Preference for sluts

[emma_the_librarian]

slut carries such negative connotations..
if we were guys, we'd be players..but that doesn't sound right either...

we need a new word..
in chess we'd be grandmasters...

until then, I'm sticking with vixen

 

[WishItsTrue_TG]

"There’s nothing––absolutely nothing––half so much worth doing as messing about in boats.
Kenneth Grahame, The Wind In The Willows

"It has always been my private conviction that any man who pits his intelligence against a fish and loses has it coming."
John Steinbeck


Yachtsman69,
Go trout fishing, ultra - the ultralight stuff, the 2 lb. stuff, or fly. If it was easy, it wouldn't be fun. Get a canoe, and hunt down some big-mouths. Those things are more huntingthan anything else. You hunt trout. Sneak up on them. You gotta put whatever your using light - gentle - down on the water, or you scare 'em. You gotta be able to "read" water. Check the banks and stream before you pick the fly. Hard stuff - Fun stuff.
I always thought the salt water guys were bait dunkers. Not the surf casters who only use artificials. They gotta to know what their doin' I got a lot of respect for the guys who go after the tarpon and bonefish. But the guys sitting on boats with coolers full of beer ......bait dunkers.

 

[WishItsTrue_TG]

Some men explicitly prefer sluts. I have heard various reasons but I am curious if any men here feel that way and if so why?

When I say slut I mean someone like me who has sex with multiple partners. That doesn't imply being stupid and careless and spreading my legs for anyone who asks. I am liberated, in control of my own body and conscious of my own safety and well being. I just happen to like having multiple lovers.

Gee, I never thought of "sluts" in terms of numbers. To me, a slut would be someone having sex with nameless faces. Guys there no real feeling with. For me, a slut has sex with a body.
The logical opposite would be "good" girls, but that's not accurate. The "non-sluts" is what I mean. They make love with people they care about. I don't include "True Love" as a requisite. But feeling there got to be feel. I'd define that operationally. Someone who makes you smile when you see them. Someone that makes you happy when you can talk to them. You got to like the peo[ple you go to bed with. I mean really like them as people with personalities different from anyone else.
Pretty idiosyncratic definitions I use - but than I'm using them to guide my life and their the best option for me. I don't sleep with the sluts. I want to sleep with "good girls" or rather non-sluts. Then, when we go for a slice of pizza after, we can have fun talking to each other.

Ohh! PS. I don't mean the scene! The scene is fun and games. I guess you could say I'm pretty slutty when it comes to that. And I count myself real lucky if I find a "slut" in the scene.

 

[Yookeroo]

I suppose it depends on why a girl is slutty. If it's low self-esteem, then that's not really attractive. If she's someone who just loves sex and likes to experience it all, then that is a turn on. Someone who isn't letting society tell her how she should play is refreshing.

 

[LoveHerNow]

slut carries such negative connotations..
if we were guys, we'd be players..but that doesn't sound right either...

we need a new word..
in chess we'd be grandmasters...

until then, I'm sticking with vixen

lmao Emma! I think vixen is a great word.

 

[alexanderlondon]

Slut, to me, does not come with negative connotations. Or it should not. It means someone, usually a woman, driven my their desires above all else. So if I think of someone as a slut, the word is breathless praise, rather than a condemnation.

 

[PullnPray]

Evolutionary psychology predicts that women should be more discriminating than men in choosing sex partners. Males have the biological potential to father hundreds of children per year, while females can only mother one child per year. So it makes sense that men and women would evolve different mating strategies. For males, reproductive success depends on quantity of sexual partners. For females, reproductive success depends on quality of sex partners. A female who has sex indiscriminately actually reduces her chances of passing on her genes. If she is impregnated by a male with poor genes, she can’t become pregnant by a man with superior genes. Also, the more sex partners she has, the less likely any one of them is to invest in her potential offspring due to paternal uncertainty. For this reason, it is only evolutionary advantageous for a female to have casual sex if it is with a male who has particularly fit genes (studs). For males, it is almost always advantageous to have sex… even with females with low quality genes. But while men have an almost limitless supply of sperm, they do have a limited supply of time and resources. For this reason, it is advantageous for men to only provide food, protection, and care to their female partners and offspring with the fittest genes.

