3 years ago 2021 years ago Sluts and Studs by Admin 3 years ago2021 years ago Post PaginationPrevious PostPreviousNext PostNextLike it? Share with your friends! 38 38 points Daeldsul I do agree with the post, but I’m wondering if it’s still a repost if you add a face to the joke/statenent/quote Rattlehead I’ve met plenty of fat, ugly, creepy, complete douchebag “studs”, they just skip the wit and charm and choose to be predatory as fuck instead. https://www.facebook.com/Averytheaverage Anh Thư *coughs* money *coughs* Rattlehead Nooo Aussie bogans are normally broke as fuck. Althoooough I’m broke as fuck also right now, maybe I should become a gold digger for a while o_O bloochoo so have I…what it really boils down to isnt money or how they look, its how they talk. if they say the right thing the fat ugly guy has jus an much chance to get in our pants. Still douchebags, but just really good liars with it. Iv met the exact guy you are talking about and asked him his secret and he said (after trying it on me) that it is all about confidence, and how he makes you feel about yourself. I guess what most people see is that fat ugly guys dont tend to have much confidence and so dont generally get the girl, but the odd 1 or 2 learn the trait and have almost as much success. I should know, I almost got engaged to one. Rattlehead Yeah I understand completely what you mean. Christine *Trump Tanya Wicht Actually I have met a few ugly studs, they all had the quality of making us feel good about ourselves, listening to us, without being predatory, or slimy, (You can tell when someone is faking it) It is a rare trait. They seem to genuinely like women! jan Actually there are plenty of guys who are fat and ugly and still sleep with a lot of women. It’s arguably easier for an ugly man to get with attractive women than the reverse because men care more about looks than women. Sure a woman has an easier time getting a man but there’s a difference between getting any person to sleep with you and getting someone you are attracted to to sleep with you. If we all have zero standards anyone can be a ‘slut’ whether they be male, female, fat, skinny, ugly, or attractive. There’s also a logical fallacy in the justification of the double standard. Women are punished for being ‘easy’ while men are rewarded for the same behavior. As humans, we all repeat behavior that brings a positive outcome and avoid behavior that bring a negative outcome (positive and negative reinforcement). As a result, men are more willing to have casual sex because they’re rewarded whereas women are less open because there’s a likely risk of punishment. This is what causes it to be easy for women and hard for men to have sex. Essentially people justify the double standard by saying it’s easier for women and harder for men. Yet the double standard is the very thing that causes it to be easier for women and harder for men. Ashen As humans? All animals revere Alpha Male types that can keep a large brood of women to procreate with, in the words of a wise man; you and me baby aint nothin but mammals Glaarg You have been watching the Discovery channel. Rev. Analbumcover I agree that the double standard needs to go away. But I don’t think that’s the whole reason it’s easier for a woman to get laid. Patrice O’neal makes the point well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Q7jjMlH88&feature=youtu.be&t=89 You can stop it when he starts talking about sport fishermen. jan That’s great and all but that’s a guy describing the reactions of men and women who were socialized by a society that’s far more forgiving and encouraging of men being promiscuous than women. We don’t know how those same men and women would react if they were socialized differently. Do you think that a man who was taught from nearly birth that they have less worth if they’re ‘easy’ would answer the same way he described guys answering in his act? Do you think a woman who was taught her entire life that part of being a’real woman’ is screwing around would answer the same way he described those women in his act? I highly doubt it. Finally, it’s true women would probably say they wouldn’t screw around with someone like Denzel Washington or Brad Pitt. However, I think most of them are liars. Heck, if I were married and someone asked me that hypothetical I’d claim I wouldn’t either because that is the obvious right answer. However, realistically, if the opportunity actually arose there’s a very good chance I’d tell my hubby I’m having dinner out with the girls and be meeting Henry Cavill (Brad & Denzel don’t do it for me) at the Hilton. belacoz You’re forgetting about nature (i.e. genetics). Males (in many species) are predisposed to mating with many females in order to improve reproductive chances (sperm costs much less energy than eggs). Women, who also desire reproductive success, are predisposed to limit reproduction with only the best mates. After all, evolution is merely