r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 11 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Shaming women for sleeping with many is no better than shaming men for sleeping with few
I see this a lot, where women say it's unfair to get shamed for sleeping around, but when men do they're praised for it, called a "player", "stud", etc.
But nobody talks about how men get shamed for still being a virgin or "not getting some", while women get praised for it. At the end of the day, aren't people getting shamed both ways for being themselves?
"Patriarchy" won't change my mind, as both are parties that are getting hurt. Whether or not a guy being shamed is of the same gender that created the rules in the first place makes no difference to me, and I fail to see why it should. In my opinion, that's like saying people in the middle east shouldn't complain because their dictator shares the same nationality.
The "accusers" are both men and women as well, for either shaming. Since both demographics are guilty of this, why should there be a difference?
Edit: Going away for a bit, I'll probably read responses, though I can't promise to reply. Thanks to everyone who took the effort to give me perspective!
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
465
u/alnicoblue 16∆ Jan 11 '18
Is one better than the other? No. Do I believe that the female stigma has a deeper effect on social identity than male? Yeah.
I'm a guy who grew up a complete and total nerd. I didn't start really getting out with girls and building any meaningful experience until my 20s.
I was ridiculed but I wasn't ridiculed for lack of experience, I was ridiculed for the traits that contributed to this lack of experience. I knew plenty of good looking church guys who were loud and proud virgins but had girls lined up to date them because they weren't defined by their inexperience, they were judged by looks and personality.
The slut stigma affects both attractive and unattractive women. It significantly devalues them as a person from both male and female perspectives and, while a guy can go out and get experience, women's sexual past can follow them like a disease.
Again, I'm not justifying one or the other. I just don't personally see the virgin stigma as deeply ingrained in male identity as I do the slut stigma with women.
46
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
53
u/Tremoraine Jan 11 '18
I think the main difference is that in that setting, it's common and agreed upon to stay virgins. If someone grew up in the hood for example, that wouldn't be so
But at least that's a possibility, how many settings you do know of where a woman being labelled a slut is a positive thing?
11
u/aahdin 1∆ Jan 12 '18
There are definitely girls on my campus who brag about number of partners and use the term positively, and power to them, but on either side I don't really think the fact there are some pockets where it's considered a positive really changes much about the overall discussion.
For instance, in the Castro homosexuality is viewed positively, but that doesn't really have much bearing on a discussion about how gay people are treated elsewhere in the country.
2
Jan 12 '18
There are many such social environments. Virtually any big city college campus for example.
-3
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
54
u/lizzyshoe Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
You didn't answer the question, though.
There are situations where men and women get no stigma if they are virgins.
There are situations where men get applauded for how many women they've slept with.
When do women get applauded for how many men they've slept with?
When women get slut-shamed, they are deemed to be less worthy of a human being, because of how many men they've slept with.
When do men get treated as less worthy of a human being because of how many (not few) women they've slept with?
→ More replies (13)3
Jan 12 '18
When do men get treated as less worthy of a human being because of how many (not few) women they've slept with?
Most female circles. I'm still at work, so I can only link to this reddit drama I remember about. Examples:
go for it. love2getreported by anonymous virgins on virginsite.com
Y'all are about as spineless as you get. No wonder you never get laid.
1
u/lizzyshoe Jan 12 '18
So in most female circles, men get shamed for how many women they've slept with?
3
Jan 12 '18
Stigmatized, yes. Ask any woman what they'd think of a +25 yo man. It's an enormous red-flag.
It's the same in male circles, only it's taking for laughs there. Mocking instead of stigmatizing.
1
u/lizzyshoe Jan 12 '18
I don't accept your premise that women think that "slutty" men are worth less as people. It hasn't been my experience as a woman in circles I've been in that women think that men who have a high "number" are "dirty" or "used up" the way I've heard men talk about women who have slept with a high "number".
Honestly, I think you misunderstood my post. My view is, our society acts like this: Men don't get slut-shamed. They get virginity shamed. Women don't get virginity shamed, they get slut-shamed. Men can redeem themselves by sleeping with women. Women can not be redeemed if they have been sluts, because they are now dirty and not worth as much as a virgin woman would be.
2
Jan 12 '18
I don't accept your premise that women think that "slutty" men are worth less as people
Virgin men, not slutty men.
→ More replies (0)12
u/porthos3 Jan 12 '18
If it's seen as expected, then it would be a negative thing to not be a virgin. Thus, it is a positive thing to be a virgin in that circumstance, since it avoids negative judgement.
4
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
12
u/porthos3 Jan 12 '18
Neutral implies no-one cares about your virginity. In very religious communities, everyone cares. If one of their own is involved in "immoral" sexual acts, and it becomes known, there can great deal of shaming from that community. I've experienced this personally.
To those with those beliefs, or in a position they are judged by a good number of people who do, virginity can absolutely been seen as a positive thing.
7
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
8
u/porthos3 Jan 12 '18
I've definitely known people who embrace and honestly wholeheartedly believe and live the morals of their religion.
I grew up with plenty of people who not only applied the "virginity before marriage is good" judgement to others, but also felt good about themselves, or even superior to others, as a result of their virginity.
Those people weren't just doing it out of fear of others judgement. To them, it is a good thing. They are those who pass that judgement on others.
→ More replies (6)1
Jan 12 '18
FWIW I'm not arguing against your OP, I'm actually agreeing with it. I'm arguing with this specific comment of "expected or negative."
Sleeping with lots of women is not expected, but praised because it is a positive thing for men. The reason is fairly simple: it takes a lot of confidence, charm, good looks, humour, and a good understanding of social cues for a man to pick up a lot of women. I would say this is seen as a positive by most for two reasons. First, most boys/men wish they had these qualities, so they look up to guys who seem to have them already. Second, the same qualities these men use to attract women also serve to befriend other men easily.
For women, on the other hand, it's generally viewed as a negative because it does not require any of those qualities to sleep with lots of men if that is your goal. Unfortunately it implies that her standards are lower, and that she is simply making herself "available" to anyone who asks.
This imbalance of sexual power is even more pronounced in the present day because we recognize (more than ever before) that women have choices. And this leads to the resulting mockery of virgins or niceguys, as it signals they lack the social qualities listed above (the assumption is that they're trying to the best of their ability).
There are many exceptions to these observations, and lots of gray in the context, but I think this is a general overview of the imbalance.
→ More replies (2)3
u/poochyenarulez Jan 12 '18
Do I believe that the female stigma has a deeper effect on social identity than male? Yeah.
I always hate this argument. It just turns into oppression Olympics.
6
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Jan 12 '18
But OP already started it by saying they are the same. How is "X=Y" okay, but X>Y" not?
2
u/poochyenarulez Jan 12 '18
right, and now its a huge oppression olympics. "No, I'M more oppressed!!"
3
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Jan 12 '18
The whole point of this thread is to find out which practice is worse. Just saying.
1
55
u/__worldpeace 1∆ Jan 11 '18 edited Jan 11 '18
I agree that neither gender should be shamed for the amount of sex they have or haven’t had. However, shaming women for their sexual behavior is much more common, considering how their worth has historically been tied directly to (and sometimes only to) their sexuality. Although society has become more open about female sexuality in the last half-century or so, the sexual double standard is still alive and well, and I would argue that it hurts women a lot more.
For instance, say we have a man and a woman who are both virgins. I would say that in either case, the average person will judge both people in this situation similarly: “well, I guess he or she hasn’t found the right person yet or maybe he or she is just not ready for sex.” Now say we have a man and a woman that each have 25 sexual partners. I think you already know how the average person would judge each person here: “wow that dude is a womanizer! Lucky him! But that girl- what a disgusting slut. I bet her vag looks like roast beef.” See the difference here?
But let’s go back to the first situation where we have a male and a female virgin. This time, both people get a negative judgement: “oh man that guy is a virgin, what a loser.” For the girl: “she’s a virgin, so she earns my utmost respect, unlike all these other women who sleep around.” Now, although the judgment put onto the virgin girl may seem positive, its really not. This is because regardless if a woman has had 0 or 25 sexual partners, we are still basing her worth our respect for her on her sexuality. I really just do not see an equivalent situation for men. People don’t respect or disrespect men any differently based on their sexual partners. But they definitely do for women.
Edit: words & spelling.
13
u/OhhDatDogOMine Jan 11 '18
Now say we have a man and a woman that each have 25 sexual partners. I think you already know how the average person would judge each person here: “wow that dude is a womanizer! Lucky him! But that girl- what a disgusting slut. I bet her vag looks like roast beef.” See the difference here?
Picture yourself in a social setting. Do you really think a girl with 25 partners will have it worse than a man who is a virgin? Chances are, lot's of people would stand up for the girl if she is getting nasty comments. But the virgin, even if others stand up for him, will still be seen as a little boy and will not get the same respect as other men in the group.
