'Cheating's OK for me, but not for thee' – inside the messy psychology of sexual double standards

The classic one centers on multiple sexual partners: Men who are promiscuous are lauded as “studs,” “lotharios” or “ladies’ men,” while women who have a lot of sex get called “sluts” or “whores.” Men who cheat on their wives aren’t exactly praised, but they’ll often get a pass. Women who do the same, on the other hand, risk sullying their social reputations.

what garbage!

It is simply not true that women crave less variety than men. Studies show the opposite, in fact: women's desire for their partner falls after marriage, while men's stays the same. This isn't because women just don't like sex - it's simply boredom. Obviously, men can get bored, too - which means that men and women really are not that different and articles like this are not helpful as they only perpetuate stereotypes and myths of female sexuality.

The actual reason that women don't have as many partners as men over their lifetime is because they simply don't feel they can or should. For one thing, slut shaming is very very common - women are told over and over that if they sleep with a guy "too soon" he will not want a relationship as he won't respect her. Women hear men revelling in one-night stands and deriding their female partners while patting themselves (and each other) on the back. Do men really think we don't know how they talk about us the next day? And does anyone really blame women when they take these comments on board, and don't feel they can say "yes" in the face of so much shaming over female sexual autonomy?

Another major issue is that women also have to be much more careful and more choosy about their partners than men, since women have to worry about assault and sexual assault - in short, women can't know whether a man is a danger to them until it's too late.

Also this: :

It turns out that just as women are equal participants in the me-versus-thee double standard, they also help perpetuate the traditional male-versus-female double standard.

Is anyone really surprised that the patriarchy effects the way women view sex? Come on, now. What have women been taught since childhood? And what views are reinforced when women here the way in which men talk about women whom they perceive as "sluts"?

Women’s fundamental competitors have always been other women, and sullying the sexual reputations of their rivals is a key strategy in the serious game of procreative success.

This sounds like it was written by a man who gets off on thinking women fight over him. Way to stroke your own ego, bro.

Only 41% of the men in existing relationships said that oral contact with someone else’s genitals would count as sex. But 65% of the men said that if their partner had oral contact, it would count as sex.

Who did they ask? This is a very heterocentric view of sex. Ask a gay man or lesbian what sex is, and 100% will say "oral sex is sex". Heh - are all lesbians and gay men virgins because none of them have had a penis in their vagina? That must make the Xtians happy, ROFL.....

In short, this is a very conservative and very heteronormative way of viewing sex. This makes me glad I am neither hetreo nor "normal".

Sure there is a double standard.

I never got out of a traffic ticket or cut the line, got a better seat in a restaurant, show, etc.. just by being charming, but I know plenty of women that have used their "charm" to get away with stuff no man would.

Then the double standard, if I a male accuses a female superior of harrassment, I had better have proof and a lot of it, but any woman can make a claim and we are told we are to believe her proof or not.

And when caught making false accusations, no penalties are imposed on the women because according to "experts" that could discourage real "victims" from coming forward.

I know the above very well because I lived through the nightmare of false allegations and even after the accuser admitted she did it to remove a possible rival for a promotion, she faced no consequences, I on the other hand could never get my name fully cleared as a gag order by HR made that impossible and rumours made remaining in the company impossible, so in the end she got what she wanted.

I love these one sided articles.

80% of men who cheat are caught somehow. 80% of women who cheat are never caught / exposed!

Took me 30 minutes of wasted time.

Well, until .....

It’s OK for me to receive a bit of oral pleasure when you’re out of town because it’s not really sex. But if you do, it’s infidelity with a capital “I.”*

Well their you go.

Maybe the author should go read Masters & Johnson. And the rather amusing Kinsey studies.

 "...the brutal and amoral furnace of sexual and reproductive competition." Mr. Buss, seems to have been reading Hobbes. Or mis-reading. A very queer summation.

A rather pedestrian and boorish take on human sexuality.

Marriages break down and cheating is a pressure release valve

For millions of people being monogamous for 20-30 years is not the most easiest thing to do and it’s actually unnatural for most people to have and continue the same passion many years later than when they first met. Some people can stay faithful until their last days and others can’t. Does cheating make a person bad? How about if you have a sexless marriage, but you have stay faithful because society or religion tells us? Couples that deal with a sexless marriages in all likelihood.

