By 
0
0
Feminism wants women to have the right to sexual freedom, be able to wear revealing clothes without being slut shamed or victim blamed, and to embrace female sexuality rather than repress it and hide it away.
Feminism states that men constantly objectify women by viewing them as sex objects, depicting them wearing revealing clothes in movies and music videos, and complains that Beyoncé is not a ‘suitable’ feminist role model because she wears too many revealing clothes and showcases her sexuality. (In other words, self-objectifies).
Yeah, I’m confused too.
Objectification, in simple terms, is reducing a human down to an object or something to use for your own pleasure. One may objectify a servant as someone to cook them food and clean their clothes; they don’t view them as a person with feelings, but simply something to serve them for their own pleasure. Sexual objectification is viewing a person as nothing more than a sex object for sexual pleasure; stripping away their humanity and just reducing them down to ‘nice tits’ or ‘sexy abs.’
Sex Object?
What is the real difference between ‘objectifying’ a person and simply being sexually attracted to them? I don’t know. I suppose that we would objectify/admire anyone of the opposite sex that we know nothing of. You see a hot guy/girl in the street and you ‘objectify’ them. You think damn, he/she is hot. (Because yes, girls have sex drives and check out men too, most of us are just less upfront about it.)
Once you get to know a person, any person, of course you start to see them for who they really are inside. You see whether or not you like or dislike them. In a relationship context, a man may value a woman for her personality, interests, character and the like. Simply viewing her as something for him to have sex with can be said to be objectification, because after getting to know the woman he still only views her as a nice pair of tits and arse with a great mouth for sucking dick. He doesn’t view her as a human with feelings or care about what she wants or likes to do as a person.
Unfortunately there are many men like this. But it must also be stated that many women view men as ‘walking cashpoints;’ simply something to buy them shit. These women (aka gold-diggers) likewise don’t care about men’s feelings at all, they just view men as suppliers of money (which is sexist in itself because it’s claiming that women should have to constantly depend on men for financial security). In that sense aren’t these women objectifying men?
Society has long taught women to be ashamed of or to hide their sexual desires, and that sex should only be for marriage and is all about the woman pleasing the man. So wouldn’t it make sense for modern women to now be highlighting their sexuality?
Isn’t Beyoncé empowering women by showing that she’s proud of her body? Why would she give a shit about doing it for male attention when she’s been with the same man for God knows how many years?
Music and Objectifying Women
But again, this is a complicated area. Many musical pop artists like Beyoncé, Rihanna, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga all wear revealing clothing and showcase their bodies. At the same time, other artists like Adele, Alicia Keys, Lily Allen and Taylor Swift don’t do this. Why is that? Perhaps they just choose not to. They only wear what they want to. Otherwise, every female musical artist from Diana Ross to St Vincent would be dressed like a porn star.
We all know that sex sells. Sexual appeal of women (and men) is used to sell products like perfume and clothes and jeans and cars. Many feminists argue that this is indeed objectifying women, because it is reducing them to nothing more than sex objects being used to allow businesses to capitalize off a product. Music is not porn. Modern music videos are filled with half naked women dancing around men. This includes both the female musical stars, and the background women dancing around the male stars. We all know the outrage that was caused among Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ video for showing nude women standing there in the background.
Films also play into the male-gaze idea – actresses in movies being portrayed constantly as love interest rather than the lead role (though there are many, many films where this is not the case – in fact this is mostly common in rom-coms) and dressed up in sleazy tight clothing only for the male’s attention.
Strip Clubs, Burqas, and Indigenious Women
Strip clubs are criticised by some because they are nothing more than women dancing and stripping for the attention of men and for their money. Some would argue that this is not empowering at all, it is horribly degrading and again reduces a woman down to her body parts. But then did the stripper not choose to do that? Did the porn star not choose to work in porn? Some strippers and porn stars land those jobs because of abuse in childhood or drug problems. But not all drug addicts become strippers and some simply do it to help pay for university. And if they are enjoying it, doing it voluntarily and aren’t getting hurt by it, then is it really that bad?
And what about burkas? Some claim that the burka is a symbol of freedom because it allows Muslim women to not be objectified and to protect their modesty in order to be seen as a whole woman. However, others believe that the burka is a symbol of oppression because it is the men who are making women cover their bodies as it is the men who view women as sexual objects in the first place so men believe that in order to preserve the modesty of women (because apparently that’s very important) women should cover up their bodies so they don’t look like ‘sluts’ and instead look like decent, respectable women that a man can introduce to his mother. After all, it’s the man who the women wearing burkas are being ‘protected’ from in the first place.