While culture clearly plays a role in determining the sexual behavior of men and women in modern times, genetic predispositions also still plays a large role. As predicted by evolutionary psychology, men have a much greater appetite than women for no-strings sex. Men routinely pay women for sex, while the reverse is extremely rare. Additionally, studies have shown that women have higher standards of physical attractiveness for casual sex partners. For example, a woman might be willing to date a guy who is a “6” but would only have a one night stand with a guy who was an “8”. With men, it’s the opposite.

Sluts are evolutionary mysteries. For whatever reason, they adopt male mating strategies. They desire to be pounded by as many hard cocks as they can find, and they aren’t overly concerned with who the cocks are attached to. Do I have a preference for them? Yes and no. Sluts have a unique ability to induce male lust. They are like a bitch in heat whose scent attracts every unneutered male dog within a 2 mile radius. Their wantonness is intoxicating. Their blithe indifference to the fact that their behavior amounts to Darwinian suicide adds to their allure. But they don’t engender feelings of romantic love (unless you are a cuckold, I suppose). Rather, they produce in a man the urgent desire to dump his cum in them and then move along. In other words, they are great fun but not relationship material. But this works out well because sluts have little interest in monogamous relationships. They are turned on by their own objectification, and revel in their own depravity.

This is not to say that feelings of platonic love don’t develop. I lost my virginity to a slut named Tammy. So did five or six other guys I knew at the time. But I liked Tammy, and considered her a friend. In terms of looks, she was above average but nothing special. She was one of the guys. She’d watch porn with us and play video games. We treated her a lot better than the girls at our school did. During high school, I probably fucked Tammy 5-10 times and received countless blowjobs from her. But I don’t think I ever kissed Tammy on the mouth, and I know I never went down on her. I remember once feeling the inclination to kiss her, but then it dawned on me that she had just swallowed three loads of semen an hour earlier, and so I just gave her a hug instead.

It is naive to complain about the double standard that a man who has sex with many women is a stud while a woman who has sex with many men is a slut. As the old adage goes, a key that can open many locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock. While I don’t approve of the negativity that this analogy confers onto slutty women, it does point out important differences. Studs have lots of sex because they are in high demand (think athletes, musicians, and other men of high status). Sluts have lots of sex because they are in high supply (think Tammy). It is a very different dynamic.

 

[knottygirl]

Sluts are evolutionary mysteries. For whatever reason, they adopt male mating strategies. They desire to be pounded by as many hard cocks as they can find, and they aren’t overly concerned with who the cocks are attached to. Do I have a preference for them? Yes and no. Sluts have a unique ability to induce male lust. They are like a bitch in heat whose scent attracts every unneutered male dog within a 2 mile radius. Their wantonness is intoxicating. Their blithe indifference to the fact that their behavior amounts to Darwinian suicide adds to their allure. But they don’t engender feelings of romantic love (unless you are a cuckold, I suppose). Rather, they produce in a man the urgent desire to dump his cum in them and then move along. In other words, they are great fun but not relationship material. But this works out well because sluts have little interest in monogamous relationships. They are turned on by their own objectification, and revel in their own depravity.

If reading that made me wet, does that mean I'm a slut?

 

[UhlBWett]

Well.............

If reading that made me wet, does that mean I'm a slut?

If your nipples are erect and temperature is elevated............... maybe

You say it like it's a bad thing?

 

[Disabledbutsexy]

answer

The more partners safe or not, the more likely that you can catch something or feelings get hurt or worse. Sex is very powerful and needs to be done knowing what it means to the other person..

 

[UhlBWett]

Hmmmmm

The more partners safe or not, the more likely that you can catch something or feelings get hurt or worse. Sex is very powerful and needs to be done knowing what it means to the other person..

That's one take on it.................

 

[Hipshot1554]

To me a slut is a woman that rarely says "no". I prefer a woman who is nice...til it's time to be "not so nice".

 

[BigBadWulff]

When I was a senior in high school and a young sailor, I was into sluts because I simply wanted to get laid and didn't care by whom.

Later, when I was a sailor, there was a group of girls (18+, of course) in my home town who, by the time they graduated, had almost all been with at least three or four guys. I made it a goal to have each and everyone one of them. I got half a dozen of them while I was based just a couple of hundred miles away and could come home on weekends; and I got a couple more during our mid- to late-20s, even though some of them were in long term relationships or even married. Sluts don't stop fucking: they just become more discreet.

