aren't being turned on.

That's why I reject the 'he didn't do enough housework to turn me on' rubbish. Or the being 'used' for sex. If you're not enjoying it, say so and something can be done. You cant be being 'used' if you own your own enjoyment and you're an adult about it. 'used' is a massive flag to me of someone who just doesn't like sex and/or sees it as a tool for manipulation.

Besides, as I again quote Foxy to Foxy,

'Today, Robertson tells us that "frigidity, has all but
disappeared, instead the same problem is more likely to be
labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male."'

Thankyou Foxy. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Dear Houellebecq,

As I've suspected all along you really are a
sweetie. There I go, flirting again.
My apologies... but in the words of Marlene
Dietrich, "Can't help it ..."

Seriously though. Of course it takes both
partners to be involved for the relationship
to succeed,(Two to tango). That's why if something
isn't working - they need to both find out why.
I apologise if I didn't make that clear in my
previous post. And that's why I made that reference
to good communication being a part and parcel of
real intimacy in any relationship.

Anyway, Thanks for all your inputs to date.
All teasing aside, they are appreciated.

Thank you Foxy. I've heard you flirting with the others too. You little floosy.

I've read a constant theme here lately to do with men and sex. One topic equating a man finding sex outside the relationship with rape, and another equating the concept a woman pleasing her man when she's not much in the mood (or a man feeling his wife ought to try to please him sexually at all in a marriage) as some kind of abusive misogyny.

I find it all hard to relate to. What's so offensive to people about compromise and give and take in relationships with people who might have differing libidos?

I just cant understand people who think there is something morally wrong for a woman to ever give a man any pleasure unless she's getting exactly the same or more enjoyment out of it every time. What kind of non give and take, souless, uncompromising relationships do these people live in. I wonder if people with this attitude get any joy in GIVING pleasure to their partner.

Then we could even throw porn into the mix, and assumedly all the men of the world should be happy if they get married, never have sex, never see a hooker, never look at porn...

I think we've turned full circle from when women were expected to get no pleasure out of sex, to where a man is unreasonable to want a healthy sex life in his marriage at all. Yet on the other hand, if there is no sex, it's because the man should 'perform' better, or else do chores or some other task.

As I said, I prefer women be 'sluts' any day. It makes for a fun filled mutually enjoyable sex life in a relationship. Call me a misogynist, but that's important to me.

Houellebecq, "There is NO reason a male should have to 'find out' the reasons their partners aren't being turned on."

I think if a relationship is going to succeed a male should pay attention to that stuff just as a female who finds their partner finds a lot of other thngs to do should try and find out why the pleasure of their company is not as important to their partner as they would like it to be.

We won't always get the answer and when we do we may not like the answers we get but both need to be proactive and willing to learn.

R0bert

Dear Houellebecq,

Ah, yes, the art of flirting with a carefree heart...
Luverly!

Now back to the topic...

As I wrote in mrs pierno's thread - I wonder how honest
posters are really being when they present their opinions
on OLO?
I too can't believe that some of them are as "hard-nosed,"
as they claim to be. They couldn't be, when it comes right
down to it - especially in relationships, or else they'd
end up frustrated and alone. With no one to blame but
themselves. Sex is such a personal thing anyway. There's
got to be flexibility to make anything a success in life.
But especially when it comes to relationships - we're all
vunerable. Robert nailed it when he pointed out that BOTH
parties need to be pro-active and willing to learn.

Yes, definitely!

Double standards analysed in the first article cited on this thread are the product of an imbalance of power between women and men, as evidenced in the second article with the apparent reversal of such standards when "women are more free to be themselves".

Achieve equity between women and men and double standards disappear.

Moreover, pretending women and men have the same life experience, and are thus subject to an amorphic, same standard, absent negotiation, causes, not resolves, double standards.

Gender roles and stereotypes disadvatageous to a gender are prescribed by a dominant gender.

Like sexual violence, double standards are about power not sex.

A male rewarded for sexual prowess over women is celebrated for achieving power over women.

When women are their own bosses, male opportunities to achieve power over women are obsolete since women are responsible to their own kind, not men.

Equity in governance eliminates both sexual violence and double standards from perceived sexual conquest.

The traditions of socially advanced communities, as with Australia's indigenous peoples, eliminate double standards with the maintenance of women's and men's business.

The social culture introduced into Australia over the past two centuries has struggled to throw off a legacy of male privilege which inhibits the achievement of equity.

Contrast an emphasis on a single male family lineage in introduced communities with extended family parentage in indigenous traditions in which the child, not the natural parents, is the focus of care.

Introduced communities are approaching equity, albeit that there has been "the possibility of no drop, or even of an increase" in violence against women in Australia over the past 30 years [http://2mf.net/news158.htm].

The certainty of constitutional recognition of equity with provision for law enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, eliminates stubborn and intractable double standards.