It should also be mentioned that in many indigenious tribes, women have their breasts hanging out because it’s just a normal part of their culture. Indigenous women don’t ‘cover up’ any more than the men do. What is so wrong with the naked body anyway? Perhaps it’s because Western society has sexualised the human body so much that we can’t handle seeing naked women (or men) anymore because it’s ‘too sexual.’
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dress-clothing/The-nature-and-purposes-of-dress
Feminine Attention
As a female myself, I am well aware of the fact that many girls including myself dress up for the attention of men on certain occasions. Even if we’re not intentionally looking for male attention, it will be subconscious. If I’m walking around in a giant coat and jeans and a hoodie and going about my business, I’m not looking for some fucktard on the street to whistle at me. However, if I’m going to a club with friends and looking for some male attention I will dress accordingly. Many women’s clothing is designed to be more revealing and tight fitting than men’s clothing. I remember the trousers back in secondary school – boys generally wore baggier trousers, girls wore tight fitting trousers. This was typically to appear older and ‘more appealing’ to the opposite sex.
From an evolutionary perspective, human women are designed to look attractive in order to attract a man to pro-create with. For some animals it’s the opposite – in peacocks it’s the men who are hotter with all those fine feathers. Flowers look and smell pretty because they need to attract bees so that the bees can fertilise them. Women look for a strong male who will provide them with security, and men look for an attractive female to have attractive children with. This is known as sexual selection.
Your Point Being?
What I am trying to get at here, is I am not sure what I am trying to get at here.
There isn’t really a point on this post because I’m not really arguing anything, I’m inquiring. I believe that people should wear what they feel comfortable with for themselves not for the sake of pleasing/obeying someone else. I disagree with slut shaming and victim blaming – girls should be allowed to freely sexually express their bodies. Finding people attractive of either or both sexes is completely fine; using a person to exploit them for their body or wallet or whatever else is manipulative and cruel.
Beyoncé and Adele are both talented, hard-working female artists who should be allowed to present their image as they feel suits them. Women since the beginning of time have used their sex appeal towards straight men to their advantage. Likewise, men since the beginning of time have and do take advantage of less experienced women for the sake of sexual pleasure and dominance. (An example of this is R Kelly marrying Aaliyah when she was 15 and he was 24). Generally, women like looking good. We like taking care of our appearances. Sometimes it’s to look attractive to men, but sometimes it’s just to feel good about ourselves. Nowadays many men also care about how they look, hence why they go to the gym so much. Having a v line and a six pack have become the ideal body norm for men.
See also: To be or not to be a feminist?
I don’t really know how to conclude this topic, so I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Objectification, the male gaze, sex selling, and the like.
Thanks for the interesting and articulate post. One question I don't think you asked occurs to me. When a person, say, a woman, chooses to dress in a particular way in order to attract the approving attention of men, to what extent is her decision to do so influenced by the socialization she has experienced in a patriarchal society? And further, having made that decision, to what extent is her choice of clothing to achieve that end also influenced by patriarchal socialization? Some feminists, I think, would argue that patriarchal socialization is a big influence in both cases; and that thus, the choices are not as morally neutral as they first appear. (See, for example, The End of Patriarchy by Robert Jensen.) What's your view?
To be honest, I would say in modern Western countries such as Britain we no longer live in a patriarchy, and that women naturally dress well to make ourselves feel good, because we like looking good, because other women judge each other on appearance, and for the attention of males. However, I believe that because of sexual selection, women naturally look good in order to attract a mate and men are more inclined to go to a woman who looks good in order to have good looking children. This is just a natural part of evolution. But in modern day society I think women just dress well because we like to look good and it feels good (when appropriate) to have some male attention – lots of girls just like the attention and as long as they're comfortable I see nothing wrong with that. I'm glad you liked the post!
I think you are right about all of that. However, "unpacking" patriarchy theory is no simple task. Karen Straughan made what I think was an excellent start in one of her videos–I think I have it bookmarked, and will try to look it up. Jensen, in the book I mentioned in my original comment, makes a compelling (though not, to my mind, convincing) argument that virtually all present societies are patriarchal, which will not be refuted by appeals to evolution or the perceived present freedom that women enjoy. Carole Pateman, another feminist I am presently reading, argues that the very founding principles of western democracy are patriarchal (or rather, fraternal) in nature, as a necessary result of their historical development. It's a hard row to hoe.
