It just seems that it's a rather passive stance to throw your hands up and say "nothing to be done - it is what it is and nothing ever changes so suck it up buttercup." If you run into one of these crafters of everyone else's reality, I'd hope you'd speak up for yourself if you have a different worldview. You get to be a decider too.
And tell them exactly what? "Dude, you've slept with 200 people, what difference does it make if she's slept with 100?". Shoot, as I'm writing that, I'm thinking "I might have actually said that" in the past. So, yeah me. Guess what? It still exists. You cannot shame people into liking something they don't like sexually or for relationships. I suppose if we totally turn society on it's head, we could; but there's a basic fundamental thing at play here that without a magic wand I cannot change for anyone.. And that thing is obvious, it's the difference in difficulty to have lots of sex for men vs women. A man who has 100 partners is good at getting women into bed; a woman who has 100 partners has no value conveyed because it's not "hard". You give me the magic wand, I'll use it to make women pursue sex as much/more then men, and then, it'll "be fixed" (as will other things, sex for money is a direct reflection of the difficulty difference between the sexes; men pay to reduce the difficulty and women are paid for it).
At it's core, chastity has value for women because it's "hard to do". And promiscuity has value for men for the same reason. It's not some huge "keep women down" sexist plot at play here, it's just biology and it's been that way for all of recorded history. Maybe we can change it someday, but it's not going to be by shaming men out of it, it's going to be because men are no longer more desirous of sex than women (likely because of technology to replace sexual interaction with something "better").
I don't feel women should be shamed for it, and I certainly didn't do it in my dating life, but, it's not unreasonable that some people feel this way, and, even if it is unreasonable (the fat guy who will only date thin women), it's still not my place to somehow shame that man into "compliance". Good luck with that dude; let me know how it goes.
I argue these are core biologically driven desires... and the new, progressive, untested beliefs are just wishcasting that will normalize with time.
The birth control pill is only here for about 50 years-- out of the whole span of human existence. All these "progressive" beliefs are only around because women can now take a pill and not get pregnant. But that doesn't change what evolution has baked into men-- the fear of being tricked into raising someone else's offspring.
Of course they are, which is why they've been present for all of recorded history. It's really not some huge master plan to "hurt women" or "keep women down", it's biology at play. And expecting "evolution" in ~50 years, well, it's not gonna happen. Nobody in the first world can be "cucked" anymore thanks to DNA tests, condoms and birth control. My mind knows that, but my more primitive brain (which is where sexual desires live) does not.
Also, a lot of the biology we might be able to overcome with societal changes, but the only way we're going to wind up "valuing" a high partner count in women is if suddenly getting sex for women because "hard". The only way I can see that happening (without a vast male die off event) is through men winding up with other sexual "outlets" that are more fulfilling than sex; they need to be the ones who have to be "talked into it" and courted by women. Then you'll get what you want, men with a high count will be shamed and women with a high count will be "studs".
Making this FAR more general, we value what's "difficult". Back in history, getting enough food was difficult, and, during that time, overweight people were the height of "attractiveness" because it showed they have excess of things that most people cannot get. Today, we value thin, we have tons of food, the "hard" thing to do is resist the temptation, so now we value those who can do that well. Suntans used to be a mark of someone who worked in a field, most people had "great" tans, the only people who didn't were nobility who didn't have to work a field. So we valued those with pale skin, to the point where people would powder their faces white. Now, a suntan is seen as attractive because it indicates someone who has enough free time to sit around in a bathing suit by the pool after working their office job. We value the things that indicate status, are rare and are difficult to do. And having sex with a 100 women, for most men, meets all those criteria, where, for most women, it does not. It's not some sexist conspiracy theory, no matter how damaging it is to both sexes, it really has nothing to do with "forcing" men or women to be a certain way and everything to do with the difficulty in obtaining lots of sex for each gender.
[This message edited by Rideitout at 1:32 PM, August 17th (Monday)]