differential survivorship and fecundity. The “fat and ugly” man in your scenario who is able to sleep with many women is rich. This highlights the different standards of attractiveness between the gender. Men are attracted to women who are physically good looking while women are attracted to successful men (who can provide resources). Yet, the base standard is the same – attractiveness – whether it’s money or looks. A good looking woman can easily have more mates than a rich man. Even more illustrative, an average looking woman can easily have more mates that a rich man. Mr Banden If sexual behaviour was dictated by our nature then “fat and ugly” wouldn’t matter because the objective of sex is to increase chances of procreation so the strongest and healthiest individuals would be the most likely to mate. In fact women who are underweight would not be most likely to mate because from a genetic standpoint skinny is not actually healthy. Attractiveness is also a bit of an odd standard for mating because it most often refers to how much time someone would use on personal care and that again has nothing to do with carrying on the best genes. “Successful” is also not a genetic predisposition, intelligence might be but successful and intelligent are not intrinsically linked. So saying that we behave as we do about sex because of nature and genetics is absolutely wrong. These things are determined by culture, not by nature. Our predisposition to mate is completely natural and we are naturally predisposed to seek the strongest mate but the definition of “strongest mate” has changed. Because of our culture it is no longer determined by “the best genes”. Your argument is honestly a bit fuzzy because “sluts” and “studs” mostly don’t have sex to procreate, they do it to have fun! If someone is “plain looking” but have a reputation for being “good in the sack” then that is often more important. belacoz Culture does, of course, play a role in attractiveness, but to say that nature has nothing to do with it is absurdly naive. There is a balance of nature and nurture (here, culture). Our cultural ideas of attractiveness are contingent upon having a natural desire to have sex. Also, you are confusing sexual selection and natural selection. Sexual selection is the primary factor in driving evolution and, while it can be the same as natural selection, they are actually mutually exclusive criteria. Sexual selection is basically: what do females want? While, natural selection is: what gives you the best chance to survive? Case in point: mating iguanas – females prefer males with the bigger tail and better territory – yet, if the tail is too large the male iguana is easy prey for predators. He gets the female, but his chances of survival are decreased. What wins out at the end? The larger tail – i.e. sexual selection over natural selection. Much of what we think of as cultural perceptions of attractiveness are actually epigenetically based (ie. facial and body symmetry, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio for women and 1.7 “golden” ratio for men, skin, muscle tone, body shape, etc) “Skinny is not healthy” – are you kidding me? All things being equal, being skinny is healthier than the alternative – being overweight. Mr Banden You seem to know more about this than I do, so I won’t press the point much. However I think you are underestimating how great a role culture does play. I will agree with all those traits you called epigenetically based, these do not seem to change a lot either. Skinny and fat is a spectrum and neither extreme is considered healthy. If we look at today’s standards of attractiveness we can agree that there is a leaning towards underweight. At various times in the history of our human culture this wasn’t the case. I think that for most of human history the leaning has in fact been towards overweight. Because it was a status symbol which meant you didn’t have to work in the fields and could afford servants who did the work for you. Today, the leaning is towards underweight because health has become the prevailing status symbol. It means you have the time to exercise, and the money to eat right. The point I would like to make is that we emphasize weight so much that actual health often takes a backseat. Personally I have always been underweight and I have never been a healthy person, so the idea that “skinny is healthy” seems odd to me. I consider that someone on the opposite side of the spectrum might actually exercise and eat right but be considered unhealthy. All things being equal, skinny and fat can be equally unhealthy or healthy. jan I’m not forgetting nature. That theory is rife with logical fallacies and has never truly been proven. That’s the problem. We socialize boys and girls on what is acceptable behavior for them and what is behavior they should accept from potential mates based on what is considered ‘natural’. For example, women are more likely to