I generally really agree with this take. But I will say that the impact of ivory tower ideology around sexual liberation is a minor factor in these kinds of situations. The reason women engage in casual sex or porn style sex is a lot less because of abstract ideology, and a lot more because some man is extremely motivated to try to persuade her to engage in these acts. There are a lot of men that when they see the possibility of some kind of sex they seek, they will act unethically to obtain it. They will lie, manipulate, string a girl along, pry with drugs etc etc. What they do is not necessarily a crime, but they do know better.
If you want to say that society ought to teach women such that they know better than to fall for these tricks, fine. But then don't be surprised if a lot of women express very negative sentiments towards men because as long as there aren't consequences to men for behaving this way, they will keep doing it.
I think you’re right but the ideological indoctrination destroys women’s defenses. Some manipulation leading to sex will happen regardless but the norms against being a slut are a countervailing force.
Maybe at that age, because she has so little life experience. It's also that this isn't something that women spend much effort warning other women about. Mostly women band together so that men are held accountable for rape, which includes Valenti style mob justice where they band together against any and every man accused of rape. Somehow women are more prone to doing this publicly than they are of teaching women to avoid dangerous situations. However, please note that women do teach other women to avoid dangerous situations with little fanfare. My sorority brought in educators to tell women how to avoid spiked drinks. We always went to frat parties in groups where some women were very vigilant about keeping various men away from girls in the group.
Generally, mostly women warn other women about what long term relationships to avoid, because this is usually more damaging that any short term sexual liason these days given that abortion is available and STDs are treatable. For example, it was common for older silent generation women to warn women of my millennial generation to make sure they had an education and a way to support themselves if they became a SAHM, in case their husband left them or became abusive. It was not common for older women to warn younger women not to have casual sex. Now that I too am a matron, I admit that my inclination is still to warn younger women about what long term relationships to avoid, not to avoid casual sex. I too feel that spending years with men that refuse to propose and such things is the thing to look out for. I feel less motivation to warn young women about the dangers of casual sex because my instinct is that they will figure that out quickly on their own, and a man who spend a night or two with you and then moves completely out of your life usually creates very little problems in the long term.
It was her sorority sisters that slut-shamed her. That and the fact that the frat men didn't invite her to their Halloween party led her to believe that she was "raped".
This is the part that Richard leaves out (because of course). While I'm very against false accusations, the fact that a non-zero amount of men are rapey assholes is a pretty important factor here.
Teenage boys in juvenile hall seem likely to be among the least reliable source of information on just about any topic, let alone their sexual success with older females willing to risk their careers and families because they find teenage boys in juvenile hall sexually irresistible. Add whatever study you read that in to the growing list of social “science” failures.
Yeah I don’t think there should be legal penalty necessarily but there should be and is a social cost — Even when they don’t become the subject of a blockbuster lawsuit. If guys think sleeping with 100 women in a given area isn’t a turnoff for the majority of women then they’ve been watching too much Andrew Tate
I think a prevailing implicit attitude is that women are supposed to have superior social intelligence to men in a way that allows them to avoid this. Artistic tropes where women break guys out of their social shells, socially repair families, and socially motivate men to do something with their lives, are widespread. Women go into social jobs more, they naturally think about people more, and they play the primary role when it comes to parenting. Women ruthlessly judge other women that violate social norms and miss social cues.
There is something unnatural and odd about a woman who has weak enough social skills to where she is easily able to get manipulated by members of the socially inferior sex. This is probably part of why this stigma exists, as women easily getting manipulated by men in this way implies that she might not have the social skill to raise kids effectively.
An extremely small percentage of women gets manipulated into NSA group sex, from what I can see. Mostly women get manipuated into having sex with a guy they really like who does not really like them in return. Almost all the women I know who were not locked down by like age 25 have been in that situation. Most women get over it. A couple I know are extremely pissed off about it years later, but one of them has been happily married for a long time now.
The evidence is gradient based. So a woman getting pressured into group sex is in a vacuum a sign she has subpar social skills for a woman but for an individual woman there might be more contextual details in her life in a way that changes the picture. A woman who has mostly robust social skills but a few savvy men slip by them are usually not judged much. The concern here is that women with poor social skills often lead to invisible externalities that compound over time: a teenage son has a bad stretch and she didn’t see it coming and doesn’t know how to react, she doesn’t know how to motivate the husband to keep and expand his ambition, so on and so forth. So people develop heuristics that indicate a woman has this deficiency and judge women based on them.
In my sorority experience and in my 20s, the women other women judged harshly for sluttery seemed to be doing it because of some kind of mate competition thing, rather than judging sluttery in principle. Of the few girls who engaged in group sex at my college, one was a girl who was exclusively interested in black men. She only went to the black frat. This was highly unusual for the college I went to, where most girls secretly would never date a black guy. Anyway, this girl into black guys was hardly judged at all. No one gossipped about her, despite by how flagrant her behavior was. We had these whiteboards on our dorm doors, and her whiteboard was filled to the brim with notes from black dudes asking her to come over.
No one cared what this girl did. She was generally well liked by other girls. My take on this is if a woman only seeks casual sex with men other girls have no interest in, they will not care. At the same time, some girls who were sleeping around a lot were gossiped about constantly even though it was not necessarily group sex. My guess is that they were providing easy sex to men that other girls had some interest in or something.
So I don't really think its a judgment that reflects a woman's social skills. From women at least, it's a judgment against potential man stealing or cheapening the value of sex to desirable men.