Why is it sexist for gold-digger women to depend on men for financial security? How is that more sexist than the men with higher-than-normal testosterone rates who depend on women for sexual stimulation? It's great that women are afforded the versatility and luxury of having such choices in roles but men really do not. I don't see how a woman conforming to gender roles is "sexist" though? As you said, “Women look for a strong male who will provide them with security, and men look for an attractive female to have attractive children with. This is known as sexual selection.”
"Society has long taught women to be ashamed of or to hide their sexual desires, and that sex should only be for marriage and is all about the woman pleasing the man."
– Are you sure about this? It seems to me more like women taught other women that their bodies, especially in the act of sex, have a LOT of precious value which feminists today manipulate as being oppression when in reality, it was just self-respect, class and tact.
Women complain about women being objectified only because of the way it makes them feel, usually about themselves. Women get uncomfortable around other women dressed "slutty" a heck of a lot more than men get uncomfortable (especially who are not married or related to the slutty-dressed women or the father of her children). It makes a lot of women insecure and/or competitive to see other women showing off their physical assets – this is something feminism consistently fails to address (or blames it on men). Additionally, it seems that many women like it when objectifying themselves works to get men’s attention, as they do it quite often with no regard for the other women around them and how they might feel about it all.
Also, more women dislike sex or are neutral towards it than women who love sex the same way that men do (which are a very small minority compared to all women). Women waiting to have sex for marriage was more about conning young men into marriage, not oppressing women's sexual desires but oppressing men’s sexuality by forcing them to marry to get any sex. In reality, this only served to further benefit women when it came to sex as they had all of the power, and sex is much more valuable when it was harder to come by. Compare that to today, post-feminism, where women are pressured to satisfy men sexually – otherwise there is always some other woman who is willing to do it that he can leave you for. Today (thanks to the feminist “sexual revolution”), women feel pressured to compete more with other women, which has ultimately led to women objectifying themselves in ways they never had to before.
Additionally, when women were not pressured to compete sexually, men were able to focus more on women’s personality and character. Instead of women leading with their physical assets, they would lead with their mind and personality. We see this a lot less with young women today, who often prefer to lead with their physical assets.
Furthermore, men tend to appreciate virgins and being with women that no other men got to have "carnal knowledge" of. It makes them feel special and they hold it in very high regards, treating women in those positions much differently than women that many men have already "explored". (Kind of like when women feel special when their man can spend quite a bit of money on a romantic date/gesture for them, rather than the men who take them to McDonald’s or only out to do the things that he wants to do.) Women waited to have sex because it usually meant that they could get better men as a reward for waiting, which again has nothing to do with oppressing female sexuality. It was a woman’s choice. Most of the social stigma came from getting pregnant outside of marriage, because the negative affects this had on children was well known at the time (but unfortunately forgotten a lot in present time).
Lastly, sex used to be very limited to what pleased women in what many today refer to as “boring, regular, typical sex”. With feminism also came things like “blow jobs”, which ironically are the act of a woman sexually pleasing a man without getting any pleasure for herself (usually). So in reality, feminism and the sexual revolution made women submit to men sexually more so than they did before feminism. So if anything, women are more “oppressed” in that way today due to the social pressure of keeping up with all other sexually active women (which used to be limited to "professional" prostitutes).
“Many feminists argue that this is indeed objectifying women, because it is reducing them to nothing more than sex objects being used to allow businesses to capitalize off a product.”
– Yes and they ignore the fact that women choose to objectify themselves – sometimes for money and sometimes for the “fun and/or empowerment” of it, in their own words.
“Films also play into the male-gaze idea”
– These are usually raunchy comedies, horrors or action pieces though. Serious dramatic films do this a lot less.
"It should also be mentioned that in Third World countries and tribes, women have their breasts hanging out because it's just a normal part of their culture."
– Yes, because women in First World countries prefer to be clothed and societies in First World countries cater to women much more than Third World countries which often have very misogynist views and real rape cultures etc. Where women *can* have feminism, they choose clothes – even if they don’t choose feminism.
“Women since the beginning of time have used their sex appeal towards straight men to their advantage. Likewise, men since the beginning of time have and do take advantage of less experienced women for the sake of sexual pleasure and dominance.”
– I think your male “equivalent” is more of a worst case example. The trade is more that men take advantage of younger women for the sake of more birthing years to make sure he can “plant his seed” and keep his genes alive.
