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.