My last serious attempt at a known slut -- a woman then barely old enough to drink and half my age -- was more than a decade ago. I'd seen her in the local bar off and on, weeknights, weekends, it didn't matter, but she was always with some guy. Finally, one night, her beau pissed her off and she sent him packing. I asked to buy her a drink and she answered me by asking, "Wanna get out of here?"

I'd never had a woman ask me that in 20+ years of hitting on them. Twenty minutes later we were naked and banging the wall. Nice. I fucked her that one time and never had an interest in having her again, despite her being a great lay. I just wasn't interested at that point.

 

[policywank]

Evolutionary psychology predicts that women should be more discriminating than men in choosing sex partners. Males have the biological potential to father hundreds of children per year, while females can only mother one child per year. So it makes sense that men and women would evolve different mating strategies. For males, reproductive success depends on quantity of sexual partners. For females, reproductive success depends on quality of sex partners. A female who has sex indiscriminately actually reduces her chances of passing on her genes. If she is impregnated by a male with poor genes, she can’t become pregnant by a man with superior genes. Also, the more sex partners she has, the less likely any one of them is to invest in her potential offspring due to paternal uncertainty. For this reason, it is only evolutionary advantageous for a female to have casual sex if it is with a male who has particularly fit genes (studs). For males, it is almost always advantageous to have sex… even with females with low quality genes. But while men have an almost limitless supply of sperm, they do have a limited supply of time and resources. For this reason, it is advantageous for men to only provide food, protection, and care to their female partners and offspring with the fittest genes.

While culture clearly plays a role in determining the sexual behavior of men and women in modern times, genetic predispositions also still plays a large role. As predicted by evolutionary psychology, men have a much greater appetite than women for no-strings sex. Men routinely pay women for sex, while the reverse is extremely rare. Additionally, studies have shown that women have higher standards of physical attractiveness for casual sex partners. For example, a woman might be willing to date a guy who is a “6” but would only have a one night stand with a guy who was an “8”. With men, it’s the opposite.

Sluts are evolutionary mysteries. For whatever reason, they adopt male mating strategies. They desire to be pounded by as many hard cocks as they can find, and they aren’t overly concerned with who the cocks are attached to. Do I have a preference for them? Yes and no. Sluts have a unique ability to induce male lust. They are like a bitch in heat whose scent attracts every unneutered male dog within a 2 mile radius. Their wantonness is intoxicating. Their blithe indifference to the fact that their behavior amounts to Darwinian suicide adds to their allure. But they don’t engender feelings of romantic love (unless you are a cuckold, I suppose). Rather, they produce in a man the urgent desire to dump his cum in them and then move along. In other words, they are great fun but not relationship material. But this works out well because sluts have little interest in monogamous relationships. They are turned on by their own objectification, and revel in their own depravity.

This is not to say that feelings of platonic love don’t develop. I lost my virginity to a slut named Tammy. So did five or six other guys I knew at the time. But I liked Tammy, and considered her a friend. In terms of looks, she was above average but nothing special. She was one of the guys. She’d watch porn with us and play video games. We treated her a lot better than the girls at our school did. During high school, I probably fucked Tammy 5-10 times and received countless blowjobs from her. But I don’t think I ever kissed Tammy on the mouth, and I know I never went down on her. I remember once feeling the inclination to kiss her, but then it dawned on me that she had just swallowed three loads of semen an hour earlier, and so I just gave her a hug instead.

It is naive to complain about the double standard that a man who has sex with many women is a stud while a woman who has sex with many men is a slut. As the old adage goes, a key that can open many locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock. While I don’t approve of the negativity that this analogy confers onto slutty women, it does point out important differences. Studs have lots of sex because they are in high demand (think athletes, musicians, and other men of high status). Sluts have lots of sex because they are in high supply (think Tammy). It is a very different dynamic.

You are quite right from the point of view of a primarily monogamous society wherein procreation is the primary reason for sex. However, you largely ignore the prospect of sex for pleasure alone. In that context the reality is somewhat the opposite. No matter how much of a stud you are a woman can outlast you then carry-on for hours. She may not do that or want to do that for myriad reasons but her sexual capacity is infinitely greater than that of a man. Not because she is better or stronger - just the physical reality of how our bodies work.

