No, the slut/stud dichotomy is not a double standard

A popular claim among “enlightened” Western women is that it is a double standard that men are encouraged to fuck around, but women aren’t. If you are a stud, you are worthy of adoration. Yet, if Jill wants to do what Joe does, she is a slut, and gets looked down upon. More recently, some particularly slutty women have started “owning” the term and proudly label themselves as “sluts”. Watching a civilization in decline is fun indeed.

Unfortunately, plenty of feminists and their male sycophants are mentally challenged, so let me make the utterly superfluous remark — superfluous to anyone with an IQ above 100 — that there is no double standard applying to promiscuity of men and women. Men and women are, really, much different. Thus, their actions have different consequences. They are also in an entirely different situation. Thus, we judge their actions differently.

Here is an easy example: What does it take to get laid as a guy? You need to have your life together in some ways. Getting in shape helps. Having nice clothes is a plus. Being a great conversationalist is good. Having a nice job and a good education will count for a lot for anything beyond a one-night stand. On top, that dude still has to actively approach women, ask them out, initiate physical contact, and make her comfortable while escalating all the way from “Hi!” to putting his pen0r in her.

In comparison, what does it take for a woman to get laid? She only has to go out, wait for some guys to approach her, and go with the flow. It certainly helps if she is cute and not a bitch. If she wants to get laid, all she needs to do is stay in shape, be young, and, if she’s a bitch, just keep her fucking mouth shut for a few hours. Some dude will come along and hit on her. That’s a pretty low bar compared to what guys have to go through.

Also, guys, have you ever thought of what it take to look good naked? A slender woman who does a teeny bit of cardio is almost guaranteed to look great naked. Have fun finding that in the West, though. On the other hand, what does it take to make her want to squeeze the last bit of cum out of your cock? Ten or less percent of body fat and a serious amount of lean muscle mass are a great start. We’re talking about a solid two years in the gym or being engaged in some other physical activity consistently for a long, long time.

Thus, if you get laid a lot, you are a kickass dude. Girls want to fuck you because you are better than the competition. It’s either that or because you’re a PUA clown who is happy to approach 10,000 chicks as long as he gets a make out or a handjob out of it. On the other hand, if you’re a young girl, guys want to fuck you because, well, you’re a young girl. It doesn’t really take any effort as it’s simply due to youth and genes. On a side note, though, this explains why unattractive women are so incredibly bitter; the same is true for women who swallowed gallons of cum in their 20s and one day wake up, realizing that there really is no sane guy around who would want to put a ring on them. Unattractive women never get any attention, and attractive ones only as long as they are young. There is very little they can do to improve their chances once their youth is gone. They will simply get no attention. Men just don’t give a shit, for the very most part, how successful a woman is. If you have the choice between a harpy with a J.D. from Harvard or a real cutie who works 20 hours a week at Starbucks who barely made it through high school, you’ll probably go for the latter.

11 thoughts on “No, the slut/stud dichotomy is not a double standard

    1. I’d much prefer if people wrote a few sentences accompanying the submission of a link. Link rot is one reason, my distaste for laziness another. (It’s a video by Jim Jefferies with the title “Sluts Vs Studs”, in case it ever gets delisted on YouTube.)

  1. I sometimes use the following argument to counter the double standard argument.

    I always say that I’ve never been a guy who slept around a lot, so therefore, it’s not a double standard, but it’s my standard that I’m applying to you. People are free to do what they want, but when you sleep around a lot, it shows a certain need. And you need to be really stupid to think she’s not going to have that need anymore when she enters a relationship with you.

    Also the entire double standard argument is simply used not to talk about women who are simply unsuited for a relationship.

    It’s funny that you just happened to write an article about more conservative women. I’m dating one right now and it’s night and day compared to what I was used to.

  2. It is a bit funny how in the space of 20 years calling someone a “slut” went from a grievous insult to a mark of empowerment. One should be a bit reluctant to assume that just because a woman happens to whore it up in their 20s she won’t find someone to “put a ring on it”. The issue is that the guys that marry them are seldom the guys they were enthusiastically sleeping with previously.

    1. That is true. The kind of controllable loser who fails for a “reformed slut” normally does not know what he is getting into, though. Once a slut, always a slut.

  3. Nice post explaining the difference so well , sleazy!

    Your post can be extrapolated to other dichotomy, such as why men’s work is valued higher than that of a woman.

    Or in sports…how a female athlete who accomplishes a lot like In the Olympics… Isnt a big deal given her competition is….wait for it…other women!

    I recall some swimmer was called the female Michael Phelps… Ooooh the uproar… How insulting not to Olympic great Phelps but this less accomplished female athlete !!

    1. Isn’t it the case that male teenagers, sometimes as young as 14, routinely break female world records?

      Also, recall the “female Steve Jobs”, Elizabeth Holmes.

    2. Elizabeth who? What she did to be compared with Steve Jobs? Did she plagiarized any idea and turned it into a cash cow?

    3. Elizabeth Holmes is the founder of Theranos. Look her up! It’s fascinating reading. Essentially VCs and the tech press fawned over, finally, a female founder. I think it was the WSJ who wrote that she was reminiscent of a “young Steve Jobs”, and not just because she also always wears black turtlenecks. Instead of asking critical questions regarding her extremely shady company, everybody looked the other way, until the entire house of card collapsed.

    4. Don’t forget Marissa Mayer…who I think finally got the exit / kick-out…

      ….due to patriarchy, right??

    5. The commentary on Holmes was a little bit of sarcasm, on how from time to time appears “the new X of Y”.
      But now I actually remember what that cunt did. And if someone thinks the term I used was harsh -no it’s not. She played with the health of God-knows how many people. Being in jail would be the less harsh punishment she could have.

Leave a Reply to Geert Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.