***Double Standard (definition)- a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another ; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men.***
So, there it is. The definition of double standard. A friend and I were talking about this double standard mess the other day. Does it still exist in 2009? And are women wrong for taking on more ”habits” that men are supposed to hold?
My friend got a call the other day from a cutie that said, “Man, you think so much like a dude, you need to stop.” Now I’m not going to get all into my friend’s personal life, but it appears to me that a majority of women in the 21st century are all for treating men the way men treat women—with absolutely no regrets! The mentality is to sleep with men outside of a relationship, and not expect much out of them (i.e booty calls, jump off, etc). Some men are cool with that and keep it movin’, while other men seem to get all hurt by a woman treating them like a jump off (forgetting that they’ve treated about 20 previous women the same way). After some good sexin’, the man may turn around, give you that puppy eyed look and say, “…We need to talk.” And that’s when you roll your eyes and think to yourself, “WTF, can you leave already?”
Is it completely wrong for a woman to have a men’s mentality nowadays? What is this double standard that it’s okay for men to sleep with “X” amount of random women, but we as women are afraid to say we’ve slept with more than “3” men. (And any woman that tells you she’s been with 3 men is a lie anyway….she’s not counting the ones she regrets).
I hate double standards…I still believe they are relevant tho..
Men are way more sensitive than women. It hurts them to be treated the way they treat others. But you either treat people the way you want to be treated, or you play the game and endure a few puppy dog looks along the way. *shrugs*
Men can sleep with whoever they want but when they get tired, the quest for a female who’s kept her legs closed the longest begins. smh…
Things wont change. In fact, they’ll probably only get more complicated.
I’ll tell you why there’s a double standard: A woman no matter how good looking, bad looking, skinny, fat, race..can go out any night of the week and get laid. They can basically choose who they want to let in the door when and where they want. A man, however, has to work at it. So it’s more of a sense of accomplishment when he gets the ticket. That’s why a woman who freely let’s in any man come in (no pun intended), is deemed as a slut or whore, where as a man is a player or pimp.
The ‘double standard’ theory as it applies to modern day social behavior has always existed and will continue to exist, allow me to explain. Now as much as women hate to hear this, it must be understood, so here goes: Men are bio-engineered to spread our seed. It’s in our programming and embedded deep w/in our DNA- polygamy is part of our existence, it is our job to populate, if this were untrue, we wouldn’t be equipped with the ability to produce semen at rapid fast rate in which we do. This by no means should be provided as an excuse for men to exhibit infidelity or cheat on their wives- the institution of marriage is one whereby the man takes a vow to allow their ethics to overcome their biology (another reason to explain why marriage isn’t for everyone, but that’s another story). Women on the other hand are different, they are designed by nature to be nurturing and are genetically designed to be monogamous. If this were untrue then pregnancy would have a shorter gestation period and they would be able to populate at a faster rate, thus allowing the possibility to have more then one suitors. The social evolution of these roles may change but our biology will always take precedence. Now, to provide a social explanation as to why these roles should not change, let me provide a more substantial argument to support the double standard theory that was once explained to me by a good friend who I will leave anonymous. The theory is based on the concept that women are the sellers and that men are the buyers. A women’s ‘goods’ are her value, it has a price tag, it must be protected and sold to only the best ‘buyers’. Men have the wallets, they are the ‘buyers’. Although putting things into a monetary perspective might not seem much different then glorified prostitution, you must be naive to think this social dynamic is untrue- it’s clearly the way of the world, accept it now or deal w/ the repercussions of having to come to grips w/ the fact that you may actually be a ho (which may not be an easy pill to swallow [no pun intended]). A women must safe guard her ‘value’ and a man must demonstrate his ‘purchasing power’. Purchasing can be defined by any series of assets that demonstrates a man’s worth, which include mainly his financial status, ego, character, education, personality, etc. Now if a woman doesn’t place much value on her goods, which by the way is clearly defined by the ‘p$ssy’ (sorry to be blunt here, but if we’re all on the same page, this will all be an