Okay. It’s time to start some shit. Specifically with the person who wrote this book:
Much kerfuffle has been made by other genders about the “double standard” when it comes to the use of the word “slut.” The argument is essentially that the inclination to sleep with many people whom you barely know is viewed by society as a negative trait in women and a positive trait in men, and that this is unfair. My refuffle (i.e. rebuttal of the kerfuffle) is many-layered:
LAYER 1: It’s easier to be a slut than a stud. Every man knows that sleeping with a woman, any woman, especially one that you just met, requires a great deal of work: lying (mostly), back-handed complements, spending money, beating-out other males, wearing uncomfortably tight pants and reshaping your body in strange and unnatural ways. Men, on the other hand, require little or no effort to seduce. While a woman may have to put in some work to sleep with a man of very high social status or a reality TV star, it is a safe bet that 3/4 of the men in any given bar on any given night will sleep with a slice of pineapple if the opportunity presents itself.
It follows then that society would place greater value on the more difficult task, just as video games offer greater rewards at higher levels, while the “princess” is obtained only at the highest level of all. (Please note that I am not nerdy, this is just a good analogy).
LAYER 2: Men and women, though similar in many ways, have some biologically differences. Can we agree on this? Furthermore, these differences have to do chiefly with their sexual organs (i.e. bait and tackle vs. whale eye). Still with me so far? Now, doesn’t it seem to make sense that their attitudes towards sex could be just as different as their naughty bits? Therefore, is it not right and good and just that we use a different social standard to interpret their sexual behavior? A “double standard” if you will? And thus OMFG’s gender politics come beautifully into focus: we are all in favor of social and economic justice, fair governmental treatment and equal opportunities for all genders. But a double standard for sexual behavior? That one we might want to keep.
LAYER 3: RETURN TO LAYER ISLAND
The following is copied from an evolutionary psychology article that I found floating somewhere in the internet’s bastion of truth:
Since a man cannot be sure he is the father of his mate’s children, he would be more upset by a mate’s sexual infidelity than a woman would because women are always sure the child she is bearing is her own. In contrast, a woman who can benefit from a mate’s contribution to child rearing, would be more upset by a mate’s emotional infidelity (and the risk of economic abandonment it might presage) than a man.
(Buss, Larsen, Westen and Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, and Buss, 1996; Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst, 1982; Wiederman and Allgeier, 1993)
In case you’re dazzled by the long list of phycologists that support this theory and the use of the fancy word “presage,” I will codify (double fancy word bonus) my argument with the OMFG translation of the preceding statement: Men stress about sex, women stress about love. This is the SOCIAL result of the BIOLOGICAL differences discussed in Layer 2. THERE-MUTHAFUCKIN-FORE, men have created a social stigma, “slut,” to discourage women from promiscuity and to ensure paternity of their offspring. Other genders have a similar social invention that fills their biological needs, insuring the male’s continued economic support of their children. It’s called marriage.
It is important to note that there is another significant usage of the word “SLUT:” as an acronym for Seattle’s new public transportation system, the “South Lake Union Trolley.” In this usage, the word is an example of urban planning gone terribly, hilariously wrong and can be enjoyed by people of all genders.
The SLUT: Come on and ride it.