Isn't the opposite more true, women are naturally more conflict averse, more people pleasing and more compliant. This is usually brought up in wage gap conversations where women are less likely to negotiate a raise. Women being more agreeable and less likely to stand up for themselves makes them very vulnerable to sexual coercion and being pressured into sex, which results in the type of rape scandals this article is talking about. Wanting to be well liked and socially accepted also leads many young women into dangerous sexual situations if they have mostly male friends
My experience based on observing all sorts of women, is that women are pretty vulnerable to being pressured into sex by men who they are really into for the reasons you state. A major reason that so few women end up doing group sex is because it seems like men very rarely pressure them into it. Seems like the vast majority of men are at least minimally jealous over their sexual conquests, including women who they have no plans to ever see again. They might not do anything to prevent the woman from seeing other men, but they do not outright hand them to other men either.
In this cornell case, it seemed the man who sent the free pussy text the snapchat group was a man who did not partake in the gang bang but was a man who took her to the party? Perhaps it was some kind of revenge thing on his part.
I do not think this is an either/or thing. Women both naturally have higher trait agreeableness than men and are also expected to have superior social skills to men in a way that routes around this. In sitcoms the stereotype is always that the wife would ultimately cede to the husband if they truly had a blow-out fight but the wife nevertheless uses her superior social intelligence to manipulate the husband and get what she wants most of the time anyway. This is why criticism in these circumstances is often based on what the woman was wearing, why the woman was where she was, why she thought that a disingenuous guy actually liked her, more than it is based on her resisting fear and control based forms of social influence.
The effective consequences for men behaving that way is simply being turned down.
If you let anybody convince you to do something you do not really like (and it happens all the time on an immense range of things besides sex) and you keep doing it while nobody is forcing you, you only have yourself to blame when you decide that you really did not like it.
In other times that I have lived through, this was taken as a good learning experience. After all, you did not get harmed, and you have learned better what you like and dislike and may hope not to repeat the mistake the next time.
But this is the victim culture we live in, with the addition that the Puritans (left and right) have won again and have been making sex more and more a taboo. So no, I am not surprised that a lot of women express very negative sentiments towards men over this. Just look, a lot of men express very negative sentiments towards women over this.
And this is the world that this kind of reasoning has created. You clearly believe that society should do something to bring down "consequences" on men who do things that are "not necessarily a crime, but they do know better." (and do they, by the way?) Others clearly believe that society should prevent this by keeping women at home and teaching them that sex is bad.
There is no place here, anywhere, for individual personal responsibility.
Being turned down doesn't mean anything to a guy who is rapey. He keeps going. As for not knowing better, apparently men have some trouble knowing better regarding when to join in when a girl is getting double teamed. I guess I can understand that is confusing. One good rule of thumb is if it seems remarkable that a sexual offering is free, it probably shouldn't be free.
You see, I have very serious problems with broad, symbolically coloured terms. What is "rapey"? I wager that if you ask 100 people you get 100 different definitions. Is rapey when someone insists asking when turned down? Is it when someone will try again later to coax agreement? Or is it when someone physically blocks a person from leaving, threatens them, tries to blackmail them? Only the latter qualifies for me, and there are laws against all of those behaviours without putting rape in it -- preventing a person from leaving a space, threatening, blackmailing, are done by people often in the attempt at obtaining something they want. Is "rapey" a temporary state that males get in because of their hormones, in your opinion? Or it is a feature of some personalities?
But it all goes back to the definition, or lack thereof. The awfully irrational attitude that gave your country the Comstock laws ("I know it when I see it") is exactly the same as the attitude that broadens the scope of offences (hate speech, racism, sexism) in the woke trend and beyond, with vague language and vaguer definitions based on perception instead of actual facts. And it is an encouragement for people at large, always and everywhere, to exploit this to their advantage, financial, reputational, or simply the satisfaction of a personal grudge or grievance.
This generates an increasing restriction of personal liberties, usually out of good intentions in the beginning, and with tragic results in the end.
And I am not sure what you mean on the knowing better part, so I will answer it at my personal interpretation. Sure it is confusing when having sex in public in the middle of a group: for everyone. So everybody should think about what they are willing to do when participating (most people do not and should live on and learn to know themselves better). But why just the men? If a woman gets into it, and gets touched by someone who she does not want to be touched by, she can say no, and if no is not enough then she can up and leave. Rape happens if she is prevented from leaving. End of story.
The very last sentence is baffling to me. "if it seems remarkable that a sexual offering is free, it probably shouldn't be free" -- is that an advice for men in judging their engagement in a situation like that? Does it mean, "it is not likely to be free"? Good advice to prudence, that the young and temporary passionate (of both sexes) will never follow. But again, why is it just the men that should take double care, if not that we have created an environment in which the scales are tilted badly against them, and women are taught to expect to be treated with constant watchfulness of their unexpressed possible feelings, instead of being taught to express their desires assertively.
All this while we are talking about a case in which someone had "remarkable" sexual interactions, was happy about them during and expressed happiness afterwards, and then changed her mind when friends/family/in-group told her that what she had done was bad and was pushed to shift the blame on her co-sinners, being that the social attitude and legal trends allow and encourage her to do so. It sounds a lot like the political trials in the Soviet Union, you know?
What do you think the punishment should be in a case where the woman affirmatively agrees with every stage of the manipulation?
Do you want to do porn sex? Yes.
Do you want to do drugs? Yes.
Let’s get drunk? Yes.
Etc.
Is it still the case that the men involved should be punished? At what point do we say the woman is a party in this process and is not simply an object being acted upon?
Cope. The girl in this case went there for a "threesome" and was later chill about it. Nobody did the persuading. When will women act as if they have "agency".
I hate these arguments because they make it sound like women are profoundly stupid and easily manipulated by any random guy. Nobody would say this about a guy who spent millions on OnlyFans or some such.
The moral of the story if you are a girl is don't take part in group sex or a gangbang if you're not prepared to be called a slut by every other woman you know the next day (the guys involved will likely not keep your secret and will brag to everyone they know).
The moral of the story if you are a guy is don't take part in group sex or a gangbang unless you are highly confident that the girl is not going to turn around and accuse you of rape a week later after she has had some time to think about it.
