Dichotomy: The Virgin & The Whore

A while back I was engaged in a dialogue on twitter with @Broadwaybabyto, @MissLateJuly, and @Singlegirlie about whether or not women could have sex like men.  That is, have sex with whomever, whenever, and however they pleased without social consequence (i.e. judgment).  After some dialogue, and without much surprise, the general consensus among @Broadwaybabyto’s male counterparts was that, “while women have the right to have sex like men, they would be perceived in poor light nonetheless.”  To the frustration of many, the men who were consulted couldn’t explain the reason for the double standard.  Most notably, why were women held to a higher standard than their male counterparts when it came to being promiscuous?

For my part, I believe that there are at least 4 explanations, which taken together, can shed some light on the way guys perceive the Virgin and Whore dichotomy (Please contribute to the dialogue by posting a comment below); the reasons are as follows:  1) The Gatekeeper; 2) Social Equity; 3) The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From The Tree; and 4) Damaged Goods.   

The Gatekeeper

When it comes to sex, whether it is apparent or not, women are naturally in a position of power.  Simply put, guys cannot legally get laid without the express consent of a woman.  So, no matter how persistent, suave, charming, etc., a guy is, a woman is the ultimate determining factor in any sexual exchange. It is by virtue of this precarious positional power that women are held to a higher standard than men. 

Whether rightly or wrongly, guys are, in effect, absolved of judgment once the woman has said yes.  Guys are rewarded in the exchange because like a magician we're literally in a position of making something come from nothing -- we have to have done well enough to have convinced the woman to have sex with us.  Whereas, the perception of the Whore archetype is analogous to that of a security guard who lets everyone in indiscriminately.  Why have a security guard if they're not going to protect what's of value?  In other words, the Whore archetype may be viewed negatively because she is seen as 1) not being a good gatekeeper; and 2) weak (i.e. giving her power away too easily).  Generally speaking, people tend to view the losing or giving away of power as weakness, and weakness is generally seen as a negative.

Social Equity

While every human being has intrinsic worth and is valuable in their own right.  The notion of value comes into play in terms of social equity.  In business, there's the notion of supply and demand.  Simply put, assuming the item in question is desirable, the value of said item increases as supply of it diminishes.  As such, the more promiscuous a woman is, the more her value (i.e. social equity) diminishes. 

In other words, at the beginning, the promiscuous girl's reputation and social equity will increase as she rises in demand and notariety, but at a certain, relative point, her social equity will decline.  The rationale is that, with the exception of certain types of guys who are attracted to the Whore archetype (e.g. Bret Michaels), everyone's had a turn.  It may sound harsh, but she's no longer unique or novel, she's become common and second-hand by virtue of being so accessible, so easily attained.  Don't get me wrong, depending on how hot or talented the promiscuous girl is, most guys will likely hit that, but I can say with great certainty that she won't be "The One" for him (whoever easily attains her). 

There's a reason why Walmart is Walmart and Maserati is Maserati.  Among other things, exclusivity is what drives price/value, which necessarily impacts your investment/stake, which in turn affects how special it is to you - if everyone has had it then so what?  Exclusivity is what makes it yours, special to you.  This is why a woman wearing tastefully revealing clothes is generally much more alluring than a woman who is stark naked (note: I said generally) - not everyone gets to see what's underneath, just you.  If you're lucky. 

NOTE: men for the most part, unlike women, do not have a merit system that evaluates the quality of the notch in one’s belt.  Whereas, women critique their female counterparts based on who they have slept with.  The type of guy a woman sleeps with tends to be indicative of the quality of guy she can attract and attain, which is subsequently used to determine the quality of that woman.  As such, I suppose the logic follows that because so many women complain that there aren't enough quality men, that if a women is promiscuous, she must be giving it up to a number of lacklustre guys; ergo, a devaluation of her stock. 

Interestingly, women don't judge how good a boyfriend or husband a guy will be based on the number of conquests he's had, because like herself and her network of fabulous women in the same predicament, it's small pickings out there; so naturally a great catch will come with a number of conquests.  If anything, within a reasonable limit, a lot of women perceive a guy with a lot of conquests as any one of the following positive traits: desirable, experienced, risqué, etc.

The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From The Tree

I know what men think and desire, because I am a man...and I can admit, I can be disgusting.  I also know that the thought of having a daughter scares the shit out of me.  Not because I don’t want one, but because, I can’t bear the thought of my non-existent daughter being the subject of some son-of-a-bitch’s desire – the guy could be the most honourable man on the face of the planet, but he will never be good enough for my daughter...that is, not good enough to ever touch her in THAT way.  Oddly, for a very liberal guy, when it comes to family and children I am somewhat old fashioned.  And yes, I know that as a matter of biology, my future daughter will one day become a sexual being, but I think it’s safe to say that it’s every self-respecting father’s nightmare. 

Men think of their daughters as wholesome, innocent, and all that is pure in the world.  And to avoid our daughters (i.e. the Virgin) from becoming the type of sexual beings we desire in our own fantasies (i.e. the Whore), men look to their respective wives, or prospective wives (the girls we date-date, not sleep around with), to be the role models.  When you think of a role model for your children, I would be very surprised if the first thought that came to mind was a Whore.  NOTE: This isn't to say women can't and shouldn't be sexual.  It's important to note that I'm differentiating between the sexually liberated modern woman from the ho, straight up.  And a ho is generally one who gives it up very easily.

Safe to say, what men want for themselves is very different from what we want for our daughters.  Now, you may be thinking, just because a woman is promiscuous doesn’t mean she can’t be a good role model.  And you’re absolutely right, but this is where the male perception gets skewed by experiences, generalizations, and associations (refer to the following section).    

Damaged Goods

Perception: promiscuous girls are like the display item when you go shopping.  The display item is there for everyone to try; it’s banged up (pun intended?); and it’s more likely to be damaged than not - if not by the constant handling than by more deeply routed issues that we presume have caused her to become promiscuous in the first place (e.g. father issues, issues of abandonment, issues with low self-esteem, the need for acceptance, etc.). 

You have no problems playing around with the display item when you’re looking (i.e. learning about it, seeing if you want it, testing it out, etc.), but when it’s time to get serious and buy (read: play for keeps), you always ask for a new one, from the back, in the cellophane packaging.  The only time you ever accept the display model is if the store is out of stock and you really have no other choice OR if they’re willing to give you a great deal (i.e. you'll take it for now until a better model comes along); otherwise, the logic is, “if I’m paying full price, I want the best.”  Translation in the context of dating and relationships: If I’m investing myself (i.e. my emotions, effort, time, future, etc.) I don’t want a lemon.   

And so, in reference to the previous point, the rationale is that, while it is true that there exists the possibility that a promiscuous girl may be a good role model, there’s an assumption on the part of guys via experience, generalizations, and associations that on a balance of probabilities a promiscuous girl is more likely to be banged up and damaged (e.g. jaded, negative, baggage, self-esteem issues, unnecessarily dramatic, have STI's, etc.) than someone relatively new (i.e. the Virgin).  So it is safer to err on the side of caution.