Also it is interesting how the comments of most men identify sluts based upon a man's view of the world. Sluts are the women who put themselves out there as obviously available for one and all. Or they are the women who men believe can easily be identified as promiscuous. That is just what you see. There a lots of women who have multiple partners who are quite discrete. Chances are you have dated one and didn't even know it.

Many of the most desirable women in the world, now and in the past, were quite sexually open to say the least. They were not deemed sluts because the presented themselves as sophisticated.

To me the word only relates to promiscuity - it has nothing to do with tube tops and stripper heels. Lots of women, especially young women dress provocatively but are relatively inexperienced. And lots of women are quite promiscuous and you would not know it by their attire or behaviour.

Your gender comparison is rooted deeply in your own sexual views. Men willing to have sex are not what is in short supply. The need for a woman to be a lock is rooted in your need to see her that way.

 

[PullnPray]

You are quite right from the point of view of a primarily monogamous society wherein procreation is the primary reason for sex.

When it comes to traits evolved through natural selection, procreation is all that matters.

Also it is interesting how the comments of most men identify sluts based upon a man's view of the world. Sluts are the women who put themselves out there as obviously available for one and all. Or they are the women who men believe can easily be identified as promiscuous. That is just what you see. There a lots of women who have multiple partners who are quite discrete. Chances are you have dated one and didn't even know it.

My definition of a slut is a woman whose promiscuous mating patterns defy Darwinian explanation. But not all female promiscuity defies Darwinian explanation. A woman who discretely has regular sex with two different men, both of them 10s, is not a slut by my definition. Likewise for a woman who is in a "committed" relationship with a 6, but regularly cheats on him with 10s. However, a woman who is in a committed sexual relationship with a 10, but regularly cheats on him with 6s, does meet the definition. This type of behavior is very rare in females, and from a Darwinian perspective, it defies explanation. For men, however, this kind of behavior makes perfect sense. An evolutionary psychologist can explain why Hugh Grant cheated on Elizabeth Hurley with an ugly female prostitute. An evolutionary psychologist could NOT explain Elizabeth Hurley cheating on Hugh Grant with an ugly male prostitute (nor could he explain the existence of ugly male prostitutes).

Granted, my definition of a "slut" is pretty narrow and is inconsistent with how the word is commonly used. I've only met a handful of women in my life who fit the definition. Also, just because something is "natural" that doesn't mean it is moral, or vice versa.

 

[HoldYouDown]

Also it is interesting how the comments of most men identify sluts based upon a man's view of the world.

It is not based on a man's "view of the world." It is based on scientific fact. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Every rule of the sexual marketplace stems from this simple fact. It may be an unpalatable truth to some. Men and women have different biological directives, and nature rewards promiscuity for men and selectivity for women. Women are the gatekeepers of sex because they carry the precious cargo.

And procreation IS the primary reason for sex. It became pleasurable so that we would be motivated to engage in it.

The word itself is worthless. People use it the way they see fit. But the laws of nature and evolution govern us all, and no amount of solipsism or modern revisionism can rewrite them.

Kudos to PullnPray for his promotion of SCIENCE

 

[JudasIscariot]

I prefer the 'slutty' look, rather than a so called slut

Women who look naughty are just my favourite thing in the world

 

[Edensgarden]

When it comes to traits evolved through natural selection, procreation is all that matters.


My definition of a slut is a woman whose promiscuous mating patterns defy Darwinian explanation. But not all female promiscuity defies Darwinian explanation. A woman who discretely has regular sex with two different men, both of them 10s, is not a slut by my definition. Likewise for a woman who is in a "committed" relationship with a 6, but regularly cheats on him with 10s. However, a woman who is in a committed sexual relationship with a 10, but regularly cheats on him with 6s, does meet the definition. This type of behavior is very rare in females, and from a Darwinian perspective, it defies explanation. For men, however, this kind of behavior makes perfect sense. An evolutionary psychologist can explain why Hugh Grant cheated on Elizabeth Hurley with an ugly female prostitute. An evolutionary psychologist could NOT explain Elizabeth Hurley cheating on Hugh Grant with an ugly male prostitute (nor could he explain the existence of ugly male prostitutes).

