I am concerned that at least one of the page quotes dares to defend the existence of this double standard.
Hide / Show Replies
I believe in Freedom of Speech, so I'm fine with the dissenting view being voiced. I myself firmly disapprove of this Double Standard however.
That is an actual argument people use. But I don't mind because it's good to hear the other side sometimes, it gives you a chance to think and (besides) if you think about it, it's a really dumb argument. Because the only reason it's a bad lock is due to the fact that locks were made to keep things closed until the right key is used. Vaginas, on the the hand; exist to have sex, pee, and give birth. So if they were really consistent with their argument; they'd dislike virgins & value sluts which would still be, in my opinion, at least, illogical & stupid.
Also they called the "proverb" misogynistic. If anything, they're being biased against said argument.
Edited by 216.99.32.42
I really think this is one of the most poorly named. When the [Trope Name] sounds like such a specific phrase, what my mind expects is it refers to it or something similar being said like My Freinds And Zoidberg.
But this is about the Double Standard about women being judged for being sexually active when Men are not. It may not be the guy himself doing the judging as the current name implies.
I think a better name would be something like Double Standard Slut Shaming.
Edited by MithrandirOlorin
Deuteronomy 22:23-26
After attempting to reword the following entry to improve it's accuracy (in light of the drive to remove discussion from the actual article pages), I came to the conclusion that it just doesn't belong. I'm not completely satisfied with this, though, so I've posted it here:
- According to [[http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html
|Deuteronomy 22:23-24]], being raped is still a consensual and "wicked" act, ideally punished with death-by-stoning.
- According to [[http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html
The problems are as follows:
- 23-24 does not refer (only) to rape, but to (possibly consensual) sex between a man and a betrothed virgin. Her failure to cry out is taken as a sign of consent. Presumably other signs of resistance would be taken into account as well, especially since all of the laws in this section are presented as examples, legal precedent if you will, and were taken as such.
- 25-26 refers to (assumed) rape, presenting a situation in which no witnesses were nearby to hear her cry out or to help. In that case, her innocence is assumed and only the man is executed for forcing himself on her. This might fit the article.
I think this trope needs a new name. "My girl is not a slut" says nothing about the sexual double standards that this trope is about.
If anything, the Bible subverts the trope. The prostitute Rahab found an Israelite husband, the widow Ruth found a second Israelite husband (despite being from a culture the Israelites weren't incredibly fond of), and Tamar's play-acting the part of a sacred prostitute to assert her rights was not held against her. Indeed, Judah admitted she was in the right and he was wrong, because he had not held his part of the deal (marrying her to his third son).
If a man slept an unmarried woman, he could be made to marry her. If she/her family didn't want them getting married, he still had to pay a sum to her father, equal to what her dowry might have been (with a stated amount as the standard/base figure). Fornication and adultery were banned for both sexes.
And part of what got Solomon in trouble was his massive number of wives and concubines. (Though I will add that many were foreign and never converted -at the time, that just wasn't allowed. Foreign spouses had to convert to Judaism.)
The laws originally handed down were baselines, to be expanded and tweaked as time went by. (Part of what Jesus called the Pharisees on was how stupid some of these adjustments were, and how they refused to rethink and readjust them. The 'refuse to move [the Jewish people's] load with a finger' call out comes to mind.) So if a woman showed clear signs of being beaten, etc., it was perfectly permissible to judge that yes, she wasn't at fault at all, regardless if anyone had heard her scream.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Some of the examples attributed to this trope on this page are only Double Standard, not an example of a guy getting offended because "his" woman's loyalty is questioned.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere. Hide / Show Replies
Quote: "A sexually active man is admired for his virility and conquests (unless he is a cad, or picking only low hanging fruit)."
Er, yeah...so, aren't women generally denigrated as "sluts" because *they* are being cads or picking low-hanging fruit? Where exactly is the distinction here? Generally speaking, having fulfilling sexual relationships is good, and sleeping with anything that moves while not valuing the person in the morning is bad. Within those categories the gender distinction is not really that broad.
Hello world!
I just wanted to say this here, I've noticed that there are many negative words for female promiscuity but only one that I know of for men, "player".
Hide / Show Replies
There are a couple of terms, but they're not nearly as widely known as "slut" is for women. "Cad", for example.
There are plenty of negative words for male promiscuity. Like "Man-whore," "Pimp" (sometimes), "Pervert," maybe (and I don't like using words like this, so forgive me if I feel the need to censor it) "dick" or something similar...I know there are other words, but I can't think of them all right now. I see your point though.
I will not be understood. Understand?!
"Dick" isn't a word for male promiscuity. It's a word for male equipment. I've seen "manslut" used, among other things.
Player and cad are used for men who are unfaithful or mistreat the people they are sleeping with so they aren't just about promiscuity. A pimp is someone who prostitutes people so that isn't about promiscuity and the word pervert refers to people who engage in deviant sexual behaviour such as rape.
Man whore is a word for a promiscuous man but its not used nearly as often and I most commonly hear men using it to describe themselves in a boastful way.
So wait, what's this about receiving and inserting, Hobbes, and re-evaluating views on sex "now that you think about it"? I'm confused.
Hide / Show Replies
The "penetrator"/"penetrated" thing goes back to ancient Greece, where it was considered good to be the "penetrator" and bad to be the "penetrated", regardless of whether it was homosexual or heterosexual intercourse.
Well, to give a sort of awkward Freudian metaphor, the idea of something that can, uh, "penetrate" or "get into" just about anything seems better than something that "lets whatever in" or "gets broken into" a lot. Unfortunately...do I really have to say it? That aside, not everyone sees promiscuity in this trope's standards. To some, a person who "breaks in and violates everything" is just as bad as someone who "lets everyone break in". Now you see why I don't write Lemons.
I will not be understood. Understand?!
FreeRadical
I understand what this trope is about, but it's not always present in every case. Quite a few social circles (typically of a more conservative nature) frown upon promiscuity in both sexes, regardless of what "parts" you have. However, it's fair to say that women are often held to a much higher standard than men (example: good manners are recommended of men, but absolutely required out of women, if not outright expected to be intrinsic), but there are cases of cultures who see loose men as equally disgraceful and unbecoming as with women.
I will not be understood. Understand?! Hide / Show Replies
No trope ever claims that it's always present in every case. It's in the Stereotype index, not the Truth in Television index, after all.
If we have a trope about a double standard then the examples have to show a double standard- double, that two standards, that's "you treat one lots one way and treat another lot a different way". Otherwise you start a slide into anything vaguely related to the issue.
"Women have to remain pure" is more related to how certain cultures read and incorporated their religion or philosophies and not biology.
I also think the title is misleading. "Slut shaming" or "Don't touch there" or something would be better. "Don't touch there" coming from the old double standard in parenting where, when a little boy has an erection or just simply walk around without pants its adorable and when a girl tries to touch herself or rub against the car seat it's "stop it, it's disgusting!"
Or you could use old timely sex ed, where the teacher would say to the girls to "be polite, remember that sex is important for men but don't give in too much, you don't want to become one of those nasty street walkers" to then turn to the boys and simply say "boys, remember to be nice to the girl!" This could also tie to "all men are perverts" and "all rapists are male" sexists tropes.
The're are many different ways to explain why this exists by using real life/TV scenarios which would tie in with other tropes. "Because biology says so" is really not one of them and even if it is, no one could explain that fairly or even remotely correctly in a 200 word blurb. Therefor I think it doesn't add anything than a feeling of whitewashing for "boys will be boys." Maybe it would be better to put it in as a quote, change the wording or just remove it all-together. Hell, maybe rewrite the entire trope.