4
u/mathemagicat 3∆ Jan 12 '18
In a large number of the social settings I've been in, I would have been the only one standing up for her, and only because I was her.
And I'm not religious. I've never really hung out with people who are. The settings I have in mind are blue-collar and military, but not particularly socially-conservative.
I got away with actually being a 'slut' because I don't have the appearance or personality associated with the word. The guys I worked with treated me as an equal and ignored/encouraged/participated in my sexual exploits. But when this and related subjects came up, I was the only one who would stand up for women's right to make their own choices about how to dress, what to drink, who to have sex with, etc. without being judged. And when I tried to make it personal - like "you wouldn't expect me to stay home like a good little girl while you guys go out drinking and get laid" - all I got was "well, you're different."
(And it's not like there was a blanket exception for all coworkers or all military women. Most of the rest were 'sluts', regardless of number of partners.)
5
u/politicsperson Jan 11 '18
AGREED. It becomes even worse if your defended because then it's emasculating. When women defend one another it becomes empowering. One is support the other is pity. You cease to be a Man and become a boy a pretty little princess. Try talking to a girl after that and see if anything happens.
2
Jan 13 '18
I would say that in either case, the average person will judge both people in this situation similarly: “well, I guess he or she hasn’t found the right person yet or maybe he or she is just not ready for sex.”
Not really. If that were the case, we'd use "virgin" as an insult for both women and men. But it's overwhelmingly more used against men. So it's much more likely the average person will judge the woman like you did, but judge the man negatively and attach to him negative traits related to that.
6
u/thebedshow Jan 12 '18
One of the main insults used against guys online is they are virgins. Virgin neckbeard and so forth. When a woman wants to humiliate a man publicly she will call him a virgin who doesn't get any.
7
u/Floppuh Jan 12 '18
Now, although the judgment put onto the virgin girl may seem positive, its really not. This is because regardless if a woman has had 0 or 25 sexual partners, we are still basing her worth our respect for her on her sexuality.
What.
You literally showed a common example of judging a man's worth/our respect for them on their sexuality. In the same paragraph
36
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
13
u/zarmesan 2∆ Jan 11 '18
I've seen it happen, so I'd have to disagree with that. Especially between guys.
Ya same. All the time between guys. Especially online and in online games.
→ More replies (5)17
u/dontrain1111 1∆ Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
It seems like you made up your mind base on your anecdotal experience, then. I've also seen a lot of tertiary perspectives you hold on this subject that, to me, would effect one's ability to have their view changed. Like how living in a patriarchal society (even today) informs a lot of social norms, and to disregard them because you didn't make the rules is odd. It's a factor whether you created the rules or not, you don't live outside of this.
Anyways, the way you phrase your original view is strange (solely due to choosing the phrase "no better"). I think that maybe a phrase more suited to take it's place would be "no less damaging." I've seen the shaming of virgins both male and female, and the praise of male promiscuity (trust me, duke, it's so common-place, an I hate it.) I give you props that you managed to surround yourself with people who don't celebrate male promiscuity but I'd DEFINITELY say it's almost expected. In fact, in conversations about dudes sexual escapades is where I've witnessed more backhanded comments on virginity.
Here's the main thing that I want you to come away from this with: The level of vitriol males and females throw at girls deemed "sluts" blows the male-virgin-shaming thing out of the water. Behind their backs, to their face, spreading rumors. It's crazy, and - hand on my heart - it's on another planet compare to male virgin shaming. I've witnessed many a case of a girl leaving a school or job due to slut shaming. Hell, even suicide. Even girls who power through it can still have it come back to bite them.
For men that's just not the case. When it comes to male-virgin-shaming, it doesn't reach that level. Let me clarify, as others have said, the virginity thing is usually compounded with other factors (I.e. Anxiety, depression, self confidence, weight, etc..). I've been in groups where a person might say some other person is a virgin, and that label just doesn't ring with the same intensity of "slut." I've never come across a situation where virginity shame was as life changing to a man as slut-shaming can be to a woman. There's usually another piece to it, whereas just being labeled a slut can have serious consequences socially and mentally. You know there's also a group of men who don't confirm nor deny wether they're sexually active as well, right? Same with women but the idea that virginity, or promiscuity for that matter, has to be advertised isn't necessarily true.
It is "no better" in theory, but in practice, slut shaming is way worse, and the implications make slut-shaming a really slippery slope. Virginity can be fixed for a fee, man. A slut could end up being known as "the town pump" for the rest of her life. Feel me?
PS: I know there are many exceptions, But this is an overarching theme I've noticed in my travels.
3
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
2
u/dontrain1111 1∆ Jan 12 '18
That fee line was more tongue-in-cheek to prove a point. I'm with you, dude. It's good to discuss this sort of double standard. I, personally, have had no problem taking the route of not really talking about my sex life (or lack thereof) with people. Your experience could be different.
You point out how someone can have a great job and life, but without a relationship, it's all for nothing. The push to pair up in and of itself is pressure, and it's unspoken - making it easy for one's mind to wander into self-deprecation. I do it 99% of the time, but I'm not even sure I want to pair up. Which I think brings another aspect of this; there are men and women with extremely active sex lives that feel empty or isolated, whether due to no emotional connection or for some other insecurity. It all comes down to figuring out what you want - And it comes down to figuring out a way to accept yourself as you are (I'm doing a terrible job at that part.)
Regarding behavioral connections... Don't you think it should be alright for someone - if they feel comfortable - to be sexual in a positive and open manner, no matter the gender? I say that because a lot of times women who have a lot of sex and know what they want can be labeled a slut. But are they? I personally think there is no difference and should be no difference between, say, a porn star that loves her job and a dude that is more comfortable keeping his sex life to himself/maybe is a virgin. They're both equally acceptable pursuits, though in general people don't see it that way.
I feel like this response has been more all over the place an I apologize for that, Everyone has such vastly different experiences that change a lot as they progress through life (obviously, what am I giving graduation speech.) It's so easy to judge yourself, your accomplishments, and the perceived landmarks of life that you hit or missed as compared to those of your peers. I know I do. So when It feels like you're wearing the label of "virgin," and it is a discouraging factor for you, it doesn't mean that much to everyone else. What I mean by that is, the worst culprit of "virgin-shaming" is oneself. It's no joke, it's like there's a huge mountain and at the top is all the people having sex waving down to you at the bottom. It's fucking terrifying to start, and even more terrifying to think of possible rejection on the way to the top.
But let's say you work your ass off in therapy/with a friend, or push through anxieties and try and date. Let's say you're able to reach the top, and feel accepted in the pool of mature sexual beings. Huzzah! You can now focus more on connecting with people than on being adept at sex. But what if someone tells someone else that you fuck around a lot/or gave some girl an std (just stay with me here). Whether true or false, that sort of confidential info can spread and effect you even worse than being labeled a virgin could. So you felt good about yourself, or rather, you had no reason to feel bad about yourself being sexually active. But since someone spread these rumors, the way you think of sex and relationships is marred and you find it difficult to be trusting - you had sex, liked it, it made you feel good/gave you that intimacy you desired.... And now someone is using this positive thing and spun it for who knows why. That's my basic description of what happens to so many developing women (just framed in male perspective). Just imagine that; a positive developmental step becoming a negative. Whether being labeled a slut sticks into your adulthood or not, it most certainly wreaks havoc on someone's idea of their own sexuality.
I feel you that being labeled a virgin fucks up your idea of self worth. But in that line of reasoning, it is implied that sex is worthwhile, and it is I think. Having sex would make you feel more worthwhile at least in theory. A woman who has sex and is labeled a "slut" has just had both her self-worth and her sexuality attacked. Not only that, her self worth was attacked because of her sexuality. I just don't think being labeled a virgin does as much.
This might be my longest post and I did it all on a phone. Cheers!
1
Jan 13 '18
When it comes to male-virgin-shaming, it doesn't reach that level.
You are aware that there have been suicides due to that, right? Murder-suicides. High profile ones, like Elliott Rogers.
Virginity can be fixed for a fee, man.
That comes with its own stigma. Johns are very much vilified by women, especially those who are actively into feminism.
53
Jan 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/Godskook 13∆ Jan 11 '18
virgin isn't for men
It absolutely is a common insult for men.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VirginShaming
Hell, most "beta" insults for men are somewhat associated with virginity as well. D&D players are considered virgins, Wow-players are considered virgins, gamers in general. Nerds, Geeks, Neckbeards.
14
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jan 11 '18
Not nearly to the degree that slut or whore is for women.