Granted, my definition of a "slut" is pretty narrow and is inconsistent with how the word is commonly used. I've only met a handful of women in my life who fit the definition. Also, just because something is "natural" that doesn't mean it is moral, or vice versa.

I agree, your definition of slut is very narrow if you are defining it by the above.

I know many male 10s who are assholes and don't respect their wives. Yet if one of their wives seeks comfort with a "6", who treats her incredibly well but may have a few physical flaws, she is a slut? Really? Yet the same woman could be married to the 6 and cheat on the 6 with the asshole 10 and she is no longer a slut?

That's fucking bullshit. Sorry, too narrow for my mind to wrap around.

 

[windwater]

There are men, at least one I know of, who enjoys, not exclusively, women who come with few strings, women who understand the need and passion, at that time, for the play and sex. I have known many "sluts." Most were very connected mentally, in-touch with themselves, me and the situation at hand.

I doubt that many men would deny having the fantasy or goal of the "total use" of a woman. Where she can clearly say and mean, "do whatever you want."

Sluts are fun, sluts are cool, sluts get it, sluts give it.

 

[Litfanman_inGB]

Men make the mistake of marrying "nice" girls, and then trying to get them to act slutty. In most cases, this is contrary to their nature, and doomed from the start. If a man truly wants a hot wife, he should marry one.

Not I, I married the "slutty" hot chick who then got a sudden attack of morals. It happened to me all of the years I dated as well. I'm a man, I enjoy sex, so naturally I was attracted to the "liberated" girls and women I met. I'm not sure if it was social pressure or whatever, but things were fine for a while and then the "dirty" things became off limits and the longer the relationship the fewer things were acceptable. It's bizarre, one day you're coming home from work to find her half-naked and soaking wet. She attacks you like a mad-woman, unzips you and sucks you off and then fucks your brains out. Then a few weeks later, a request for a blow-job, while you're licking her into her third orgasm, is an issue now and she's never "felt comfortable" doing it and has always hated it. Throw in something about morals and right and wrong, although they have zero issues with you going down on them, and it's a, "Wait. WTF just happened moment. "

 

[PullnPray]

I agree, your definition of slut is very narrow if you are defining it by the above.

I know many male 10s who are assholes and don't respect their wives. Yet if one of their wives seeks comfort with a "6", who treats her incredibly well but may have a few physical flaws, she is a slut? Really? Yet the same woman could be married to the 6 and cheat on the 6 with the asshole 10 and she is no longer a slut?

That's fucking bullshit. Sorry, too narrow for my mind to wrap around.

My definition of a slut was meant to be morally neutral. I think it is similar to a sexual orientation. A small percentage of a female brains are wired in such a way that, like males, their instincts tell them to seek quantity over quality.

Obviously, the infidelity of the first female in your example is morally sympathetic, while the infidelity of the second female is not. However, I don't consider the behavior of either of the women to be "slutty", because I think they are both acting on normal female instincts. In both cases, the infidelity is motivated by quality rather than quantity. The first female is seeking a male who is a better caregiver, the second female is seeking a male who has better genes. An example of a slut would be a woman, who when her loving and handsome husband is out of town, goes to the adult bookstore to have anonymous sex with several men.

 

[PullnPray]

If reading that made me wet, does that mean I'm a slut?

If the prospect of being used as a cum dump by several men who don't consider you relationship material turns you on, then you might be a slut. Further investigation through PM is required.

 

[HoldYouDown]

Women use the word as a derogatory term more than men, anyway. Most men don't care; to them it only signals 1. Try to bed or 2. Stay away. Besides that most men don't use it in a "misogynist" way. Women often hurl the term behind each other's backs as a form of subterfuge and competition. Same way they'll say "I don't think she's pretty." This isn't a flaw - it's part of the program. I admit this portion of my argument is based on observation and not hard science.

There a lots of women who have multiple partners who are quite discrete. Chances are you have dated one and didn't even know it.

policywank is correct here, and there is a Darwinian explanation for this as well. There's a reason that on those sexual history polls, men often over-report and women under-report. Even adjusting for this, self-reporting is suspect of course. I never inquire about a woman's past. Spend enough time with her and she'll find a way to communicate it to you covertly. People in general are predictable and easy to read. However I advise against prying - you might find out something you don't want to know.