accept past promiscuity from a potential partner than a man is because it’s considered acceptable for men to ‘sow their wild oats’ but you can’t turn a whore into a housewife. However, we have absolutely no way of knowing what is truly natural and what is the result of socialization. If women weren’t taught from the time they were children that it’s wrong to be promiscuous, held to higher standards by society, and punished for being ‘sluts’ how do we know women wouldn’t be just as easy as men. If men were punished the same way women are and taught from the time they were children it’s wrong to sleep around how do we know they wouldn’t be just as ‘frigid’ and ‘disinterested in sex’ as women are sometimes accused of? We don’t know. However, what we do know is that in societies where women are less sexually repressed they behave much more like we expect men to behave. This indicates to me that what is ‘natural’ is at least in part caused by socialization. So basically when it comes to the theory of what’s ‘natural’ instead of looking at the evidence and coming up with a hypothesis based on the evidence, we formed a hypothesis and tried to create evidence via socialization that fits it while ignoring everything to the contrary. belacoz You argue that the theory of “nature” isn’t proven, yet you espouse an idea that itself is not proven. You once again completely discount natural instincts and turn solely to culture. Genetics/nature is a necessary precursor to creating a culture of sex. If nature didn’t drive us to mate, then we wouldn’t even have a culture devoted to marriage, sex, etc. Yes, culture does play a role, but even if boys and girls were enculturated in similar fashions, men would still desire sex more than women. Men create millions of energy cheap sperm and need to spread them – women create a few expensive eggs and need to be selective. That nature influences our culture, which values woman who is selective. All across nature it is generally easier for females to mate – she merely has to be present and choose a suitable male. Males have to fight, dance, have brilliant feathers, etc. in order to attract the female. The alpha seal lion mates with sometimes hundreds of females, while the myriad of loser seal lions may never mate (sneaky fish aside). You say you look at evidence to come to your hypothesis and suggest that I ignore everything to the contrary. Yet, I’m looking at evidence as well. My degree is in biology with a focus on evolutionary biology and animal behavior – I’m not just randomly conjuring up ideas of what is “natural.” jan Also no I wasn’t referring to rich men, men in a position of power/status, or even men with above average hygiene. I’m referring to men who are actually below average. I’ve seen ‘studs’ who are out of shape, have no job or other source of income (ie inheritance), are ugly, and have no redeeming qualities that I can tell. This myth that a man must be drop dead gorgeous, rich, smart, funny, and have a great job to get a blow job is just that. A myth. Now if we’re talking about men who sleep with drop dead gorgeous women than you may have a point about having to have numerous redeeming qualities (rich, handsome, etc.). However that’s true of women as well. It’s not like the cream of the crop of males are screwing 300+ lb women with missing teeth living in trailer parks. Solreaper Ron Jeremy Inaba jim jefferies for anyone wondering he’s probably my second favorite comedian belacoz So true. It’s part of nature – men are genetically predisposed to try to spread our seed, while women want to limit their number of mates. Men make sperm, women make eggs. Sperm takes very little energy to make, so we men make a lot of it and try to spread. Eggs take a lot of energy to make, so women are very selective about the men they mate with. Our nature prefers and rewards men who have many mates, and women who have few. On the flip side, unattractive/unsuccessful men and loose women are degraded. ThatGuy *triggered* TheLittleMe As I said the last time this quote was posted, but in a different form: There are fat and ugly studs out there. They’re called “Millionaires”. Sometimes even “Billionaires”. Bruce Leroy I beg to differ http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/Images/Main/Sections/blog/Ron_Jeremy_Too_Much_Sex.jpg limelord Or you know, we could just let anyone decide what they do with their junk and not judge them for it.* I get that this is a joke, but we’re living in the 21st century. *= excluding rapists, pedophiles, etc. Octopus of Disapproval Part of the problem is that society is programmed to think of sex as “play with boobs, she fellates him, he inserts penis, he comes, and goes to sleep.” Her pleasure is not important to this model. He did not play with or suck/lick her clit, and when he was done, sex was done. She might be a little sore and now she is sexually frustrated. Making her less likely to want to have sex with another guy.