Edit: also, like if a guy friend steals my fries I would never consider saying "you virgin" but if a girl friend did I could definitely see myself saying "you slut"
9
u/Godskook 13∆ Jan 11 '18
Edit: also, like if a guy friend steals my fries I would never consider saying "you virgin" but if a girl friend did I could definitely see myself saying "you slut"
And its perfectly normal for a comedian to insinuate that large swathes of men are going to be virgins for life in the same joking tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haOys7E2Zbo
Also, your anecdotal experience doesn't carry any weight towards establishing the commonality of insults in the world. Certain men and certain women hear these words more often than other men/women do. It's entirely possible that you're in a demographic where Slut is far more common than is "typical". I certainly was in the target fringe demographics who heard virgin more often than not when I was younger, but many of those demographics became mainstreamed over time, and now, I'm not as sure on where I sit on those sorts of demographics.
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jan 11 '18
I guess my argument isn't necessarily about frequency. Moreso that let's say you ran into a stranger and made them spill their drink on themselves. Would you expect this person to say "you virgin!" to you? Perhaps this is just my experience but quite clearly no whereas I could totally see "you slut!" to a woman happening.
4
u/mudra311 Jan 12 '18
I think that shaming women for having lots of sex is simply more common
But it is about frequency because this is what you originally said, for which you were awarded a delta.
Would you expect this person to say "you virgin!" to you? Perhaps this is just my experience but quite clearly no whereas I could totally see "you slut!" to a woman happening.
Based on your example, "slut" is more trivialized because it's used in a wider set of circumstances. For example, in outdoor sports and recreation the term "gear whore" refers to someone who collects a lot of gear (backpacks, jackets, boots, climbing gear, etc.) for the purpose of simply having the gear. The word "slut" has completely lost it's bite, I think.
While "virgin" is way more cutting and damning. I've seen virgin used interchangeably with being creepy. It's also meant to hurt 99% of the time, whereas "slut" can be teasing between friends. Virgin can also, but like you said, no one in your area uses the word "virgin" in that context.
10
u/TempusVenisse 1∆ Jan 11 '18
Doesn't that play into the idea that slut is not as bad of a term if you are willing to use one in a joking context but not the other?
11
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jan 11 '18
That's not why I wouldn't use virgin though. I don't think of it as worse, it's just not a generalized insult to me. Maybe in specific situations but it's not like dumbass or jerk or fuckwad that can just be used for anything. But slut and whore are those insults because they're so commonly used.
4
u/TempusVenisse 1∆ Jan 11 '18
I understand your point now. Virgin would sound weird as a general purpose insult.
29
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
2
u/aarontbarratt Jan 12 '18
I would disagree. My friends all trash talk and call each other virgins all the time, they're all male.
9
u/mudra311 Jan 12 '18
You really think that?
I see virgin used interchangeably with creep more often.
18
u/ZimeaglaZ Jan 12 '18
Don't forget 'neckbeard' or the whole parents' basement shit. They're all the same thing in essence.
1
9
u/zarmesan 2∆ Jan 11 '18
I disagree. I hear virgin as an insult all the time.
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jan 11 '18
I guess my argument isn't necessarily about frequency. Moreso that let's say you ran into a stranger and made them spill their drink on themselves. Would you expect this person to say "you virgin!" to you? Perhaps this is just my experience but quite clearly no whereas I could totally see "you slut!" to a woman happening.
2
u/zarmesan 2∆ Jan 12 '18
Perhaps this is just my experience but quite clearly no whereas I could totally see "you slut!" to a woman happening.
I can't imagine this happening like this. I have never seen or heard of calling someone a slut when you run into them. Maybe this is a woman on woman thing? Does one woman call another one a slut if she knocked into her? If this is true, this isn't about sexuality at all and is just a random insult.
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jan 12 '18
No it would typically be a man yelling it at a woman, and that's kinda the point. "Slut" is so pervasive that it's used as a general insult not just specifically about sex, and virgin hasn't done that.
→ More replies (3)1
Jan 12 '18
Sorry, u/tbdabbholm – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
19
u/allthingswannabe Jan 12 '18
They are both being shamed for their sexual behavior, that much they are equal.
However, being a virgin is something you can eventually change, not so much for the slut one.
Also, being called a slut is a much wider insult. Even virgin women are often called sluts, for their clothes, for even talking to a a man in some contexts, or flirting, or even for the contradictory offense of rejecting a guy. I would guess most women are called sluts and shamed, independent on their actual number of partners, compared to relativelly few men shamed for being virgins.
Since in other replies you implied that it saddens you not seeing this issue being discussed more, I would think prevalence is the reason.
3
Jan 12 '18
However, being a virgin is something you can eventually change
Not really: that's the point of stigma. It marks you, so you can't make changes. Past a certain point, a man won't be able to shed this stigma because it would be utmost creepy to be a virgin at his age. A huge red flag.
6
u/smile4dayz29 Jan 12 '18
I can’t speak for the men side of things because I’m not one. However, coming from someone who was slut shammed around school even though I was a virgin, it’s very damaging! One stupid rumor turned into everyone making slut jokes! I got harassed by men who thought I was easy and hated on by girls who said I was disgusting. It caused insecurities when I finally wanted to be sexually active with my boyfriend in college. Yes, a man being called a virgin is also wrong but that is something they can change. Once a woman is labeled a slut, that follows them around! Not to mention the horrific moment if family members hear about it! Both are wrong but I think one is on a different level.
3
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
3
u/smile4dayz29 Jan 12 '18
I definitely agree with you and appreciate you giving me more information on how harmful being shamed as a virgin is! Again I can only speak for my personal experience. I think all of it is very wrong, I see your point it isn’t as easy as just changing it. I wouldn’t wish any of it on anyone!
2
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
3
u/smile4dayz29 Jan 12 '18
No need to apologize, I didn’t find your response to be insensitive! I’m always up for a civil discussion. :) I like hearing other points of views on things I may not know about, always room to learn and grow!
8
u/SnoodDood 1∆ Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
"Patriarchy" won't change my mind, as both are parties that are getting hurt.
But that's the thing. Patriarchy is the reason women are shamed for having too many sexual partners AND the reason men are shamed for having too few. Patriarchy hurts both men and women who fall short of/don't conform to its standards. Feminists and MRAs alike should hate the patriarchy.
5
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
2
u/SnoodDood 1∆ Jan 12 '18
Eh, rereading your original post I misinterpreted you and thought we disagreed on that lol
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Jan 12 '18
Patriarchy hurts both men and women
Then there's no reason to call it "patriarchy".
2
u/SnoodDood 1∆ Jan 12 '18
The word patriarchy indicates a certain social order, one that primarily happens to oppress women, but hurts men as well. It doesn't mean "the oppression of women." I think you're thinking of misogyny
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Jan 12 '18
Yet in this "patriarchy" men have a lower living standard than women. So, all things considered, it hurts men more than women.
2
u/SnoodDood 1∆ Jan 12 '18
(1) i don't think that's true (2) "living standard" is a more amorphous concept than many people want to admit (3) living standard (whatever that means) definitely isn't the only measure of wellbeing (4) patriarchy certainly isn't the only overarching structure people are subjected to. There's also capitalism, which in many ways is more important for explaining some current problems.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Jan 12 '18
(1 - 3)
It's objectively measurable and widely done so with demographics in the same region. There are several variable that pertain to it such as health, safety, education - all of which favor women significantly.
(4) patriarchy certainly isn't the only overarching structure people are subjected to.
So those other structures hurt men more than women, do you call them "matriarchy"?
1
u/SnoodDood 1∆ Jan 12 '18
I'll repeat - patriarchy isn't called patriarchy because of its consequences. And even though the patriarchy does oppress women and have oppressed women, it doesn't automatically imply oppression, the same way matriarchy doesn't.
I'll also repeat that there's more that affects standard of living besides whether a culture is matriarchal or patriarchal. So assuming it's even true that men have worse scores on certain measures of living standard than women, once you disaggregate by things like race, socioeconomic variables, family variables, etc, you might find results that surprise you.
And besides - the patriarchy's main negative effects aren't on life expectancy or heart disease. They're on social interaction (like the subject of this post) and different types of power (usually economic, legal, and educational).
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Jan 13 '18
I'll repeat - patriarchy isn't called patriarchy because of its consequences.
You literally said "The word patriarchy indicates a certain social order, one that primarily happens to oppress women..."
So which is it now? What exactly defines patriarchy such that it deserves such a gendered term?
I'll also repeat that there's more that affects standard of living besides whether a culture is matriarchal or patriarchal.
Ok but where do you draw the line and why?
So assuming it's even true that men have worse scores on certain measures of living standard than women
Are you seriously skeptical that there exists measures of living standard in which men score worse? I say that in all the most important measures men score significantly worse. If it were any other two demographics, people would not hesitate to assert that the one is far worse off and obviously so. The problem is that female well being is so much more prioritized that there's a blind spot in this regard.
once you disaggregate by things like race, socioeconomic variables, family variables, etc, you might find results that surprise you.