It's up to each individual to decide what they're comfortable with in a partner, and not feel pressured by being told they have "hang-ups." Everybody's different.

 

[HoldYouDown]

I agree, your definition of slut is very narrow if you are defining it by the above.

I know many male 10s who are assholes and don't respect their wives. Yet if one of their wives seeks comfort with a "6", who treats her incredibly well but may have a few physical flaws, she is a slut? Really? Yet the same woman could be married to the 6 and cheat on the 6 with the asshole 10 and she is no longer a slut?

That's fucking bullshit. Sorry, too narrow for my mind to wrap around.

Constant disrespect of a partner is like punching their ticket out of a relationship. For women most cheating requires an emotional swing, that is she was pushed away and lost interest in her man and found emotional satisfaction from another man, followed by physical. (USUALLY.) The situation you describe has little to do with sluttiness and more to do with the man's inability to sustain the relationship.

There are of course other examples - a female bonded to a beta male may discreetly fuck an alpha for his seed. That's why you see so many cuckold fetish threads. Alpha fucks, beta bucks as they say. It's a classic two-pronged (heh) approach to ensuring survival of offspring. These days with paternity testing it's much riskier, and of course not all "fucks" lead to offspring in the era of contraception. But Mother Nature doesn't know this - what drives an organism to procreate drives it whether a rubber wall catches the sperm or not.

Interesting discussion...

 

[WishItsTrue_TG]

PullnPray, I agree the math of genetics drives behavior, and that evolutionary psych. is the foundation of man's and woman's behavior. Better than ascribing man's action to them being selfish morons, or woman as lying manipulators or Madonnas or sluts. But recently they've been doing a lot of DNA testing, and the theory that females optimize offspring survival through monogamy is not holding up so well. It seems a hell of lot of female geese, ducks and starling have been cheating their little tail feathers off. And a lot of female gorillas slip off to the side with a young buck when the silverback isn't looking. A lot of the ideas Desmond Morris and his ilk came about when there was little field testing. Increased field work is showing the world is not so simple. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think 40% of egg shell DNA show two or more fathers. The animal world is a lot like our world, which shouldn't be too surprising. One reason suggested for female animal hanky-panky is that she ensures genetic diversity in the sires she choose. Or, she doesn't put all her eggs in one basket.

The reason old theories suggested females were driven toward monogamy may be that the females were more discrete, and their fiddling around wasn't noticed. Field workers have noted females are more discrete. I would suggest they might be more discrete because an offended hubby can be 30% or more bigger than her, and she was not likely to fare well if Honey Dearest got real angry. Animals do little talking to resolve their problems, and an angry mate is most like to use his teeth or beak to say, "I don't like what you did." You know, if my mate towered above me and out-muscled me, I'd be highly motivated to be as discrete as possible. No wonder women are better at cheating than men. It's a skill driven by deadly reality.

And I'm not sure that promiscuity logically leads to "Darwinian suicide." If Hubby has a genetic defect, promiscuity for the female would hedge her bets to produce at least one child who wasn't a blithering idiot. And basing your genetic future on selecting an Alpha males doesn't have great math behind it. If Daddy is Alpha, Mendel saids little Johnny only has a 1 in 4 chance of being a chip off the old block. And that's for peas. Human being really screw up the math. There's a protein coat around chromosomes that's changed by the life experiences of the bearer, and that protein coat affects the genes which are expressed. Honestly, I don't remember the specifics, but I think it runs something like this: If your grandmother experienced starvation when she was young, you have twice the chance of developing diabetes but your father isn't exposed to increased risk, or something like that. So a female that chooses an Alpha have twice the risk of a diabetic child because of what his grandmother lived through. And the Alpha will show no warning signs of the increased risk. Human genetics is very, very complicated. If a female chooses an Alpha to maximize her offspring, she's playing with odds that approach a lottery, and if the Alpha has a genetic defect, she's up the creek without a paddle. No wonder so many starling rub beaks with the local rake when Daddy is off hunting worms.

I would suggest holding off summary conclusions. Things are turning out to be very, very complicated.