Call me a puritan, but I just think sex should be reserved for committed romantic relationships. Certain people really really really want to justify and normalize casual sex and polyamory, but it's clear that it just doesn't work and more often than not leads to hurt feelings, emptiness, and tragedy.
Prohibiting sex outside of marriage is kind of impossible in a modern culture - as having the degree of personal freedom we have would have to be greatly curtailed, particiularly for women. As a large religious regime would need to be forcibly imposed, so think Handmaid's Tale.
Also, such a prohibiltion would also be unnecessary since birth control exists and out of wedlock births are already far less taboo than in the past.
But total sexual license has led to a lot of hurt when taken to extremes. Polys and whatnot bend themselves in knots trying to come up with ground rules and other kinds of norms in poly and kink communites, but still leave countless victims, usually women, in their wake.
So I think the idea of agreeing on a middle ground of sex within a dating relationship or greater, should be our new sexual norm. Casual sex and poly sex will not be illegal, but will be considered taboo, slutty, unhealthy, and weird - because they are.
The NYT article you cite does not, in any way, destroy her credibility. It presents nuance, and takes the reader through the evolution of how she went from feeling bad about what happened, to a fuller understanding that she was not the only one to blame. She allows that she consented to part of it, and that drugs made them all behave badly. Nuance is required here, not bandwagon.
The NYT article presents a pretty clear picture that what she did was consensual at the time, but that she wanted to revoke her consent retroactively to avoid reputational harm.
She consented to guys 4-7 snorting ket off her body, though I'm not sure if this was before or after she snorted a bunch of ket off guy 2's erect penis.
This was after she snorted ket off newell (male 2)'s penis.
She "consented" to them pouring ketamine on her body. and next thing she remembers is Lopes (male 3) returning and shutting it down and being dragged upstairs by Ingalls (male 1) and Lee (male 4) and engaging in a 3some with them.
Before relocating, Ingalls confirms in their snapchat groupchat Winston Lee had sex with her. She does not remember this and does not mention it in either of her testimonies. Yet we know it happened because the men confessed to it.
Yes! I become more convinced in her credibility. It is interesting and kind of sad to see how women read the article and were like "Yeah rape happened" and men went the completely other way.
I generally agree with this but the 'not the only one to blame' does kind of give it away. The word 'blame' only makes sense here if you think that one getting 'blamed' for having group sex is okay.
I suspect the sexual double standard rests on another fundamental of human nature rather than ev-psych, which is that human beings try to cap each other's status. They especially dislike it when people obtain status by doing things other people want instead of playing social status games. This is why we see slopulist hostility to entrepreneurs who get rich starting successful businesses and union hostility to workers being promoted by quality of work instead of seniority.
Slut-shaming can be seen as the same status-capping strategy, where women try to prevent other women from gaining status by being sexy and having sex. Shows like "Sex in the City" are similar to "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" type shows in that they are examples of the mask falling off. The former award promiscuous women status in spite of slut-shamer attempts to reduce it the same way the latter award status to rich people despite leftist attempts to reduce it.
There are some differences in the details. In particular, slut shaming has a paternalistic aspect where those doing it try to frame their behavior as protecting women from status reduction. By contrast, people rarely tell someone making a lot of money that they need to stop for their own good because everyone hates rich people (although you do see milder forms like telling them they will never know if their spouse loves them for themselves or for their money).
We will probably never be able to eliminate slut-shaming for the same reason that we can never eliminate envy-driven hatred of the successful. But it is still worth fighting to reduce it for the same reason envy is worth fighting. Efforts by feminists to do so should be lauded.
Men were also once shamed for promiscuity (see the figure of the 'rake' or 'cad' or serial seducer of women in the culture of the 19th century & earlier), but this seems to have disappeared earlier & more completely than for women.
I think where evo-psych plays a role in my explanation is where I argue that we try to cap the status of people who gain status by "doing things that other people" want. Evo-psych argues that men usually want sex more than women, so heterosexual women find it easier to gain status by having lots of sex than men do.
One thing I think evo-psych is less clear about is the precise mechanism by which evolution makes men want sex more than women. Proponents of evo-psych generally seem to assume that men simply evolved to like and desire sex more than women do. However, another possibility is the orgasm gap: men evolved to orgasm more easily than women, so even if both sexes like and desire sex the same amount, men will pursue it more because it is more likely to be a positive experience for them. Or perhaps both explanations have some truth to them.
In addition to gender double standards, there are class double standards. More than a thousand women are raped every day in America, but the media only care about the rape of upper class white women.
This sounds a bit like the Amherst case. That's the one where the accuser had sex with her roommate's boyfriend while the roommate was off campus. When people found out, she lost all her friends and started hanging out with campus feminists who told her she had been raped.
As usual Hanania is the only one who can be autistic enough to look at this through a rational, evolutionary lens while not being too autistic to understand individual human actions and emotions.
Every human culture, historical and present, has a word for “coward” that is always an insult levied at men, and a word for “slut” that is always an insult levied at women. The evolutionary psychology behind this is obvious beyond explanation. This is so deep in our human nature that no amount of education and secularism can change it.
Except there are lots of modern cultures where actually neither of these terms have any bite to them whatsoever. Ie pretty much any urban setting nowadays.
There is a subset of women who have group sex fantasies. I know because I used to host play parties back in the day in a certain West Coast city where the women were safe to explore these and other fantasies - no slut shaming allowed. The men were vetted and almost always had to have a female partner who vouched for them. Anyone that didn't adhere to consent and respectful interactions were counseled or, if unreceptive, never invited back. The goal was to create a safe space where women (and men) could indulge these fantasies without consequences, but a frat party is in a different league, and dangerous for all the reasons we have seen. The problem here is not that women should not experiment, but that no one was vetted or had thought this through in that situation, so of course terrible things happened. My strong advice: women, if you want to do this, find a reputable swinger club or sex party and ideally a partner who will hold your hand as you go through this adventure together.