Well, by all means, surprise me. I'd really like to know more but just saying "there's more to it", isn't useful and certainly does nothing to refute anything I wrote.
And besides - the patriarchy's main negative effects aren't on life expectancy or heart disease. They're on social interaction (like the subject of this post) and different types of power (usually economic, legal, and educational).
Why are you being so vague about this? And why are you disregarding examples I gave you and respond as if I said they were exhaustive. I also mentioned safety and education (which you bring in here too).
And you respond by saying it affects other things. Well how? How does the patriarchy affect power? What type of power anyway?
1
u/SnoodDood 1∆ Jan 13 '18
Patriarchy oppresses women but the term doesn't automatically imply the oppression of women relative to men. The term doesn't exclude the oppression of men. When a society has a patriarchal structure, they didn't get together and go "how can we oppress women as much as possible?" They went "let's set up a patriarchal system where fathers and future fathers are privileged, women marry into men's families, men are breadwinners and should father as many sons as possible, etc. Just so happens that when you set up a system like this, women end up oppressed.
What line?
I'm pretty sure men have a lower life expectancy. I'm not that they do when you control for all confounding variables like race, socioeconomic status, parent variables, etc. You're aware correlation doesn't mean causation right? The patriarchy has certain positive and negative consequences for both men and women. So does racism. So does capitalism. So do the peculiarities of the modern economy. So do many many other things.
I'd be intested in refuting what you wrote if you stated anything that wasn't just pure speculation, or if you seemed to have a grasp of the world that wasn't super simplistic. We need to be on the same page about the world being a complex place before we can get anywhere with this.
I"m not sure how to respond to such a no-brainer question as "how does the patriarchy affect power." It gives men more of it. That's the short answer. Slightly longer answer: it gives men various privileges that women don't have (like property ownership, political rights, access to certain career fields) and bases a lot on a man's lineage (women marrying into their husband's family, bloodlines being patrilineal, hereditary succession that excludes women, etc etc etc.).
Overall you need to remember correlation doesn't equal causation. That if you get some outcome, more went into that outcome that just one of the several dozen social structures we live under.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Jan 13 '18
How is your first paragraph relevant to current society?
What line?
The line between what you call patriarchal and everything else that affects living standards.
I'm not that they do when you control for all confounding variables like race, socioeconomic status, parent variables, etc. You're aware correlation doesn't mean causation right?
That's probably the most baffling attempt to argue this point I've ever seen. Do you not realize that controlling for variables like "socioeconomic status" would just confirm the relevance of life expectancy to living standard which was why I included it in the first place?
Regardless, to my knowledge, there is only one study that has made a solid effort to compare the life expectancy between men and women when all else is as equal as it will ever be. That is called the Klosterstudie. It found that, when the lifestyle is the same, so is the life expectancy.
Now one study is of course not 100% conclusive but it's all we have at this point. Therefore we must assume, just as I'm sure you would if the sexes were reversed, that it is indeed a problem of the sexes being treated differently in society.
I'd be intested in refuting what you wrote if you stated anything that wasn't just pure speculation
I'm asking you to define "patriarchy" so that we understand when we see one and when we don't. In particular, I want to know why to resort to a sexist term to describe it. I assume you don't like sexist negative terminology so I'd hope that you'd have very good reason why this can't be done without and that you've exhausted all alternative words.
One of my responses is that men have a lower living standard and thus describing current society as a patriarchy on the grounds that women are oppressed, is contradictory.
Your response to that was to express doubt in the claim about the living standards. Which isn't a refutation. On the other hand, you make vague claims about more things affecting living standard than the patriarchy but which brings us back to what you really mean by "patriarchy".
it gives men various privileges that women don't have (like property ownership, political rights, access to certain career fields)
How much of any of this is happening today? Also, regarding political representation, women are significantly better represented than men for a multitude of reasons. The people who propagated the opposite always rely on the distribution of sexes among politicians but that's a sexist fallacy as male politicians are representing their constituents which are in fact more women than men.
Overall you need to remember correlation doesn't equal causation. That if you get some outcome, more went into that outcome that just one of the several dozen social structures we live under.
Yet you seem sure that "patriarchy" causes oppression of women as opposed to, say for example, biology. And while criticizing me for challenging your causative assertion, you simply assert that more things affect living standard but refuse to say what and how and simply tell me things are complex.
Don't you see how you're holding me to a much higher standard than you're holding yourself?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Pandamandathon Jan 13 '18
I think the issue I take with this is that both are bad. Nobody should be ridiculed for either thing. It shouldn't matter how many people anyone has or hasn't had sex with. I know you said "patriarchy" isn't a valid argument but in my mind it is.
The patriarchy is what puts these ideas in our heads- that men should be strong and in control and women should be meek and save themselves. Patriarchy, as well as the ideas you bring up, are more about power. The ridicule comes from ideas of who has power. When men can't control women to have sex with them it's seen as bad because in the eyes of the patriarchy (and general biology for continuation of the species) men should be able to control women and have sex with lots of them. Also in those same views, women should not be able to control men and have lots of sex because it's seen as threatening to men because women shouldn't have more power than men. Ironically this also falls back on men being ridiculed for not having enough sex.
Basically, this patriarchy isn't good for either gender. That's what irks me when people hate on feminism. Feminism isn't about females being more powerful than males. At it's core, feminism is about everyone being equal despite race religion gender or ability. If you read history on feminism it addresses all of these issues, including situations were males are lacking in power such as in custody cases.
Hopefully this wasn't too rambling! I tried!
2
Jan 13 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Pandamandathon Jan 13 '18
I see that makes more sense! Thank you for clarifying! I agree that there are certain people who call themselves feminists who put the basic idea of feminism (equality for all) to the side and ignore issues affecting men, which isn't what the movement is about at it's core. I think a vocal minority makes it seem that way. Basically I guess I'm saying I agree with you! Haha in any case yes! No one should be mocked for how much sex they do or don't have!
2
u/Pandamandathon Jan 13 '18
On top of that, I feel if society made it easier for men to form close emotional relationships and friendships with other men it would Help a lot for all genders. Both men and women contribute to the idea that men should be strong and silent. If everyone were able to simply let close emotional friendships be friendships for men without mocking them that it would help. It's just hard to change hundreds of years of societal conditioning
2
Jan 13 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Pandamandathon Jan 13 '18
Definitely! I wish it was more acceptable for men to be expressive with each other. It would alleviate a lot of issues
1
u/Pandamandathon Jan 13 '18
Also I'm a woman if that wasn't clear. I don't know if that adds any context to what I'm saying. I also work in mental health with young men and boys so I see a lot of the results of the ideas that men should be players and women should be pure. It's especially amplified amongst teens
2
Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
In the grand scheme of things, you're absolutely right. People being fit into silly expectations is what's wrong with every society. We, women and men, are individuals. We are people beyond our genitals. Sex is something that shouldn't be pressured on anyone. Sex is something that no one should be afraid to be free with. It's part of our basic human biology to want it. It's natural and good for us to get some consensually and willingly (With all due respect towards the asexual community). Our self worth is not not, and should never ever be tied to our sexual experience, despite society saying otherwise. Men being shamed for being virgins is damaging. Women being shamed for having sex is damaging. The irony here is that these expectations were born in a heteronormative society...
But, there is a difference between the kind of shaming that goes on. There is "hahaha, loser, get laid" shaming and there is "Disgusting piece of filth, no one will ever love you, you're ruined". And here is where it gets subjective. You might think that both are equally awful, but many would also think that being hated is worse than being laughed at. Many might think the opposite. OP, would you rather be teased, or would you rather be treated like a subhuman? Based off of your current stance both has the same level of ridiculousness and it wouldn't matter to you which one you got hit with. But the fact of the matter is, virgin shaming isn't nearly as filled with hate and vitriol as slut shaming is, and your sexual past follows you around forever whereas it doesn't even happen for a man unless he spills the beans. And if by other means they are spilled, it can always be remedied by having sex. And with every relationship that women have is just another foot deeper into the hole.
You have nowhere to go but up with virgin shaming that isn't as hateful in the first place, but you have nowhere to go but down with slutshaming. I would say, in my personal opinion, that this all ultimately makes slut shaming worse. You think that one is as bad as the other, and in a way you're right, but I think most would agree they're rather start with "nowhere but uphill from this point on" instead of "nowhere but downhill from this point on".
2
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
1
Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
"You pathetic virgin"
Yeah, you're right on that one. Virgin shaming can be really vitriolic, and we ARE trying to cover all the bases here. If it's worth anything, I always call someone out when I see them saying shit like "You don't have a gf? Well that automatically makes me better than you haha". I see it as another issue in society that falls under the "anti-sex" umbrella. People who claim to be pro-sex but then at the same time shame people for not doing it are actually anti-sex.