That's just the way it is.

Women don't have to get used to the standard.

It has been and is the standard.

It isn't just sexual double-standards. I am bothered by people who are happy to take all the government handouts they can get, even when they have to lie and cheat to get them, and then complain when anyone else gets a benefit, even when they are legitimately entitled to that benefit.

Double standards apply in all sorts of situations.

Most of the @girl_in_Tokyo’s 9:16am assertions are further proof that she will even argue with a potential ally. Even when they present historical examples, current studies and concise findings supporting her assertions of inequality and ‘double-standards’, she will rebuke them, strictly on the basis that the author is “a man”.

From the author: {Not surprisingly, women often find this sexual hypocrisy baffling and logically inconsistent.}

From the poster: - *“Is anyone really surprised that the patriarchy effects the way women view sex? …This is a very heterocentric view of sex:*

- {Women’s fundamental competitors have always been other women, and sullying the sexual reputations of their rivals is a key strategy in the serious game of procreative success.}

- “This sounds like it was written by a man who gets off on thinking women fight over him. Way to stroke your own ego, bro.”

… strictly on the basis that the author is: “a man”.

Appears many male commenters here often tire of it. - Perhaps some other women are also tiring of reading the one poster’s frequent yet, sometimes disingenuous need to always claim “misogyny!”,

*while never acknowledging and perpetuating that poster’s own “**misandry**” ?***

Silly article.

inside the messy psychology of sexual double standards

Human psychology is messy by definition, and since we, like other mammals, have two different biological genders (like it or not), of course there are double standards.

⁠Most of the @girl_in_Tokyo’s 9:16am assertions are further proof that she will even argue with a potential ally.

Right, because throughout the history of the feminist movement, all feminists everywhere always agreed on everything and have never, ever had differing viewpoints. Uh huh. Riiiiiight.

Even when they present historical examples, current studies and concise findings supporting her assertions of inequality and ‘double-standards’, she will rebuke them, strictly on the basis that the author is “a man”.0( +2 / -2 )

I disagreed with some of the points made in the article, explained why, and also pointed out that there are studies that support my viewpoint.

But if you think I only disagreed with this because it was written by a man, and no other reason (even though I stated that reason clearly) fine by me. Think what you like.

From the author: {Not surprisingly, women often find this sexual hypocrisy baffling and logically inconsistent.}

From the poster: - “Is anyone really surprised that the patriarchy effects the way women view sex? …This is a very heterocentric view of sex:

Women are effected by the patriarchy in how they view sex.

This article was written with a very heterocentric point of view, in that it did not consider same-sex relationships.

Two separate unrelated points, both valid - so what is your point, here? I don't think you have one.

Appears many male commenters here often tire of it. - Perhaps some other women are also tiring of reading the one poster’s frequent yet, sometimes disingenuous need to always claim “misogyny!”,

*while never acknowledging and perpetuating that poster’s own “**misandry***” *?***

Pointing out the existence of homophobia is not akin to hating heterosexuals.

Pointing out the existence of racism is not racism towards white people.

Pointing out the existence of misogyny is not misandry.

But I'm quite sure that logic will escape you.

Only revisiting this a wk later @girl_in_Tokyo’s because you, once again, tried to ‘de-rail’ another thread about a man’s story and turn it into an issue about women. (Btw:That topic is about any marriages and then resulting child custody issues, not the plight of single mother’s in shelters. We can take that up there.

snowymountainhell,

I call out both women and men for sexism.

Pointing out that something a person said is sexist, is not misandry.

Pointing out the sexism that exists is daily life, is not misandry.

If this logic escapes you, there is not much I can do about it.

Then, to conclude our discussion of ‘double standards’…

… by our *equally* logical perspectives, we ***can*** agree …

we’re both ‘*advocates for fairness**’ between the sexes*:

Pointing out that something a person said is possibly sexist, is not necessarily misandry nor misogyny.

Pointing out that some forms of sexism continue to exist is daily life, is not necessarily misandry nor misogyny.

Glad we could come to ‘an accord’, and close this thread, on a note of ‘fairness & mutual understanding’.

Let’s refer to it, (if need be), from time to time. - Best Wishes -