In my opinion: I think American society has a hard time with sexual objectification and has spent too much time on both extremes of the scale. I think America would be much smarter to learn from European countries on this subject and deal with it on a much more mature level. The problem is feminism. Feminism claims to stand for women's choices yet they don't approve – and sometimes try to ban – women's choices when they involve anything perceived as submitting to men's wants/desires/fantasies/preferences/etc. This is why feminism doesn't support strippers, prostitutes or porn stars – even if the women sincerely love their jobs.
The way I see it, sex shouldn't be as manipulated as it is in America – from either side. We shouldn't be sexualizing anything and everything that we possibly can nor should we become Puritan and claim all sex outside of a "holy" structure is "evil". I don't agree with feminists claiming that "all women should have sex a la carte like a [stereotypical] man". I also think that if women choose to have sex, they should be mature about it and respect others' opinions about it. If they want to have sex with a ton of men, then just have sex with the men who respect your decision to do that but don't try to make ALL men respect your decision – that's just crazy.
With regards to sex being only for marriage, I'm talking about this in the context of women being men's 'property' and men essentially owning women (even paying dowry to the woman's father in order to be with the woman – something that still goes on in some countries). Lots of religions, i.e. Christianity and Islam, stated that women were the property of men and that women should not sleep with a man she was not married to.
It is true that women are often in competition with each other and feel 'threatened' by other more attractive women hence slut shaming other girls and calling girls sluts and whores because of their clothes. I wouldn't say that women waiting for sex was about conning men into marriage, although that's an interesting viewpoint; I think it was just more about how society used to view women's sexuality and nowadays it's good that women have more sexual freedom and have the chance to explore their sexuality.
But yes it's true that some women still feel threatened by other women and even some men may be turned off by a woman that is very sexually free and promiscuous.
Thank you for clarifying for me. In the time period that you are referencing, sex was only for marriage but men had to prove worthy of getting the woman's hand in marriage. He was expected to be responsible for her and completely provide for her, so he had to prove that he had the financial means to take care of the woman and be impressive enough to earn his wife. Since the men had to pass all of these tests to prove themselves worthy, it was the trade-off that the women they did this for would be "pure", or why would he work so hard to prove himself worthy if she's already given herself to another man who didn't have to prove his worth the same way? Furthermore, this was an insurance against paternity fraud.
That being said, I am aware that some countries have truly misogynistic cultures that go beyond this. I have a friend from India who has told me about many differences between her culture and America's.
Well if you think women waiting for sex was more about women's sexuality then I'd like to ask you: Why would men have chosen to purposefully not be able to have sex with a woman unless they were married and committed to her, and thereby expected by society to always pay for her and make her happy? Why wouldn't the men have legalized prostitution if they were the ones in control and oppressing women sexually?
I think women have always had sexual freedom and the chance to explore their sexuality but that before it used to be just with their husband whereas now women are encouraged to do that with multiple men. I don't see how that helps women. I'm not saying we should pressure all women into waiting until marriage but I do think they shouldn't trade 1 extreme for another, switching from just 1 sexual partner to as many as possible. Women today see their bodies more as something to be objectified because the sexual revolution encouraged them to be communist with their bodies. Instead of it being a rare value that has to be earned, they were encouraged to give it away like it was free candy. What has this done for society? Caused a lot of divorce, a lot of broken homes and single parents and a lot of underage girls oversexualizing themselves because it's all they see all of the women doing.
Yes, when it comes to marriage and having a child with a woman, most men are turned off by a woman that is promiscuous because she is seen as untrustworthy and having a higher likelihood for paternity fraud.
I don't think it's the fact that men purposefully 'chose' to not be able to have sex with a woman they weren't married to, but more that they didn't want a girl who was promiscuous and to be sure of that it made more sense for her to stay a virgin until marriage. The people who made all the decisions around women's bodies were men; if a woman had sex outside of marriage she was considered a whore. Also men have always had girlfriends on the side.
I would say nowadays women are just more comfortable with their sexual freedom and the choice to have as many or as little sexual partners as they want. It's true that there are a lot of broken homes and divorce but consider the fact that divorce used to be a taboo and people could have been in unhappy relationships and unable to get out of them. There are multiple reasons for the divorce rate going up; I doubt it'll be because women now have freedom of sexual expression.