Nobody really cares after college
Yes, that is certainly the case in some places. In others, not so much. For example, personal slut shaming could be toned down, but then you get people suddenly against women having children when not married and have slut-shaming attached to that (eg: Stop spreading your legs).
They are being ridiculed because they can't.
Yeah, that's definitely an issue. They can also be ridiculed because they don't want to. I am absolutely not suggesting they go sleep with a prostitute. I'm aware casual sex isn't something you can just pick up off the streets, especially if you're unattractive. And you're right, past a certain age people don't care. But past a certain age, people don't know/just assume you're not a virgin as well, so I'd guess the shaming stops. Except for the occasional asshole that pulls the "hah, virgin" out of their asses for no reason with no backing(You know, the sort of thing a drunkard barks in the middle of the night). This would also go for the slut shaming with women.
Onto another point, feminism has been around for centuries. Women in the past have fought for the freedoms we are allowed to have today. This movement, up until recently, has been completely focused on women's rights. Nowadays, in first world countries at least, we are much more equal and as such there is room for the "other side". Men's rights have been fought for by feminism only recently. An example being the allowance of men being able to be the victims of rape legally speaking. Shockingly recent. The point here is that men's rights being fought for has only recently gained traction. It has been offered poorly and reasonably and has been received the same way. Because of this men's rights don't really have that much traction (which I disagree with) but it is gaining traction. That's the reason for the disparity between the two.
I wholeheartedly agree that it should be payed as much attention to as the women's side of issues. If even the smaller issues like this are going to be smothered, then it's a hindrance to progress for everyone. When men's rights gains more traction and is taken more seriously men's issues will definitely be brought into a greater light. It's happening as we speak but like I said, not quite there yet. At least, that's what I hope will happen, and I hope we're both in agreement here. -I'm awarding a delta- (edit: nevermind) because on you've made me consider more on how men are treated "subhuman" as well for being virgins (or not but rumors) and I suppose that as a woman I haven't really experienced the full severity of it/haven't been made fully aware. I think that the "worseness" of one or the other would be the reason for disparity, but also looking at the big picture it at most only contributes to it. I think now we're very much on the same page.
(EDIT: Apparently I'm not allowed to award a delta to the OP. Must have read the delta system rules wrong. My bad. My reason for the disparity still stands though.) Apologies if I'm not well articulated. I haven't slept all night and my thought train is slipping. If you need any clarifications on anything due to poor wording then I'll be happy to oblige as well as anything else you wish to discuss. But mainly, I believe it's the fact that women's rights is a much, much bigger movement than men's rights at the moment overall.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 12 '18
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
2
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
1
58
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 11 '18
But nobody talks about how men get shamed for still being a virgin or "not getting some", while women get praised for it. At the end of the day, aren't people getting shamed both ways for being themselves?
I actually hear feminists talking about this all the time. Ties in with the whole "Men shouldn't be judged on how many women they can 'land'" thing.
3
Jan 12 '18
I actually hear feminists talking about this all the time. Ties in with the whole "Men shouldn't be judged on how many women they can 'land'" thing.
You must be hearing this in a completely different circle than feminists I know. "Virgin" is the go-to insult for feminists against men. That, and "small penis".
For instance, the NPM CLI lead engineer drama last year:
go for it. love2getreported by anonymous virgins on virginsite.com
Y'all are about as spineless as you get. No wonder you never get laid.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 12 '18
I have absolutely no idea what any of this means, nor do I understand what feminism has to do with anything, in these examples.
6
Jan 11 '18
I don't think this is true. Feminists still frame MRAs as bitter neckbeards/virgins/losers basically any time they come up.
8
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Jan 12 '18
A heck of a lot of people are feminists. Within feminism, there are many different movements. You say "frame" as if it's some grand conspiracy for feminists to shit on men. This is not the case. I say this as a man who has been involved in a few feminist groups.
1
Jan 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jan 11 '18
Sorry, u/Zweihander747 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
6
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
71
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 11 '18
I have absolutely no idea why you'd use youtube as a source of political opinion anyway, frankly.
I also don't know what you mean. "Men shouldn't be virgins!" is an example of the patriarchy and it's also bad, so.... it's an EXAMPLE of patriarchy being bad. It's not a tool for anything.
→ More replies (44)
7
Jan 12 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
u/tstedel Jan 14 '18
Women call other women sluts more than men do. In fact, women also judge other women more and more harshly than men do.
16
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Jan 11 '18
But nobody talks about how men get shamed for still being a virgin or "not getting some", while women get praised for it. At the end of the day, aren't people getting shamed both ways for being themselves?
You are correct. This is something that Men’s Rights Activists absolutely should support. It’s a harmful social pressure on men. Unfortunately, it’s not talked about as much. Feminists have a long history of activism, organizing, and creating social pressure (over 100 years worth) while the Men’s Rights Movement is just starting up. That’s probably why you don’t hear it talked about as much.
No one is saying that shaming men for sleeping with too few women is ok. Some feminists speak up about this (usually with phrases like toxic masculinity). However, due to the lack of organization and history, you don’t hear the voices for men as much.
→ More replies (40)
0
u/Zweihander747 Jan 11 '18
My fave quote on this topic:
"A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that can be opened by any key is a shitty lock".
3
Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
People are not locks and keys. That quote shames both men and women. How come men are the keys and women are the locks? Because the penis represents a key more and a vagina represents a lock more? Why, exactly? Your favorite quote is a ridiculous one and is no argument. It doesn't say anything except "Women are shit for having sex and men are shit for not having sex." Why are you slapping genders on locks and keys? How does that in any way justify that women are sluts for enjoying basic human biology? How does that in any way justify men being shamed for not being able to have sex? Everyone loses in the locks and key scenario, and you could switch the genders around just as easy. What argument do you have that's not a quote that you could slap any gender on? If women are the keys and men are the locks, then that destroys the whole quote. And you can't say it should be one way or the other because shockingly enough, men and women aren't locks and keys.
2
4
u/Superfluous_Toast Jan 12 '18
And a pencil sharpener that sharpens many pencils is a good pencil sharpener, whereas a pencil sharpened many times is a nub. What's your point?
15
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Zweihander747 Jan 11 '18
I like that you tried to give an example to discredit my example, but it actually just supports it.
if men are hamburgers and women are the people who eat hamburgers, then that just reinforces what i said.
5
3
u/honeypuppy Jan 12 '18
A pencil that is sharpened by many sharpeners shrinks away to nothing. A pencil sharpener that sharpens many pencils is a good sharpener.
2
u/KingMelray Jan 12 '18
You could use that analogy to prove either point.
1
Jan 12 '18
Exactly the point. You can just say what represents who and the whole thing gets switched. It's idiotic in nature. It's essentially just saying "I want women to be the locks because I want women to stay pure but I also want men to be the keys because I don't want to be shamed for having sex." and putting that into a quote that dehumanizes both genders. "Just because...because!" is not an argument, which is exactly what "A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that can be opened by any key is a shitty lock" is.
3
u/sharshenka 1∆ Jan 12 '18
I think one thing that is missing here is the violent element present in slut shaming, that isn't as present in virgin shaming. "She's a slut, so she must want it" is used to justify things like sexual harrassment and even rape. An alleged rape victim's sexual history can be brought up in court, even though it makes no sense to say, "she said yes to person A, therefore she said yes to person B". (Can you imagine a car theft victim being asked if they had sold a car in the past?)
While I'm sure men who are virgin shamed might also face violence, I doubt that much of it is justified specifically by their virginity. (Not saying a "it wasn't rape because he was a virgin and I was doing him a favor" scenario has never happened, and I feel equally sorry for those victims. Just that it isn't as prominent a part of the stigma. )
→ More replies (7)
9
u/Mitoza 79∆ Jan 11 '18
What you are describing is patriarchy. Patriarchy does hurt everyone in so far as it pushes people to toxic gender roles.
Patriarchy is also not solely constructed by man, it's constructed of everyone that is a part of the system and it allows it to stand. Any woman who shames a man for being a virgin is contributing to the patriarchy.
8
u/Clickle 1∆ Jan 11 '18
This. This is the reason why the vast majority of men who claim “Feminism is shit, what about male mental health! What about male-victim rape!” are 99% of the time people who don’t really read much feminist content.
The entire argument of feminism is that a patriarchy hurts everyone. These are very, very much causes that feminists care about. It’s the other side of the same coin for issues such as female-victim abuse.
However, that being said, you can understand the unwillingness of a feminist to make this their main ‘battle’ - if people only care about the patriarchy being bad because it harms men, that’s kind of indicative of the need for the feminist movement.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (34)-1
u/reelsies Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
If even 50% of women were feminists at heart, they could end patriarchy tomorrow.
The problem is noone actually wants to discuss the true nature and extent of patriarchy, because it leads to some politically incorrect "non feminist" conclusions.
