Why?
Because
you’ve got it, you sell it—you’ve still got it!
Must have
been invented by Jews.
An idea
sprite hit me while I was thinking of something else. Actually, I was thinking
of someone else but we shall work on
the precept of ‘no names, no pack drill’, eh?
The
sprite nudged my head towards the words ‘double standard’ and ‘hypocrisy’. I
did enquire of the sprite what the root of this was but, as usual, it just
laughed and backed off.
Further
thought came to me that this referred to sex.
We think
about sex a lot, don’t we? Yes, yes. Do not act the innocent with me. I have
run into those wide eyes before, they don’t work now.
We are
told that a man will think about sex every fifty six seconds on average. Women?
I have no idea but I imagine it will be along similar lines in spite of
protestations from the female population to the contrary.
We are
all human with the same urges to procreate, after all. Add ‘fun’ to that idea
and the thoughts begin to be irresistible.
So what
is it that is a ‘double standard’?
We shall
take just one but others exist, of course.
If a man
goes into a female student’s hostel and has his way with every one of the women
therein he will be labelled a hero. He will be ‘Jack the Lad’!
Of
course, the probability of his being able to accomplish this task beyond the
first few is minimal because he will be physiologically incapable of such a
performance in spite of what your friendly neighbourhood Romeo will tell you.
Let us
now switch sides.
A young
lady strolls into the male hostel and has her way with each of the young men in
that dormitory.
This is
far more possible.
Allow us
to leave aside the enormous pleasure she has just given any number of young men
and consider the choice epithets that will accompany her life into the
foreseeable future.
‘Slut’,
‘slag’, ‘whore’, ‘cow’, ‘slapper’ are just a few of the labels that this, now,
loose woman will be anointed with.
Why? Both
the fellow and the young lady did the same thing but the results, in the mind
of the observers, will be different.
Confucius
said, “One key fits many locks—good key; one lock opened by many keys—bad
lock.”
One
wonders at this double standard. It is fine for a chap to have a good time but
not a woman.
Men are
almost required to be ‘experienced’ before marriage but a woman must be a
virgin. Virgins are, it seems, good but non-virgins are evil.
So if the
girl is required to be ‘pure’ before marriage where does the fellow get his
experience?
Some
girls must be permitted to be impure to enable men to be capable of performing
adequately on the wedding night.
What of
these girls?
Prostitutes?
How
strange it is that a man will ‘sleep’ with a prostitute, who has had many
clients, with impunity. He has no regard for those that have gone before.
But
(there’s always a ‘but’).
If he
finds that the girl he is currently dating has had some previous experience
with a male he will be shocked—offended, perhaps. She is shown the road.
Suddenly his precursors are important.
Double
standard and hypocrisy rule.
Shall we
return to the young man and the young lady who appeared in the first scene?
Odd, is
it not, that the young lady who has been so acerbically criticised for her low
morals will now be the subject of close male attention. All the fellows will
wish to ‘date’ her.
Why?
Because
if she will allow herself to be bedded by those other chaps then, surely, she
will let him do the same. This makes her eminently attractive but not in the
long term. She is only there for dalliance and fleeting pleasures.
You may
well not be aware of this but women are the same. They are attracted to men who
have ‘experience’. Elephants, too, are like this; the young cows will gravitate
towards the older males when it comes to breeding because the older guys know
what to do without a lot of ‘messing around’!
Men who
appear to be inexperienced are less likely to attract a date irrespective of
their physical appearance.
Double
standards and hypocrisy.
Thousands,
perhaps millions, of years ago the World of humans was divided up into small
villages for those who were not nomadic. Even nomadic tribes had a common
grouping that had, at its head, a leader.
The
leader would be male. He was strong and capable. The defence of the group was
in his hands as was the potential to track and kill prey with which to
feed the group.
Such a
man would be an attraction to the females in the group. He would be seen as
someone who could protect her and, more importantly, their offspring.
The more
pro-active female will win and breed with the leader. Having bred she will now
be focussed on bringing up the children and caring for the home whether it be
tent or hut. She will allow her looks to fade.
Over in
the corner is another young lady with designs on the leadership; she will
flutter her eyelashes at the leader but, unless she is more direct, he will not
notice her because he is busy looking after the group and hunting, etc.
She
becomes more direct and he notices her. She is winsome, young, firm, shapely
and shows clear interest in him. He is tempted. His ‘wife’ is tired after a
busy day at home and looks it.
The
youngster becomes his mistress.
Whose
fault is it? His? Hers? He will get the blame and rightly so in modern times
because he has made a promise to his wife that he will ‘cleave only to her
until death do they part’. But she, the mistress, knows the risks; the blame is also to be
laid at her feet; the desire to get a man who is wealthy or successful
overcomes the fear of discovery.
What
about the wife? At the beginning we noted that women also want sex. Women also
have desires and needs. So it is that there is a market for the male prostitute—the
‘Gigolo’, if you will. Wives will also take casual lovers on the side. They do
this more often than people notice.
Why do
people notice women less?
Because
when a man is discovered to have a mistress he risks losing everything. Home,
family and even his job, quite often.
Woman
with a mistress? Yawn...
Double
standard and hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment