new meme:

[drewkitty]

If you oppose the Bush regime or the War on Terror, post this to your journal or blog.

"Liberals don't let liberal friends sleep with conservatives. If they must be so very dense, let them settle for their own hands, closeted gays, and what passes for sexuality among conservative women."

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Unlike you, I don't assume that sex is sinful.

I said nothing about "sin."

(Hint: I'm an atheist).

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

So if being a slut is not sinful, exactly what is your problem with sluts? Just asking.

Some Preliminary Points

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

So if being a slut is not sinful, exactly what is your problem with sluts?

Ok, first of all, I disagree with your implicit argument that a code of ethics or morality must be based upon religion: that only with a concept of "sin" is a concept of Good and Evil possible. An alternative approach is to designate "good" that which advances the cause of one's own survival and happiness in the long term, and "evil" that which harms this cause.

Interestingly, when one does this, the resultant prescribed behavior conforms fairly closely to most religiously based codes of morality. The reason is simple: religions are evolved memetic systems, and those which failed to promote the long-term survival and happiness of their adherents generally failed in Darwinian competition with more felicitious religions.

Now, as to my specific original point:

The choice of a mate, evolutionarily and personally, is one of the most important choices any human being can make. It is certainly more important to any individual than political details, especially when one reflects that one has roughly 50% of the power in choosing a mate (the intended mate has the other 50% of the power) but only tiny fractions of a percent of the power in choosing one's political leadership.

Hence, unless the political differences are extreme and translated into extreme personal behavioral differences (Scrooge McDuck marrying an Anarrean anarchosocialist), it is irrational to let political differences stand in the way of mating with someone you would otherwise find desirable.

Darwinian-Dawkinsian Evolutionary Reasons

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Now, as to your question:

Each gender has basically two possible extremes between which to pitch its mating strategy. These are not the same for males as for females, for the simple reason that females can easily be stuck with nearly the whole cost of childrearing, but it's much harder for males to wind up in this position. After Dawkins, I will label the male strategies "Faithful/Philanderer" and the female ones "Coy/Willing."

These strategies roughly correspond to, in the same order, "Cooperate With Partner/Betray Partner" in the Prisoner's Dilemna. In other words, the best payoff for both genders is the "Faithful/Coy" match (where the female only yields on proof of long-term commitment).

But the Prisoner's Dilemna symmetry breaks down because the male and female have different "victory conditions." The male wants to avoid devoting his resources to caring for the children of other males, the female wants to avoid bearing a child who no man will help her raise.

If she is Coy, the point of it (*) is to discourage Philanderers, who will not be willing to go through a long courtship when their intentions aren't that serious. If she is Willing, the point of it is to trick a Faithful male into supporting her children by other males as well as his own.

Likewise, the Faithful male is trying to mate with someone who will not have children by other males and hence make him waste some of his resources. So he looks for proof of her future faithfulness, and the most obvious sign is that she is behaving like a Coy rather than a Willing female, while still displaying interest in him.

And that, in short, is why men may dally with sluts, but marry nice girls. If they are wise.

And that, in short, is why being a "slut" -- or at least being perceived, as one, is a bad thing for a woman.

And no. It's not fair.

I refer you to Jareth the Goblin King on the matter of "fairness." :)

===
(*) In the Darwin-Dawkins sense of "point." Obviously the emotions involved may be, and probably are, much more complex.