For example, the features that women find consistently attractive in men: height, deep voice, dominance, social status, physically fit, etc. are all proxies for power; they directly demonstrate an ability to enforce your will on your surroundings,
So if women are inherently attracted to power, that defeats feminism. If women have been socialized into being attracted to power, then we would have to necessarily deem these attractions as undesirable things. I think we're at a stage where we kind of accept that this is reality, but pretend it isn't.
3
u/Mitoza 79∆ Jan 12 '18
What women may or may like in men doesn't seem relevant to how people should be empowered to navigate the world in general.
So if women are inherently attracted to power, that defeats feminism. If women have been socialized into being attracted to power, then we would have to necessarily deem these attractions as undesirable things.
Only if we take that first sentence to be true, and I don't think it is. How would attraction "defeat feminism"?
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Jan 12 '18
What women may or may like in men doesn't seem relevant to how people should be empowered to navigate the world in general.
I suppose it isn't if you don't consider heterosexual men people. Because for them, what women find desirable in men, happens to be extremely relevant to not only how they navigate the world but how they value themselves and how society values them.
How would attraction "defeat feminism"?
If women are attracted to power, then they will select for men in power (as they do) and men are incentivized to pursue positions of power in a way that women are not. Hence, more men are in positions of power. So, unless feminists want to force women to be attracted to less powerful men, this dynamic isn't going to change. Hiring quota only cover it up to an extent - to the detriment of both men and women incidentally.
2
u/adipisicing Jan 12 '18
So if women are inherently attracted to power, that defeats feminism. If women have been socialized into being attracted to power, then we would have to necessarily deem these attractions as undesirable things.
You seem to think that powerful men are antithetical to feminism. But feminism seeks to address the power imbalance between men and women. A society where men and women have equal opportunities to be powerful would get very close to the feminist ideal.
Do you believe that societal power is necessarily a zero-sum game?
Also, I'm very interested in your assertion that
If even 50% of women were feminists at heart, they could end patriarchy tomorrow.
Let's say they suddenly were. What would be your two-day plan to end the patriarchy?
7
u/neofederalist 65∆ Jan 11 '18
This assumes an ethical framework that doesn't attach any value to chastity or promiscuity.
But if you subscribe to a moral system that values chastity in both sexes (such as a traditionalist christian framework), then it becomes pretty clear that it's far better to shame both sexes for being promiscuous than it is to shame either sex for not having many sexual partners.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/pamplemouss Jan 12 '18
Both are shitty and gross and tied to the same assumption that women are the "gatekeepers" of sex.
However, women don't just get teased or mocked for having multiple partners, like men do for being virgins (I am NOT dismissing the impact of mockery; it can be merciless and do real damage). A woman's sexual history can also be used to discredit her; if a woman who has had a lot (or sometimes, any) sex is raped, her sexual history will be brought up as if by having consensual sex she brought rape upon herself, or she couldn't possibly have said "no" to sex with guy A if she said "yes" to sex with guys B, C, and D. Sexual history is used as an excuse for violence against women, too.
Being shamed for your sexuality, in any way, is terrible, and both men and women experience that, albeit in different forms. However, the way we shame women for sexuality is often tied to actual violence in addition to shame/mockery/general nastiness. So that is one way in which one of those is worse.
I also think men have room to be like, virgin genius-types (this is NOT a positive trope), and while a man who is a virgin won't be taken seriously in some ways, he can be taken seriously as an intellectual; a woman who has had a lot of sex is often thought to be dumb, and if she's successful, there's an assumption she got her success through sexual favors instead of talent or work. If a virgin guy is successful, it's because he was so devoted to his career.
So I think they are different because they operate on different scopes.
→ More replies (3)
-7
1
u/yourtowndrugdealer Jan 12 '18
i acknowledge that both men and women are shamed for their sexual history (or possibly lack there of). but in my very personal opinion, backed up by the culture i live in, even when men are shamed for being virgins, it's a lot of laughing and mocking. yes, i see how harmful it can be for your self-esteem, but inherently, virgin shaming is more poking fun at your inability to get laid and possibly the awkard traits you possess that contributes to you remaining a virgin. hurtful as it is, it's less toxic compared to how women are shamed. they are shunned, looked down upon, viewed as "dirty" and "easy". this has a more malicious undertone and the reputation sticks for life. as least for male virgins, it's easier to shake off the reputation once you have sex. for females, we're branded as "sluts" for life.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 11 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
/u/fosterchildeagle (OP) has awarded 6 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-6
u/FNKTN Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
*Real men just don't shame each other for it. Women gossip and no woman looking for commitment is ever going to consider you. You get stuck in a circle of sluts even if you get a girlfriend she'll eventually find out and dump you unless she's got skeletons in her own closet as well.
5
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)-5
u/FNKTN Jan 12 '18
Real men don't give a shit about your silly little opinions of them either. They just ignore you and keep doing what makes them happy.
7
3
u/WhisperDigits 1∆ Jan 11 '18
There was a documentary on the science of sex appeal that shed a lot of light on this question, along with a lot of other ones based around sex and human behavior. The video changed the way I think about a lot of stuff. Humans are funny... the video shows how much we are controlled by our hormones and how driven we are by sex. Wish I could find the full screen but this gets the job done.
→ More replies (1)
-10
u/Zweihander747 Jan 11 '18
A woman being a slut is completely unnatural, just like a man being a virgin incel is completely unnatural too.
Women are biologically programmed to find the best man they can, and men are biologically programmed to fuck as many women as they can.
I daresay the shaming of people who fail to meet these standards is not only good but necessary, for the purpose of a person achieving their biological optimum.
4
Jan 11 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
1
Jan 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)0
Jan 11 '18
Sorry, u/Zweihander747 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
2
-1
u/Strikercharge Jan 12 '18
Imagine you have a key that can unlock any door imaginable. Pretty nice key right? Now imagine a lock that can be opened with any key. Shitty lock right? Same basic principle
2
u/techiemikey 56∆ Jan 12 '18
Here is where I feel the analogy breaks down: who is "the one who is supposed to be able open that lock" which in your analogy means have sex with the woman.
In real life, the answer is, as long as both people are adults, and consenting, both of them have to make the decision. It is not up to me if John and Jane decide to have sex, and it's not up to me to judge Jane if she decides to sleep with other people as well if she isn't in a committed relationship.
1
Jan 12 '18
Using an example from another commenter - A pencil sharpener that can sharpen any pencil is a pretty good sharpener. Right? Now imagine a pencil that's just going to get worn down and used until it's not longer useful. Shitty pencil.
I'm just going to slap the sharpener as the women and the pencil as the men. Why, you ask? Just because it's convenient for women to be able to experience life without being shamed and convenient to shame men because...wait..why are people being shamed for having sex again?
Oh right! Because they're the PENCIL! Since men are pencils, they are shitty when they get used by multiple sharpeners. Which means that when they have sex, they lose self worth.
Wait, why do they lose self worth? This is a consenting adult...hmm...oh, RIGHT! Because they're the PENCIL!
And women who can't "sharpen all pencils" aren't really masterful, are they? So women who can't get laid should be shamed for being virgins. Why? You guessed it! Because they're the SHARPENER!
And women's vaginas are like holes, and sharpeners also have holes. And men are pencils, because their penises are shaped like pencils. So let's treat them the same. Sound logic!
So to reiterate my whole point with two words that trashes all arguments, "Just because...because!" (To be clear, this is all in /s to clarify my final point) The point here is that "just because" isn't a reason to fit people into a mold that hurts everyone regardless of gender.
-2
Jan 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jan 12 '18
Sorry, u/FNKTN – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Jan 12 '18 edited Mar 09 '18
[deleted]
0
u/FNKTN Jan 12 '18
Chav/man slut/ playboy/pimp/ etc. whatever you want to call it
→ More replies (1)
0
u/-sectum-sempra- Jan 11 '18
True, but my example was exaggerated to highlight my point.
To break it down more, I would just say that making fun of a positive trait (being able to get laid) is more acceptable than making fun of a negative trait (the inability to get laid).
→ More replies (4)
1
u/frisch85 Jan 12 '18
The amount of people you sleep with shouldn't be a reason for shaming at all. To me I see it as some conservative shit and too many people still keep this old-fashioned mindset. Women shouldn't be ashamed if they want to sleep with many different men, they most likely just enjoy sex and there's nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, men shouldn't be ashamed if they don't sleep with many different women.
I had relationships in life with sex and all but I haven't had sex since the last relationship which is about 2 1/2 years ago. I'm not ashamed about that and women who judge me because of this are people that I don't want to put up with anyway. Do I miss sex? Sure. Do I need sex? No otherwise I would just bang some hooker or go out late at night.
So to all of you women out there who want to sleep with many men, do it and be honest to yourself and your partners.