"Men who were promiscuous had an evolutionary advantage"
Not entirely true. They could still contract STDs. Also men who commit to one family have a better chance of their off spring surviving and not being killed by another man.
An issue here is that as we’ve de-Christianized as a society, there’s no force remaining that discourages men from pursuing casual sex except for the threat of rape accusations. While it’s true that plenty of guys were trying to have sex with girls they just started dating back in the 1950’s, that kind of behavior was not glamorized up and down in mass media like it is today. As a society we just surrendered to “guys will be guys.”
Who’s surprised this happened? In our porn-soaked culture where kinky, casual sex is seen as “edgy,” young women let guys have sex with them if they agree to film it and sell it, prostitution is now Orwellian “sex work” presented as rather glamorous and not a particularly dangerous way to earn a buck — in short, nihilistic and demeaning but okay. It’s very telling Jane Doe was worried about her reputation and one of the guys she had sex with told her not to worry, it will blow over. In other words, who cares about reputations anymore?
Patrick Moynihan wrote a paper “Defining Deviancy Down” about 30 years ago. As the boundaries for what is generally considered normal erode and expand, more abnormal behavior becomes normalized. That’s where we are.
Richard, one could comment on the psychological naïveté of practically every sentence here, but let's go just with one.
You take the victim's subsequent emails as proof she consented all along and just later reacted to her 'slutshaming'. Please talk to women in their 30s to 60s. When any such situation occurs, from a grab-off-the-street rape to here in all its messy details, a common first reaction is self-blame. And then a counteracting self-protective denial (sometimes to the point of memory loss/repression) or self-protective minimization (it wasn't so bad). It often takes months to years to work through this cycle. This is why domestic abuse victims and rape victims keep communicating, even in a friendly way, with their abusers. For whatever psychological and/or social reasons, women especially have a hard time blaming others for their received abuse.
So, talk to women and find out how they reacted. If you are listening, I expect you will learn your initial assumption is wrong. Also, I do not think you have any feel for ketamine's effect on cognition and consent. There is a reason it is a date rape drug.
Also, trying to make this about the culture wars is wrong. The abuse of women, and women's complex psychological reactions to it is species-long.
Okay, fair enough but then ask this question: in your world, is it possible that a woman consensually participates in group sex, feels shame over it, then calls it rape, but it not actually be rape? In other words - what could a situation like this look like in which it *wasn't* rape? You comment seems to imply that it wouldn't be possible for a situation like that to NOT be rape. That doesn't make sense, right?
Wait - what? What about your long campaign against believing women who regret may-December or boss-employee relationships? I’m so baffled by your response here.
You’re all in on “women make non standard choices for relationships and sex all the time and we should believe it’s what they wanted.” But now all of a sudden, you believe this woman’s distress is genuine, genetic, evolutionary behavior?
The way more obvious explanation is that she’s in a subculture that cannot believe a woman would choose what she chose, and they’re punishing her for doing it. The way out they’re giving her is to agree it was non-consensual. But there are other subcultures in America where she could have female peers who would not be giving her such a hard time.
What I miss to understand is how individual freedom is the culprit of "our unwillingness to take human nature seriously enough". What is the solution that would lead taking human nature seriously enough?
Going back to the type of society in which women are "discouraged" from promiscuity and the ones who fall (or the men with whom they fall, which is the choice of Sweden over prostitution) are punished/exposed to social stigma? It does not seem a great solution to me.
You see, I am over 70 and I have seen it all, even if not in your country. When I was young, men were still men and women were still women (the ones on average more inclined to occasional promiscuity and the others on average more inclined to creating long term attachments); we had the sexual revolution and a lot of women also slept around, and a lot of men pushed to get laid; a number of women were unhappy that their sleeping around partners did not establish a relationship, and either decided to stop having casual sex or continued and groused, until they found a "serious" relationship. Nothing of this was called rape. Nor was a man's insistence or expedients to get laid considered a valid reason to call rape. Rape was when someone was forced to sex physically or with the threat of a weapon, or by blackmail -- and there is still enough of it.
Sexual liberation and telling women that they are free to sleep around if they wish are not the cause of all the frivolous accusations of rape that take place when one individual (an increasing number of young gay men seem to react in the same way) is unhappy with the consequences of a sexual interaction, either for the lack of something they hoped to get from it, or because of the judgement of their in-group.
The cause of those accusations of rape is the widespread victim culture (to which a certain feminism has contributed heavily) that has extended the concept of harm out of every rational bound (and yet, with some amazingly sophistic rationalisations). A culture in which, when you do not get what your wanted - took a decision that backfired - are unhappy, you have been harmed, and are owed some reparation and someone to blame. In particular someone to blame. Cruelty is a great treatment for personal dissatisfaction, and as you have often noted, it crosses political ideology, class, race. It is the true intersectional element. And it is poisoning us all.
The broken women (and men) are not created by our unwillingness to take human nature seriously, but by our willingness to make victimhood into a form of sainthood, desirable and desired for social status and as a solution to our personal problems. They are created by our refusal to teach resilience and the search for self knowledge, to point out the risks that emotional choices pose when divested of rational considerations, in favour of an attitude in which one must be always validated and never asked to contemplate what mistakes led to disappointment, what things are one's own doing. Only what is your doing is in your power to change for the future.
A note at the end about human nature. The blank slate theory of mind is a pernicious misconception, a half truth elevated to universal law. But the exclusively evolutionary theory of mind is equally faulty, despite we may need today a dose of it to counterbalance.
Evolution is not destiny. Evolved preferences point to a widespread tendency, not to a single unavoidable well defined road, and when measured they present a fat bell curve, not a thin pyramid. As our minds tend to demand all-encompassing absolute explanations of phenomena (also an evolutionary trait, born of the need to control the future and our environment) we make the mistake of wanting something to be true for everybody... and often pass moral judgement on the cases that point otherwise, or simply dismiss them.
All women are not not-promiscuous, all men are not promiscuous.
A majority of women have a tendency to prefer attachment to fleeting satisfaction (but many will serve themselves happily from the buffet, in subcultures where promiscuity is not stigmatised, because then acceding to fleeting satisfaction does not reduce the chances of developing attachment or monogamous relationships, after which one can choose whether fleeting satisfaction is more important than stability to the singular individual).
A majority of men have a tendency to want (and often indulge in) fleeting satisfaction. But most choose, after all, attachment in the long run, and frequently even monogamous relationships, even in the gay world. More men have a tendency to cheat (by the research we have now), and in particular the reasons for cheating seem to be different: a majority of men who cheat, do so out of sexual attraction; while a majority of women who cheat, do so for love.
What does this all bring to bear, though, on a young woman brought by in-group shaming to such a distress that ended in accusing of rape the men with whom she had had wild sex?
I do not believe that sororities or any other group should be the guardians and enforcers of supposed evolutionary tendencies. Even if a majority of women may be not really happy with being promiscuous, and a number may be pushed to be by pressures cultural or personal, for other this is not the case.
Shaming assumes that:
1) no woman could ever desire what woman X has done, so
2) woman X is a freak or
3) woman X has been brainwashed by a) the patriarchy in the form of vile gaslighting men or b) the corrupted godless hedonistic culture that surrounds us.
The culprit in all of this is first, the shaming, as you seem to notice. And secondly, the cultural trends that have divested women of any individual autonomy in favour of blissful disappearance in the collective wombyn.
I generally really agree with this take. But I will say that the impact of ivory tower ideology around sexual liberation is a minor factor in these kinds of situations. The reason women engage in casual sex or porn style sex is a lot less because of abstract ideology, and a lot more because some man is extremely motivated to try to persuade her to engage in these acts. There are a lot of men that when they see the possibility of some kind of sex they seek, they will act unethically to obtain it. They will lie, manipulate, string a girl along, pry with drugs etc etc. What they do is not necessarily a crime, but they do know better.
If you want to say that society ought to teach women such that they know better than to fall for these tricks, fine. But then don't be surprised if a lot of women express very negative sentiments towards men because as long as there aren't consequences to men for behaving this way, they will keep doing it.
I think you’re right but the ideological indoctrination destroys women’s defenses. Some manipulation leading to sex will happen regardless but the norms against being a slut are a countervailing force.
Maybe at that age, because she has so little life experience. It's also that this isn't something that women spend much effort warning other women about. Mostly women band together so that men are held accountable for rape, which includes Valenti style mob justice where they band together against any and every man accused of rape. Somehow women are more prone to doing this publicly than they are of teaching women to avoid dangerous situations. However, please note that women do teach other women to avoid dangerous situations with little fanfare. My sorority brought in educators to tell women how to avoid spiked drinks. We always went to frat parties in groups where some women were very vigilant about keeping various men away from girls in the group.
Generally, mostly women warn other women about what long term relationships to avoid, because this is usually more damaging that any short term sexual liason these days given that abortion is available and STDs are treatable. For example, it was common for older silent generation women to warn women of my millennial generation to make sure they had an education and a way to support themselves if they became a SAHM, in case their husband left them or became abusive. It was not common for older women to warn younger women not to have casual sex. Now that I too am a matron, I admit that my inclination is still to warn younger women about what long term relationships to avoid, not to avoid casual sex. I too feel that spending years with men that refuse to propose and such things is the thing to look out for. I feel less motivation to warn young women about the dangers of casual sex because my instinct is that they will figure that out quickly on their own, and a man who spend a night or two with you and then moves completely out of your life usually creates very little problems in the long term.
It seems that your sorority took better care of members than Jane Doe’s did.
It was her sorority sisters that slut-shamed her. That and the fact that the frat men didn't invite her to their Halloween party led her to believe that she was "raped".
This is the part that Richard leaves out (because of course). While I'm very against false accusations, the fact that a non-zero amount of men are rapey assholes is a pretty important factor here.
Not true. Teenage boys in juvenile halls report that over 90% of sexual assailants were female staff members.
Teenage boys in juvenile hall seem likely to be among the least reliable source of information on just about any topic, let alone their sexual success with older females willing to risk their careers and families because they find teenage boys in juvenile hall sexually irresistible. Add whatever study you read that in to the growing list of social “science” failures.
40-60% of rape accusations are false. That being the case, maybe women that cry rape aren’t reliable, either.
How does that refute my comment? I'm not even addressing male victims.
Precisely my point. You ignored male victims.
Bingo. I personally look down on "players" because they probably know on some level that what they're doing is wrong.
If a man is fine with ruining a woman's reputation so they can brag about it to their r*tarded buddies then that man is just as worthy of shame.
The system is ruining the reputation of men that have been falsely accused.
Yeah I don’t think there should be legal penalty necessarily but there should be and is a social cost — Even when they don’t become the subject of a blockbuster lawsuit. If guys think sleeping with 100 women in a given area isn’t a turnoff for the majority of women then they’ve been watching too much Andrew Tate
How would you like to see YOUR picture on the internet for something you were falsely accused of?
I think a prevailing implicit attitude is that women are supposed to have superior social intelligence to men in a way that allows them to avoid this. Artistic tropes where women break guys out of their social shells, socially repair families, and socially motivate men to do something with their lives, are widespread. Women go into social jobs more, they naturally think about people more, and they play the primary role when it comes to parenting. Women ruthlessly judge other women that violate social norms and miss social cues.
There is something unnatural and odd about a woman who has weak enough social skills to where she is easily able to get manipulated by members of the socially inferior sex. This is probably part of why this stigma exists, as women easily getting manipulated by men in this way implies that she might not have the social skill to raise kids effectively.
An extremely small percentage of women gets manipulated into NSA group sex, from what I can see. Mostly women get manipuated into having sex with a guy they really like who does not really like them in return. Almost all the women I know who were not locked down by like age 25 have been in that situation. Most women get over it. A couple I know are extremely pissed off about it years later, but one of them has been happily married for a long time now.
She wasn't pressured into anything. She was an eager and active participant in the drinking, drugs, and group sex.
The evidence is gradient based. So a woman getting pressured into group sex is in a vacuum a sign she has subpar social skills for a woman but for an individual woman there might be more contextual details in her life in a way that changes the picture. A woman who has mostly robust social skills but a few savvy men slip by them are usually not judged much. The concern here is that women with poor social skills often lead to invisible externalities that compound over time: a teenage son has a bad stretch and she didn’t see it coming and doesn’t know how to react, she doesn’t know how to motivate the husband to keep and expand his ambition, so on and so forth. So people develop heuristics that indicate a woman has this deficiency and judge women based on them.
In my sorority experience and in my 20s, the women other women judged harshly for sluttery seemed to be doing it because of some kind of mate competition thing, rather than judging sluttery in principle. Of the few girls who engaged in group sex at my college, one was a girl who was exclusively interested in black men. She only went to the black frat. This was highly unusual for the college I went to, where most girls secretly would never date a black guy. Anyway, this girl into black guys was hardly judged at all. No one gossipped about her, despite by how flagrant her behavior was. We had these whiteboards on our dorm doors, and her whiteboard was filled to the brim with notes from black dudes asking her to come over.
No one cared what this girl did. She was generally well liked by other girls. My take on this is if a woman only seeks casual sex with men other girls have no interest in, they will not care. At the same time, some girls who were sleeping around a lot were gossiped about constantly even though it was not necessarily group sex. My guess is that they were providing easy sex to men that other girls had some interest in or something.
So I don't really think its a judgment that reflects a woman's social skills. From women at least, it's a judgment against potential man stealing or cheapening the value of sex to desirable men.
Isn't the opposite more true, women are naturally more conflict averse, more people pleasing and more compliant. This is usually brought up in wage gap conversations where women are less likely to negotiate a raise. Women being more agreeable and less likely to stand up for themselves makes them very vulnerable to sexual coercion and being pressured into sex, which results in the type of rape scandals this article is talking about. Wanting to be well liked and socially accepted also leads many young women into dangerous sexual situations if they have mostly male friends
My experience based on observing all sorts of women, is that women are pretty vulnerable to being pressured into sex by men who they are really into for the reasons you state. A major reason that so few women end up doing group sex is because it seems like men very rarely pressure them into it. Seems like the vast majority of men are at least minimally jealous over their sexual conquests, including women who they have no plans to ever see again. They might not do anything to prevent the woman from seeing other men, but they do not outright hand them to other men either.
In this cornell case, it seemed the man who sent the free pussy text the snapchat group was a man who did not partake in the gang bang but was a man who took her to the party? Perhaps it was some kind of revenge thing on his part.
I do not think this is an either/or thing. Women both naturally have higher trait agreeableness than men and are also expected to have superior social skills to men in a way that routes around this. In sitcoms the stereotype is always that the wife would ultimately cede to the husband if they truly had a blow-out fight but the wife nevertheless uses her superior social intelligence to manipulate the husband and get what she wants most of the time anyway. This is why criticism in these circumstances is often based on what the woman was wearing, why the woman was where she was, why she thought that a disingenuous guy actually liked her, more than it is based on her resisting fear and control based forms of social influence.
The effective consequences for men behaving that way is simply being turned down.
If you let anybody convince you to do something you do not really like (and it happens all the time on an immense range of things besides sex) and you keep doing it while nobody is forcing you, you only have yourself to blame when you decide that you really did not like it.
In other times that I have lived through, this was taken as a good learning experience. After all, you did not get harmed, and you have learned better what you like and dislike and may hope not to repeat the mistake the next time.
But this is the victim culture we live in, with the addition that the Puritans (left and right) have won again and have been making sex more and more a taboo. So no, I am not surprised that a lot of women express very negative sentiments towards men over this. Just look, a lot of men express very negative sentiments towards women over this.
And this is the world that this kind of reasoning has created. You clearly believe that society should do something to bring down "consequences" on men who do things that are "not necessarily a crime, but they do know better." (and do they, by the way?) Others clearly believe that society should prevent this by keeping women at home and teaching them that sex is bad.
There is no place here, anywhere, for individual personal responsibility.
Being turned down doesn't mean anything to a guy who is rapey. He keeps going. As for not knowing better, apparently men have some trouble knowing better regarding when to join in when a girl is getting double teamed. I guess I can understand that is confusing. One good rule of thumb is if it seems remarkable that a sexual offering is free, it probably shouldn't be free.
You see, I have very serious problems with broad, symbolically coloured terms. What is "rapey"? I wager that if you ask 100 people you get 100 different definitions. Is rapey when someone insists asking when turned down? Is it when someone will try again later to coax agreement? Or is it when someone physically blocks a person from leaving, threatens them, tries to blackmail them? Only the latter qualifies for me, and there are laws against all of those behaviours without putting rape in it -- preventing a person from leaving a space, threatening, blackmailing, are done by people often in the attempt at obtaining something they want. Is "rapey" a temporary state that males get in because of their hormones, in your opinion? Or it is a feature of some personalities?