'Communist with their bodies' is a bit of an extreme way to put it. Not every single woman is going to sleep around with as many guys as possible. Saying that being promiscuous makes someone untrustworthy isn't true; as long as you're faithful to the relationship you're currently in it doesn't really matter how many/little people you slept with beforehand. Also what about promiscuous men? Why should promiscuous women be seen as a bad thing but not promiscuous men? How about people just sleep with whoever they want and no one judges/cares about it?
Also speaking from experience being a virgin can make it more likely for a guy to take advantage of you due to your inexperience. Marrying a guy doesn't necessarily equate to sexual freedom because he could pressure you into stuff you didn't want, or make the sex be all about pleasing him.
Is there something wrong with men having the preference of not wanting promiscuous women? How is that any different than the fact that the women then used men’s need and want for sex against them by making them meet certain standards in order to get it? Women preferred men who had more money and status, just as men preferred women who had less other sexual partners. Men put their bodies through a lot, made a lot of sacrifices and often pushed themselves to the limit just to earn enough money to be worthy of the women they wanted to be with in life. How is that less oppressive than a man not wanting a woman to have already shared herself with a bunch of other men? Men and women don’t have the same preferences.
Why do you say that “the people who made all the decisions around women's bodies were men”? Men and women were usually in agreement about this trade off. The only time men were the only ones to make a decision about women’s bodies were when they rape women or when the Supreme Court voted in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade, when all of the judges happened to be male.
If a woman had sex outside of marriage she was considered a whore by men and women, but especially women who were more prone to gossip and socially shame her. Men rejected marrying them but it was usually other women who were actually “punishing” them for not falling in line with the rest of them.
Also men have always had girlfriends on the side because there have always been women who don’t respect commitment, know the man has a wife and don’t care. Usually the mistress knows about the wife but the wife doesn’t know about the mistress.
Does it really seem like women nowadays are “more” comfortable with their sexual “freedom” when they still complain about sexual objectification, regretting sex more – especially the casual kind, claiming rape more often than ever (without evidence to prove it) and are still largely against legalizing prostitution? Those things seem to say otherwise, to me, that women are actually less comfortable with sexuality than they used to be. I don’t think doing more sexual things (having more sexual pressure) is the same as being comfortable with it. Too many studies show women regretting their sexual encounters. [Also, a lot of women who want to, are having trouble getting married today, since men have far less incentive than ever to get married as well as much more open sexual temptation outside of marriage.]
I have considered no-fault divorce and I think it was a really bad idea. This is all connected. Part of the reason there were unhappy marriages were because the men had to marry women young, before they were ready and to women they didn’t really want to be with forever, or they’d have to go many years without ever getting to have sex – and men do have a drive for sex that the clear majority of women simply do not have. It is harder for men to wait on sex than women, overall. So yes, some people were genuinely helped by no-fault divorce but then it damaged the longevity of marriage in the long-term. The Boomers all got divorced and have been on a remarry-divorce cycle ever since. They’re even calling it “gray divorce” now because the Boomers are still the main reason for high divorce rates. Enter Hollywood couples getting married and divorced like it was no big deal and we created a culture of divorce. The sexual revolution was one factor in rising divorce because women started giving out sex more and the amounts of mistresses and cheating increased. Also, men are less likely to cheat on wives who are virgins than wives who are promiscuous. That being said, the main reasons for divorce are usually that they are too young to get married as well or the man doesn’t make enough money, as well as some other factors.
'Communist with their bodies' had nothing to do with “every single woman” but rather the philosophy pushed during the sexual revolution, which was to “have sex a la carte”. Women who are promiscuous do have higher rates of paternity fraud and in that context, saying they are less trustworthy is true.
Women have every right to share the same preference as men when it comes to promiscuity and can reject men who they think have slept with too many women. Is anyone stopping them from that? The reason why men get a pass at promiscuity is because women give them one. This is usually because the women understand that their desire for sex is not the same as men’s, and that their own preferences lie elsewhere. Women tend to prefer men who are tall, have money and have status within his community. Should they have to change their preferences? Why should we ask men to not have their own preferences of what they want from women if we don’t ask women to do the same? Men are different from women, shouldn’t they be allowed to have their own preferences?
I have to say, my own experience disagrees with yours. I was a virgin all throughout high school and my conviction made it less likely for guys to take advantage of me because I was adamant about preserving my virginity. I purposefully never took an open drink from someone when with a group (to lessen chances of getting the rape drug), didn’t hang out with guys alone, didn’t do drugs, never led on guys or sexually “teasing” them (not dressing provocative) and slapped any guy who tried to touch me inappropriately. Of course there are some guys who try to take advantage of virgins but there are also a lot of guys who respect and stick up for virgins that they don’t even have plans of sleeping with. Either way, I think virginity should be a woman’s choice. If she wants to hold onto it as long as she can, she shouldn’t be pressured otherwise. If she doesn’t want to hold onto it, that’s fine too but I think she should at least be told that most guys do not prefer women who have slept with many guys when they are looking for long-term marriage partners, so she can make her choice with wisdom rather than ignorant of what consequences may result. To me, empowerment isn’t just about choice but also about knowledge and knowing as much as possible to make the most informed choices.
How does having sex with random guys who aren’t even willing to commit to you equate to “sexual freedom”? If he’s not your husband, he is more likely to pressure you into stuff you don’t want because he doesn’t love you or cherish you, and especially if he’s not even your boyfriend either. Also, a husband is much more likely to take your feelings into consideration because he respects you and cares about you enough to tie his entire life legally to yours. Furthermore, if he does ask you to do sexual favors for him, he is not doing it to defile you the way a purely lustful partner does. In any healthy marriage, your husband is not going to pressure you into stuff you don’t want. Furthermore, on the flip side, men are more likely to pressure women they see as promiscuous into doing sexual favors for them and are more likely to be insulted if they don’t. Men give women they see as more virtuous more passes for not doing that kind of stuff. With promiscuous women, they expect it; With their wife, they don’t. And when husbands ask their wives if they will do sexual favors for them, that is a big sign that they are not cheating on their wives, as they are fulfilling their sexual fantasies with their wives rather than other random women.
It's true that not all men want to be with promiscuous women and people can have whatever preference they want. (But noted, when you're in a relationship the only person you'll be sleeping with – hopefully – will be your partner, so promiscuity in that sense becomes irrelevant.) Having sex with multiple partners isn't for everyone, but it can help to explore your sexuality and find out what you do/don't like. A husband won't necessarily care for you because you could marry an arsehole. Also some women may just find it difficult to find a boyfriend; sure it's a nice fantasy that you'll have a lovely boyfriend/husband and he'll treat you well, but sometimes that's not the case. A sexually active female may just find it easier to be with many men rather than hold out for one guy that may or may not treat her like shit or simply not appear.
My point is that women who are promiscuous have a higher chance of cheating and paternity fraud, so that's why it's relevant. Many men who took for granted that their girlfriends/wives weren't cheating just because they were in a committed relationship ended up the victims of paternity fraud. Some raised kids just to find out later they weren't really theirs, others were surprised that a 1 night stand or summer fling hid a pregnancy until the child was born, etc.
Having sex with your husband or BF can help you explore your sexuality and find out what you do/don't like and women tend to regret it less than if they did it with a guy they didn't know very well. If someone is going to marry an asshole then what makes you think they wouldn't date assholes? You have to date an asshole before you marry them, unless you're talking about a whole other subject here. If he's willing to marry you and risk losing half of everything he has to show his ultimate commitment to you, the chances of him being an asshole with you sexually are very slim – especially when compared to some guy you don't know well who only looks at you as a "release". If having a boyfriend/husband that treats you well is a fantasy, then finding a random guy who's just using you for a release to treat you well is a miracle. A guy who is willing to actually commit to you as a BF/husband and be seen with you in public as your partner is going to treat you with a 1000x more respect than some guy that's just looking to satisfy his own needs as using you as the tool to accomplish that.
If a sexually active female is being sexually intimate with many men rather than holding out for one guy [or at least having some standards including commitment], she's most likely already being treated like shit. If a female would like to be with a nice male who will respect her, it's most likely not going to happen if the nice male knows that she is letting so many different men enter her body. Most people see sleeping with so many partners as not respecting oneself or the result of a deeper problem. Men even feel this way about other men. Even though men tend to have more sexual partners on average than women, the mature ones often don't see sleeping with boatloads of women as good as sleeping with a few, quality women. The nice guys don't want to sleep with every single woman they can and they figure nice girls really don't want to sleep with every single guy they can with. Also, just like women don't like it when promiscuous women are around potential mates; Men also don't like when promiscuous men (relative to other men) are around potential mates either. There are many promiscuous people who don't care about cheating with someone who's in a committed relationship, there are even some promiscuous people who get a kick out of getting someone to cheat who's in a committed relationship. So there are a lot of factors for why men and women do not trust promiscuous men or women and why they "judge" them, or make note of them.