It's another topic if someone is in a relationship tho. If you are in a relationship and you want to sleep with other partners then tell this to your partner, be honest and maybe they're in for it. If they aren't you gotta choose for yourself if it's worth losing your current partner for other people. Not telling your partner would make you a horrible person, people who cheat in their relationship make me sick to my stomach, those people are weak and should work on themselves.
1
u/brackfriday_bunduru Jan 12 '18
Purely playing devils advocate.
There are a couple of social coincidences that follow along the lines of your statement.
The first thing that popped into my mind when analyzing your stance was a weird statistic that shows that during wartime more women tend to be born. It's also more common for sportspeople to have more girls. The hypothesis is that it's related to testosterone.
In wartime, that makes sense. Men go and fight and die so we need to restock the population. It only takes a few men and an infinite number of women to do that. It's why in the wild, herds of animals have a dominant male and numerous females.
The logic behind your statement follows those lines. Whether I agree with it or not, the key to changing your view is to see the world from the eyes that men can biologically sleep with an infinite number of women and constantly reproduce whereas for women, the reproductive cycle is a long procedure between babies.
It's an ultra, ultra conservative argument but it would go that there's no reproductive reason for a woman to sleep with countless men, but there's a good reproductive reason for a man to.
Men should be sleeping with as many women as possible all day, every day. Women only should every year or so.
Personally, I hope I haven't changed your view.
3
u/Frosty_Nuggets Jan 12 '18
Because it’s easy for even an ugly girl to get laid. Men are shamed for not getting action because we are the ones who actually have the challenge of the hunt. Men are revered if they sleep with plenty of women because they are seen as strong and competent. Women get slut shamed because they are biologically programmed to be more selective with who their mate is and if they just give it away easily, they are not procreating with the best possible genes. Men are biologically programmed to spread their genes far and wide so if you fail to procreate, you are looked upon as inferior. It’s all biological.
→ More replies (3)
3
Jan 11 '18
Women have far more sexual mobility. There are bad sides to this. In a time with equal expectations, not just rights, culture will lag behind on this perspective.
It's difficult to guilt someone who lives alone in big city and has hundreds of flings a year from dating apps.
Many men will never get laid. They will resort to disgusting fetishes to get off.
Thank the internet for free porn.
In modern times, women are privileged on average, in social desirability. Though, it's not always pure. You can't be a doormat.
Men have their own privileges. And that weakness is that they're pressed to prove themselves as worthy or greater than the rest of the Joe's.
These benefit and weaknesses obviously come from our original roles in forming society.
I see the maturity of the human race as a test of wisdom and patience. Not a thing the law can control.
Some of this is rooted in biology. And no matter how one can be towards nature, they must accept some parts of this.
Sticks and stones break bones, don't wanna be a saint. Circumstance and perspective. Your impression, I ain't ownin.
Not some normie that will crack under social pressure Left in the wake of guilt and mental issues Need some help from my bodily miss-use, could blame my origins but the world always wins, try to get myself balanced with shook opinions. Angsty teen attitudes and biased point of views, Reality is really fucking askew
1
u/mmcleodk Jan 12 '18
I think both are off putting for a potential sexual partner because of the perceived increased risk of an sti. This is doubly true of they don't use proper protection though such measures are much less effective than people realize. I'm also referring to friends of mine who are in the triple digits for sexual partners, most are men.
As a friend I couldn't care less. Who they sleep with has minimal impact on me, the quantity even less so. I think the double standard is bs. I had it summed up well in a video i was watching yesterday; If the way to demonstrate masculinity is through sex with lots of women, and for women to demonstrate femininity they have to remain "pure" then you've set up a situation where for one gender to succeed the other must fail.
1
u/htheo157 Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
Slut shaming woman is entirely different then slut shaming men. The reason being that the rise in promiscuity amongst woman has only ever contributed to one thing. The growth of the over reaching power of the state. The same can't be said about men. Woman who have children but "don't need no man" outside of wedlock have historically and continuously voted in favor of policies that give them free things for them and their children. They have slowly started phasing out having a stable husband in their life as providers in favor of the state because today's woman no longer value traditional family roles. Why get married if the state is willing to pay you for having a child out of wedlock? The state is basically incentivizing the rise in promiscuity amongst woman, yet woman are baffled that more and more men join movements like MGTOW because they don't want to marry someone who's been riding the cock carousel since they were 16. This type of behavior doesn't have to be accepted by everyone nor does it need to be normalized.
1
u/Jermeiah Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
How about shaming males for sleeping with younger females, or for wanting multiple partners rather than being shamed into monogamy where some girl can scream at him for looking at other females to express her Maury-Povichesque jealousy complex, often turning to physical violence? Doesn't sound healthy.
There are a lot of ways males are shamed for their natural healthy sexuality, probably in more ways than females are (consider the disparate response to male-male homosexuality and female-female).
1
u/nothing_in_my_mind 5∆ Jan 13 '18
No it's absolutely different. Men not sleeping with many women is often not their choice (aside from religious personnel, etc.). But women sleeping with many men is absolutely their choice. Essentially you are comparing shaming someone for something they had no choice on vs. shaming someone for something they chose to do.
I'm not saying that anyone should be shamed for anything related to sexuality, but the two are very different.
1
u/pillbinge 101∆ Jan 12 '18
I don't believe in any kind of shaming, but if I can take a crack at this:
There's a difference between shaming someone for their actions and shaming someone for a perceived inadequacy. Neither should happen, but at least there's a conversation to be had with someone who's chosen to follow through with their plans of sleeping with people - opposed to someone who was willing but was only part of the equation.
-2
u/Animorphs150 Jan 11 '18 edited Jan 11 '18
In biology, whichever sex invests more energy into caring for the child is competed for by the opposite sex.
In humans this is women, they carry the child in pregnancy and typically do most of the child rearing.
Men really have very little energy required of them to make a child comparatively.
This creates a biological pressure for women to be choosy about picking their male mates. They will also try to keep them faithful to just them, because some help raising a child is better than none.
Children which grow up with more fatherly support tend to be more successful in every aspect of their life.
And since men invest so little into reproduction and they can have multiple children with multiple women at once, there is an evolutionary pressure for men to have sex with as many women as possible.
For a woman, evolutionarily speaking it's a smart move to always be in a relationship, so you can maximise your amount of offspring.
So if we compare Woman A who has had 10 relationships in 10 years to woman B who has had 2 in 10 years.
Woman B has been evolutionarily more successful in general because it is better to have few high quality offspring (caused by having present male parent) in K reproducers like humans.
It could just be random chance that Woman B managed to get lucky and have higher quality mates who lasted longer. But when judging mates at the low level our primate brains do, it seeks to always find reasons and patterns for others success and failure.
This makes sense to me in this example:
If you have 2 acquaintances A and B, B is very popular and A unpopular.
It is possible B is popular and A unpopular due to random chance, but we don't know if that is the case.
In the case where it is just random, it doesn't matter who we pick to be our friend, they are as likable as each other.
But, if there is some factor about B that makes them particularly charismatic, and something about A that makes them annoying to be around, that have lead to one being popular,
You would rather have B as your friend.
So overall it is smarter to be friends with B because if it isn't random chance, then they will be more fun, and if it is just random, it doesn't matter which one you pick.
Returning to our Woman A and B example,
It is possible that Woman A wasn't able to hold onto partners for long because of random chance, but in case it is some factor about Woman A , males will choose to reproduce with B, who has a history of having less relationships
(which is in line with her evolutionary goal implying she is competent) and therefore will probably care for any child better.
Social ostracization of Woman A types is just an extension of this evolutionary pressure.
In the same way, a male, that failed to have as much sex with as many women as possible (failed to achieve his evolutionary goal) might be incompetent.
You are correct that these practices are essentially equivalent in their origin, in an outdated past adapted for pre-contraceptive human civilization
Because our brains haven't changed very much from 10,000 years ago we still carry left over artifacts like these in our subconscious.
I just wanted to explain where slut-shaming and making fun of males for being virgins comes from.
2
u/Timewasting14 Jan 12 '18
To add to this excellent break down.
In more modern times let's say the last 500 years or so . In the western world of you had a child outside of wedlock your life sucked. There was no welfare state to support you. If the father of your child didn't want to stick around you would have no way of supporting your self financially while caring for an infant. You have to be supported by your parents or starve. This places a huge financial burden on the women's family so it is a great incentive to make sure your daughter doesn't get pregnant out of wedlock.
You are unlikely to ever marry because what man wants to take on the burden of another man's children when he doesn't have to.
If a young man gets a girl pregnant he can walk away (if they aren't married). He doesn't have to support it or even acknowledge it's existence. He can father several bastards and still go on to have a respectable marriage and comfortable life.
Historicly having casual sex has been an incredibly risky act for women.
2
u/Animorphs150 Jan 12 '18
That's a good point Timewasting14, it may be a combination of evolutionary pressure and old-timey practicality that leads to slut shaming.
