RVCA

I'm surprised the evolutionary viewpoint hasn't been brought up yet. So...

Evolutionarily speaking, females invest more into spreading their genes. They have to deal with the fetus developing inside of them for 9 months, consuming their nutrients and causing minor health issues while simultaneously being physically encumbering. They have to experience the excruciating birth process. They must invest significantly more post-birth, too. Breastfeeding, rearing, etc.

For a male to spread his genes, he just needs to f*** as many females as he can.

So really, I'd argue that men are biologically programmed to be "sluts" and that's the way it has always been, therefore it's socially acceptable that they are indeed sluts. However, women are expected to do everything I just listed, and that's why it's not socially acceptable for them to sleep around; our evolutionary past dictates that they can't, if they wish to pass on their genes.

VEGANGELICA

No...and if a man or woman does sleep with a lot of partners, I wouldn't call him or her a slut. They probably have their reasons.

Some reasons may be positive (I love this! This feels so good and exciting! This adds to my life!). Some may be negative (I'm a no-good loser anyway; my body and boundaries mean nothing; no one will love me for who I am; I might as well just use my body instead of find greater intimacy).

I have sympathy for people in both situations.

However, when you break a promise to someone by sleeping with another, then that is very hurtful, since you violate trust and potentially put your partner at risk. I still wouldn't call the person a slut, though.

Studies show that women often cheat physically on their mates, so I question how much validity the sociobiological argument has. In the U.S., 25 percent of men and 17 percent of women have had extramarital affairs, according to one study Infidelity Statistics.

Also, note that many men (and women) never have infidelities and not only prefer but enjoy monogamy...so this suggests there isn't a huge inborn desire to be non-monogamous.

I agree the sociobiological argument does seem to make biological sense--the whole idea that women may be "choosier" because the maximum number of children they can have in a lifetime is much less than the number of children a frisky man could potentially have. I think nature is more complicated, though, than the rules you suggest.

For example, it is certainly possible for a woman to pass on her genes even if she sleeps around! The minimum you really need from a man is one sperm to pass on your own genes! That's not much. You can get one sperm and a lot of sex with different people and still have a child!

However, I do think people want to know a child is theirs, so they desire a potential mate to exhibit the ability to be monogamous and to care for her or his children. That biological urge is probably one of the main reasons "slut" as a bad term even exists.

__________________