easier lesson to teach), then she is willing so sell those goods at a low purchase price. By this I mean, deciding to sleep w/ a guy w/ minimal to no purchasing power. When a woman auctions her goods at such a discount, a precedent is set that can be damaging to her value, a value they may never be able to appreciate…ever again. If a woman decides to sleep around w/ wealthy guys that demonstrate high ‘purchasing power’ it does not defend her value- this isn’t a loop hole out of the matrix, so gold-diggers are not excused. Remember, the idea at the end of the day is to find a suitor- woman should not stray far from their biological roles of nurturing. Besides a man of high purchasing power must also keep his ‘polygamy’ concealed, because that is NOT defined as note-worthy criteria to define one’s ‘purchasing power’. However, if a woman were to choose a polygamous lifestyle, she should still have a clear sign attached that legibly reads: Only those with high purchasing power need apply. This is obviously metaphorical, but the bottom line here should be clear to men that they better bring there fucking A game because this chick will shoot you down in a cot-dam heartbeat if you’re not purchasing power needs to be put in check. Remember, a woman is a only a slut if ‘you’ can’t hit it, so a promiscuous reputation bears less weight if it comes w/ a higher degree of difficulty. So to women, if you’re gonna ho it out, please do your dirt all by your lonely and keep it on the low, unless you want it to come back & bite you in the ass. To quote law 5 of the 48 Laws of Power “So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life”. This doesn’t leave men in the clear, so don’t think this is a one-sided lesson. Remember, you are just a buyer in this arena, so make sure your purchasing power is in check or you’ll be exposed as a sheep in wolves clothing….a fraud.
damn,ok hannukah harry. i read that whole thing too lol
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms
I feel that beyond sexual behavior it’s there anyway. It came up on a few Rihanna and Chris discussions. Can she hit him and he hit her or he can’t simply because she is a female. What about her responsibility for her own actions is it not fair because he hits harder and is more reflexive from being a dancer and knowing some martial arts? What if it was a fat man and skinny man fighting, or a tll and short women…unfair advantages really aren’t recognized aside from when it’s a double standard. It’s equality we want on condition. We are not a weaker sex, crazy violence is crazy regardless of gender.
Another thing is the Beyonce “diva” stuff. Someone said a female version of a hustler is a whore. I think it was BET’s Toure. To me a female hustler is…a hustler. A diva is attitude not productivity. Females hustle too, and diva can be powerful but it’s also had a “bitch” connotation . Even if it’s just “that bitch”. I mean in the past Diana Ross was a diva, not because she was handling many businesses or breaking Forbes list records, but because she was “that bitch” So a female version of a hustler is a bitch….yeah ok
Good point Simone!!
That diva stuff too… according to the definitions you provided, stereotypes, and double standards a female version of a hustler IS a bitch. When women become successful by handling business, rising the ranks at her company and breaking Forbes list records she’s often perceived as a bitch. So in that sense… I guess you can say Beyonce was right… if a diva is a “bitch” and a female hustler is a “bitch” well then yea… A dive IS a female version of a hustler.
Of course the fe/male double standard still exists, not only in sex, but I’ll stay on topic.
I don’t think (please remember the “I” qualifies this as MY opinion only, not referencing ‘reality’) that it’s ok to maintain that double standard, and I do think everyone should hold their standards a tad higher in regards to with whom they share their bodies/spirits (yes I think you share your spirit in coitus, etc).
So no, I don’t think it’s the healthiest method for women to match typical manwhore behavior and go out and bang everyone and his brother in order to assert their ‘equality’ in an attempt to erase the double standard.
It also doesn’t help that [some] women perpetuate the double standard by accepting actively/recently promiscuous men as suitable mates, while they’ve held out and had fewer than however many…say 3 partners. That’s not fair lol Like a free pass, right?! That pretty much says to men, you can bang however many ppl you want and still get the ‘good girl’ in the end. Not proposing a solution to this, just saying…
double stadard is a once otherness proceses that to be preson centre. its can’t refer without bases by something, therefore it is a standard of person and there is no standard society.
[...] Coffee Hour: Double Standard in 2009 « All That’s FAB allthatsfab.com/2009/03/02/double-standard-in-2009 – view page – cached ***Double Standard (definition)- a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to — From the page [...]