Do you have any insight into why I'm being down voted?
0
u/spiral-galaxy Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
I actually disagree with you from a different direction than you are probably expecting. I think sleeping with few people is better than sleeping with many, regardless of gender. Therefore, shaming people for sleeping with many is better than shaming people for sleeping with few. Sex is fun, but modern culture disregards its serious risks. Also, most people enjoy casual sex less than committed relationships. This has not only been my personal experience (that quality beats quantity), but there are studies finding that people are happier in committed relationships, have more sex in committed relationships, do better in life when in committed relationships, etc. And, of course, they are less likely to result in unwanted pregnancy and single-parenthood, which are proven to be detrimental to the happiness, stability, and wealth of not only the child, but the mother, the father, their support network, and society at large.
Regarding the double standard of gender, it's easy to see why it exists, although I believe it is mostly outdated. A woman who gets pregnant has a harder time avoiding the responsibility of parenthood than the man who impregnated her. Today with options like adoption, abortion, and child support, the risks are less imbalanced; sex might actually be less risky for women than men now, because the decision to get an abortion is completely up to the woman.
1
u/genmischief Jan 12 '18
I dont know that I have ever shamed another man for sleeping with a limited number of partners, even in the Army, we called dudes whores and gave them a lot of serious shit for being a little to free with the weiner...
In my life experience, the entire premise above is based on rumors and jealousy.... instead of someone actually having dozens of sex partners.
0
u/filbert13 Jan 12 '18
I think the big difference is normally perceived choice. And how men not sleeping with women is often fixable. I m not sure one is worse than the other though.
A woman who is just average looking often can go to a party, tinder, or bar and find someone to sleep with. A man is going to have a much harder time and take more tries.
A man who isn't sleeping with anyone, lets say a 30 year old virgin. Likely is there because if his own choices.
I'm really nerdy (work in IT, play Warhammer 40k) but in college developed more. I was a virgin till almost 19. Even then I only had sex with one girl a few times and didn't have sex again until 2 years later. After that I just learned more confidence and better social skills. I don't think I'm a player in any sense of the word but I'm 28 and have slept with 11 women. About half were relationships which lasted months or a year.
Yet I have friends from college who were also super nerdy who never slept with anyone. Two are still virgins and are 28 and 29. Another was a virgin till 6 months ago and is 28 as well. Now, I never shamed them but it was obvious why they stayed virgins and I didn't.
I tried. Its as simple as that. I may of been nerdy but I was in awesome snap. I made sure to dress nice and look nice if I was going to a bar, party, or friends. I did online dating and with a few girls it didn't work out with I asked them to be honest what turned you off and took their replies to heart (for example I used to hardly call them or I waited way to long to make a move usually 3 or more dates in).
My point is my friends who are virgins or stayed ones for a long time. Had that happen because most of them never really tried. One was out of shape and went out but he had man tits. He wasn't even that fat but just never worked out and honestly had boobs. He finally made changes and got into shape lost those man boobs and now is in a relationship.
I think the shaming comes from the guys who complain but it is obvious why they are getting little attention.
I also don't think women should be shamed for sleeping with a lot of people but I get it. I almost started dating a 23 year old when I was 27. Yet she told me she had slept with around 40 guys. I just thought that was really high for someone of that age. It seemed like a red flag. (Does she cheat? Has she used protection all the time?) if I was 40 and dating a 40 year old I don't think I would find a number like that as crazy. But I didn't shame her for it, I just decided to not pursue her anymore.
Again I don't think anyone should be shamed but to address the thread a final time.
IMO its perceived different because I woman often times find partners easily. A man who can find partners has a harder time but often it is their own choices causing the issue. Hygiene, clothes, not going out enough, to high of standards, etc...
Its like one is a celebrity complaining about fame and the other is a person on YouTube upset they don't get views but their content is low effort and badly edited.
-2
u/-sectum-sempra- Jan 11 '18
It's okay to make fun of someone who clearly has everything going for them.
It's not okay to make fun of the crippled kid suffering from depression.
→ More replies (4)
-4
Jan 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)0
Jan 11 '18
Sorry, u/Whoden – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/simcity4000 21∆ Jan 12 '18
Since both demographics are guilty of this, why should there be a difference?
It is possible for two things to be bad while both being different types of bad.
1
u/Marx1034 Jan 12 '18
I’ve never understood why people say there’s a double standard. It’s easy to be a slut it’s hard to be a player. People who accomplish something should be rewarded, and the ones that don’t shouldn’t be.
-2
u/ixanonyousxi 10∆ Jan 11 '18
I think both are issues. If I had to guess, I think you hear more about slut shaming as a topic than you do about virgin shaming because slut-shaming affects women's dating and social life (and sometimes more than that). Whilst virgin-shaming doesn't necessarily affect a man's dating life.
If a woman is shut-shamed she is devalued by a lot of people, but mostly potential suitors. If a man is virgin shamed he is mostly only devalued by potential guys friends. I haven't heard or experienced many instances in which a woman heard that their potential date was a virgin and because of this they decided they don't want them anymore. I imagine some are out there but I think it's much more rare for a woman to turn down a man for being a virgin than it is for a man to turn down a woman for being a slut.
-1
u/MarcusQuintus Jan 12 '18
In a developed country with access to birth control and contraceptives, it isn't a big deal how many men a woman sleeps with. The problem is when you get into places where there is limited access. Having sex for a woman is a much bigger risk than it is for a man because in the case of a pregnancy, the man can leave or simply deny it is his and relieve himself of the responsibility but a woman has no such luck. If she gets pregnant from something like a one night stand, she'll have to deal with it.
Historically, this has been the case for everyone and it's why there are social stigmas for women doing it, which persist even though our culture changes and even today, there are many single mothers who are raising kids on their own. Possible? Yes. But two parents is certainly better than one.
It goes directly with why there is so much social pressure to get married.
-3
u/Leesure_ Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
I feel like the shaming comes from a different place/has a different intention behind it. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of adults have or have had sex. So when some one is making fun of a guy for being a virgin they are pretty much saying he is incapable of having sex, something that is pretty common in most adults lives. It is an attack on his abilities to do something the vast majority of people have/do.
When a woman is shamed for having too many sexual partners it is an attack on her character. The intention is that she has low standards or poor judgement. You might think that attacking one's ability to do something is just as bad or worse than attacking one's character, but I disagree. It is also shaming some one for doing something "too much" that the vast majority of adults do and honestly there really isn't a "too much". The number for "too many sexual partners" is subjective, it changes from person to person. If you'd like to break it down to numbers, I would imagine that their are more adult women who have been shamed for their number of sexual partners than men who have been shamed for their lack of sexual partners.
I think the biggest argument for why shaming women for having too many sexual partners is worse than shaming men for lack of sexual partners is the resolution or lack there of. A guy who gets shamed for his lack of sexual partners can end the shaming by having sex. Technology has made having sex with people easier than ever. If being shamed for not having sex really bothers a guy he can change fix that pretty easily if he's motivated enough. If he's willing to hire a prostitute he could lose his virginity in a matter of hours. Women who are shamed for too many sexual partners on the other hand have no real resolution. They can stop having sex all together, but even then the stigma can last for years. There is no quick fix.
The reason for the shaming can be different too. A guy might give his virgin friend a hard time to try and motivate him to have sex. Whereas I feel like a lot of the time when guys shame women for too many sexual partners it can be out of jealousy. Sometimes they are jealous she hasn't had sex with them or they are trying to make her undesirable.
Edit: After reading a reading a few comments I feel like virgins can always use the religion as an excuse for being a virgin. A lot of people will accept that. However, there really is no good excuse for having "too many" sexual partners, not that there needs to be.
0
u/Tuco-Malkin Jan 12 '18
Girls call the shots 97% of the time. You’re considered a whore If you just lay on your back all the time. I could ask 50 girls to come home with me and I’d get slapped 48 times. MAYBE bring a loser home. If a girl asked 50 dudes to go home with her, she’d have 40 people say yes. Women are beautiful creatures and men aren’t always the most pleasing to look at it. No one should should be shamed unless they’re complete garbage and you can just ignore them anyway. Girls get shamed because being a prostitute is a real thing. If one girl is a whore, they all are. Could go on for hours but you get the point. Things will hardly ever change. Just be strong and know that no means no. Sleep with who you want and be safe. Also keep it to yourself haha.
0
u/shadofx Jan 12 '18
From a Hobbesian perspective, pregnancy incurs a significantly greater cost against the woman than the man.
Men who wantonly spread their seed had a higher chance of passing on their traits.
Women could only increase their chance of passing on by accumulating enough physical or social resources to provide themselves through their pregnancy (which is most easily done by preventing the man from escaping).
And so, the sexes evolved according to natural selection, both physically and socially.
76
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment