|
why is everyone so sexist?
If a man is bi it's wrong when a girl is bi it's OK. A man screws with 100 girls he's a stud a girl screws with 1 guy and she's labeled a slut. It's not fair.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Doesn't Fit Any Of These Categories?
Eh people are just so sexist because...the world is very lustful and judgemental one gossip and they're like
OMG FOR REAL.
]
Slut shaming is stupid and the only reason why gay guys are not accepted as well as gay girls is because it's considered "hot" when girls make out. I don't get it, but that's how the world is.
Anyway, don't let stupid people judge you because you're smart enough to realize that society is crap.
-talldivaofbeverlyhillz ^ - ^
]
Your right it is not fair and it has been this way for century's. The most obvious reason for this is the women produces the child thus she is the extension of the genetic line. Millenniums ago it was not seen as genetics, it was seen as the extension of the males heirs blood line. Therefore the women could not be soiled by copulating with other males.
Etymology - (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Although the ultimate origin of the word "slut" is unknown, it first appeared in Middle English in 1402 as slutte (AHD), with the meaning "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly woman". Even earlier, Geoffrey Chaucer used the word sluttish (c. 1386) to describe a slovenly man; however, later uses appear almost exclusively associated with women. The modern sense of "a sexually promiscuous woman" dates to at least 1450.
Another early meaning was "kitchen maid or drudge" (c. 1450), a meaning retained as late as the 18th century, when hard knots of dough found in bread were referred to as "slut's pennies". A notable example of this use is Samuel Pepys's diary description of his servant girl as "an admirable slut" who "pleases us mightily, doing more service than both the others and deserves wages better" (February 1664).[6] "Slut" and "slutishness" occur in Shakespeare's comedy As You Like It, written in 1599 or 1600. In the nineteenth century, the word was used as a euphemism in place of "bitch" in the sense of a female dog.
As you can see from what I put above the word "slut" has not always had the meaning it has to day. At one time it was even meant as somewhat of a complement. That doesn't change how it is used today.
Today our views on sex and women are more enlightened at least in most western countries. The younger you start to have sex, say in high school and the more sex partners you have at that time, the more chance you will be called a slut.
When you are older, as an adult women are fully entitled to a sex life. Fewer and fewer men expect their wives to be virgins on their wedding nights. Fact is very few men will hang around long enough to get to know a women if sex is not part of the relationship. Still if a women has too many partners she will pick up some type of derogatory sexual label.
THe best way to keep from being labeled is to keep your sex life to yourself. Unfortunately teenage boys have big moths and have to brag about their sexual conquests and that is another way a girl gets a label.
]
Hi. Now there's a question! Regarding promiscuity we have to use nature as a model in part. Males of the species are often sexually prolific. Think of the red deer..the males fight (during a process called 'the rut') with other males to dominate a certain territory. With it comes the right to mate with ALL the female deer, and it might be 30 or more. This model is by no means rare in nature. All coupling in the natural sense is for one purpose, to breed and to propogate the animals own genetic information. I am not aware of any other species having 'recreational sex'... and the idea seems a bit-left field doesn't it? The female then has a (maybe long) period of carrying the offspring before birth. She is physically NOT capable of having multiple partners at a time. The word 'stud' you use itself refers to male horses, who 'cover' many females. OK, we're not animals (the dumbest human is vastly more intellectually developed than the brightest other animal) but it's quite impossible to deny we're mammalian and thus have a lot of mammalian instinct and behavioural patterns 'wired' into us via the evolutionary process. Society wise, we rate and value monogamy and even 'chastity' in our female members. The template again, a woman will only produce a small number of ova during her fertile years, in the same period a man will produce billions of sperm. Despite this we have engineered a system of monogamy, where it's not really acceptable for a man to copuluate with other women when he has a partner. Intresting to note too, in broken relationships women have a sort of 'natural right' to custody of children. Again, we're following conventions as old as man. Why are bi-girls 'more acceptable'. Possibly because women are more 'touchy feely' (tactile is a more correct word) in relationships with their own sex in ways not acceptable to men. In practice, many women find gay girls an unpleasant thought but may often have close gay male friends. Likewise many heterosexual males are stronlgy homophobic, even aggressive towards gay males...while finding bisexual and/or gay women perfectly acceptable...even finding the idea of it sexually arousing. The idea is propogated strongly in adult (OK...pornographic!) entertainment. We can put this down to threat-response. A gay male may be an unacceptable threat to a heterosexual male, but poses NO threat at all to a heterosexual woman (hence the fairly common 'gay best friend' scenario). So 'OK' is really a conditional, rather than an absolute statement...it depends entirely on where you stand. It's all far less pronounced than it was in the past, so perhaps that's encouraging. Sexually prolific women are not especially condemned anymore, and homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence punishable by prison (which it was until surprisingly recently in many countries). I've steered well clear of any religious objections to promiscuity and/or homosexuality here...it's not my bag and it's not possible to ponder and query faith these with logical explanation...you believe and comply or you don't and it's not my (or anyone's) business to question a persons moral and religious conviction. Full (if boring!) answer??
ps...the idea of homosexuality in other animals is equally bizarre. I doubt two male birds have ever built a nest together! Whether you like/dislike homosexuality, from the breeding point of view it is unarguably sterile. Thus can only really be called a lifestyle option and sex must be 100 percent purely recreational.
]
More Questions: |