But it all goes back to the definition, or lack thereof. The awfully irrational attitude that gave your country the Comstock laws ("I know it when I see it") is exactly the same as the attitude that broadens the scope of offences (hate speech, racism, sexism) in the woke trend and beyond, with vague language and vaguer definitions based on perception instead of actual facts. And it is an encouragement for people at large, always and everywhere, to exploit this to their advantage, financial, reputational, or simply the satisfaction of a personal grudge or grievance.
This generates an increasing restriction of personal liberties, usually out of good intentions in the beginning, and with tragic results in the end.
And I am not sure what you mean on the knowing better part, so I will answer it at my personal interpretation. Sure it is confusing when having sex in public in the middle of a group: for everyone. So everybody should think about what they are willing to do when participating (most people do not and should live on and learn to know themselves better). But why just the men? If a woman gets into it, and gets touched by someone who she does not want to be touched by, she can say no, and if no is not enough then she can up and leave. Rape happens if she is prevented from leaving. End of story.
The very last sentence is baffling to me. "if it seems remarkable that a sexual offering is free, it probably shouldn't be free" -- is that an advice for men in judging their engagement in a situation like that? Does it mean, "it is not likely to be free"? Good advice to prudence, that the young and temporary passionate (of both sexes) will never follow. But again, why is it just the men that should take double care, if not that we have created an environment in which the scales are tilted badly against them, and women are taught to expect to be treated with constant watchfulness of their unexpressed possible feelings, instead of being taught to express their desires assertively.
All this while we are talking about a case in which someone had "remarkable" sexual interactions, was happy about them during and expressed happiness afterwards, and then changed her mind when friends/family/in-group told her that what she had done was bad and was pushed to shift the blame on her co-sinners, being that the social attitude and legal trends allow and encourage her to do so. It sounds a lot like the political trials in the Soviet Union, you know?
What do you think the punishment should be in a case where the woman affirmatively agrees with every stage of the manipulation?
Do you want to do porn sex? Yes.
Do you want to do drugs? Yes.
Let’s get drunk? Yes.
Etc.
Is it still the case that the men involved should be punished? At what point do we say the woman is a party in this process and is not simply an object being acted upon?
Girl, we already do have very negative sentiments towards men. We aren't negative enough, in my opinion...
Cope. The girl in this case went there for a "threesome" and was later chill about it. Nobody did the persuading. When will women act as if they have "agency".
I hate these arguments because they make it sound like women are profoundly stupid and easily manipulated by any random guy. Nobody would say this about a guy who spent millions on OnlyFans or some such.
Also, let’s not forget about the money. Someone told this woman she could get big bucks here and that is what she looking for.
Indeed.
The moral of the story if you are a girl is don't take part in group sex or a gangbang if you're not prepared to be called a slut by every other woman you know the next day (the guys involved will likely not keep your secret and will brag to everyone they know).
The moral of the story if you are a guy is don't take part in group sex or a gangbang unless you are highly confident that the girl is not going to turn around and accuse you of rape a week later after she has had some time to think about it.
Call me a puritan, but I just think sex should be reserved for committed romantic relationships. Certain people really really really want to justify and normalize casual sex and polyamory, but it's clear that it just doesn't work and more often than not leads to hurt feelings, emptiness, and tragedy.
We're going to end up reinventing marriage and chaperoning before this is all better...
Prohibiting sex outside of marriage is kind of impossible in a modern culture - as having the degree of personal freedom we have would have to be greatly curtailed, particiularly for women. As a large religious regime would need to be forcibly imposed, so think Handmaid's Tale.
Also, such a prohibiltion would also be unnecessary since birth control exists and out of wedlock births are already far less taboo than in the past.
But total sexual license has led to a lot of hurt when taken to extremes. Polys and whatnot bend themselves in knots trying to come up with ground rules and other kinds of norms in poly and kink communites, but still leave countless victims, usually women, in their wake.
So I think the idea of agreeing on a middle ground of sex within a dating relationship or greater, should be our new sexual norm. Casual sex and poly sex will not be illegal, but will be considered taboo, slutty, unhealthy, and weird - because they are.
Or just don’t engage in pre marital sex
Don’t have sec with someone you aren’t willing to marry . It’s simply unwise . Not immoral. But unwise
The NYT article you cite does not, in any way, destroy her credibility. It presents nuance, and takes the reader through the evolution of how she went from feeling bad about what happened, to a fuller understanding that she was not the only one to blame. She allows that she consented to part of it, and that drugs made them all behave badly. Nuance is required here, not bandwagon.
The NYT article presents a pretty clear picture that what she did was consensual at the time, but that she wanted to revoke her consent retroactively to avoid reputational harm.
Many such cases.
She consented to guys 4-7 snorting ket off her body, though I'm not sure if this was before or after she snorted a bunch of ket off guy 2's erect penis.
She was probably high by the time she "consented."
It's a grey area. She is responsible for her actions. But so are the guys.
Would a decent Christian gentleman have "sloppy-thirds" sexual intercourse with a drugged up girl at a party? My Sunday School teacher would say NO.
Standards work both ways.
This was after she snorted ket off newell (male 2)'s penis.
She "consented" to them pouring ketamine on her body. and next thing she remembers is Lopes (male 3) returning and shutting it down and being dragged upstairs by Ingalls (male 1) and Lee (male 4) and engaging in a 3some with them.
Before relocating, Ingalls confirms in their snapchat groupchat Winston Lee had sex with her. She does not remember this and does not mention it in either of her testimonies. Yet we know it happened because the men confessed to it.
Yes! I become more convinced in her credibility. It is interesting and kind of sad to see how women read the article and were like "Yeah rape happened" and men went the completely other way.
I generally agree with this but the 'not the only one to blame' does kind of give it away. The word 'blame' only makes sense here if you think that one getting 'blamed' for having group sex is okay.
I suspect the sexual double standard rests on another fundamental of human nature rather than ev-psych, which is that human beings try to cap each other's status. They especially dislike it when people obtain status by doing things other people want instead of playing social status games. This is why we see slopulist hostility to entrepreneurs who get rich starting successful businesses and union hostility to workers being promoted by quality of work instead of seniority.
Slut-shaming can be seen as the same status-capping strategy, where women try to prevent other women from gaining status by being sexy and having sex. Shows like "Sex in the City" are similar to "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" type shows in that they are examples of the mask falling off. The former award promiscuous women status in spite of slut-shamer attempts to reduce it the same way the latter award status to rich people despite leftist attempts to reduce it.
There are some differences in the details. In particular, slut shaming has a paternalistic aspect where those doing it try to frame their behavior as protecting women from status reduction. By contrast, people rarely tell someone making a lot of money that they need to stop for their own good because everyone hates rich people (although you do see milder forms like telling them they will never know if their spouse loves them for themselves or for their money).
We will probably never be able to eliminate slut-shaming for the same reason that we can never eliminate envy-driven hatred of the successful. But it is still worth fighting to reduce it for the same reason envy is worth fighting. Efforts by feminists to do so should be lauded.
This explanation doesn't do a good job of telling us why people shame women for being promiscuous but men not so much. Evo psycho does.
Men were also once shamed for promiscuity (see the figure of the 'rake' or 'cad' or serial seducer of women in the culture of the 19th century & earlier), but this seems to have disappeared earlier & more completely than for women.
I think where evo-psych plays a role in my explanation is where I argue that we try to cap the status of people who gain status by "doing things that other people" want. Evo-psych argues that men usually want sex more than women, so heterosexual women find it easier to gain status by having lots of sex than men do.
One thing I think evo-psych is less clear about is the precise mechanism by which evolution makes men want sex more than women. Proponents of evo-psych generally seem to assume that men simply evolved to like and desire sex more than women do. However, another possibility is the orgasm gap: men evolved to orgasm more easily than women, so even if both sexes like and desire sex the same amount, men will pursue it more because it is more likely to be a positive experience for them. Or perhaps both explanations have some truth to them.
No, this is wrong.
In addition to gender double standards, there are class double standards. More than a thousand women are raped every day in America, but the media only care about the rape of upper class white women.
Can't help but think of UK rape gang victims now. Very very classist stuff.
Everyone should be orthodox Jews. Completely crazy that goyim live this way.
I had group sex with a woman who was Orthodox. No joke. It was amazing.
This sounds a bit like the Amherst case. That's the one where the accuser had sex with her roommate's boyfriend while the roommate was off campus. When people found out, she lost all her friends and started hanging out with campus feminists who told her she had been raped.
As usual Hanania is the only one who can be autistic enough to look at this through a rational, evolutionary lens while not being too autistic to understand individual human actions and emotions.
Every human culture, historical and present, has a word for “coward” that is always an insult levied at men, and a word for “slut” that is always an insult levied at women. The evolutionary psychology behind this is obvious beyond explanation. This is so deep in our human nature that no amount of education and secularism can change it.
Except there are lots of modern cultures where actually neither of these terms have any bite to them whatsoever. Ie pretty much any urban setting nowadays.
Right because nobody gets upset about being called a slut these days :)
There is a subset of women who have group sex fantasies. I know because I used to host play parties back in the day in a certain West Coast city where the women were safe to explore these and other fantasies - no slut shaming allowed. The men were vetted and almost always had to have a female partner who vouched for them. Anyone that didn't adhere to consent and respectful interactions were counseled or, if unreceptive, never invited back. The goal was to create a safe space where women (and men) could indulge these fantasies without consequences, but a frat party is in a different league, and dangerous for all the reasons we have seen. The problem here is not that women should not experiment, but that no one was vetted or had thought this through in that situation, so of course terrible things happened. My strong advice: women, if you want to do this, find a reputable swinger club or sex party and ideally a partner who will hold your hand as you go through this adventure together.
"Reputable swinger"
lol
"Men who were promiscuous had an evolutionary advantage"
Not entirely true. They could still contract STDs. Also men who commit to one family have a better chance of their off spring surviving and not being killed by another man.
An issue here is that as we’ve de-Christianized as a society, there’s no force remaining that discourages men from pursuing casual sex except for the threat of rape accusations. While it’s true that plenty of guys were trying to have sex with girls they just started dating back in the 1950’s, that kind of behavior was not glamorized up and down in mass media like it is today. As a society we just surrendered to “guys will be guys.”
Who’s surprised this happened? In our porn-soaked culture where kinky, casual sex is seen as “edgy,” young women let guys have sex with them if they agree to film it and sell it, prostitution is now Orwellian “sex work” presented as rather glamorous and not a particularly dangerous way to earn a buck — in short, nihilistic and demeaning but okay. It’s very telling Jane Doe was worried about her reputation and one of the guys she had sex with told her not to worry, it will blow over. In other words, who cares about reputations anymore?
Patrick Moynihan wrote a paper “Defining Deviancy Down” about 30 years ago. As the boundaries for what is generally considered normal erode and expand, more abnormal behavior becomes normalized. That’s where we are.
This is stupid. You think things like this didn't happen before we were 'porn soaked.'
Stupid. Pathetic, even.
How fast we have moved to a world where all sex is rape without a breathalyzer and a notary present. Soon even that won't be enough.
Richard, one could comment on the psychological naïveté of practically every sentence here, but let's go just with one.
You take the victim's subsequent emails as proof she consented all along and just later reacted to her 'slutshaming'. Please talk to women in their 30s to 60s. When any such situation occurs, from a grab-off-the-street rape to here in all its messy details, a common first reaction is self-blame. And then a counteracting self-protective denial (sometimes to the point of memory loss/repression) or self-protective minimization (it wasn't so bad). It often takes months to years to work through this cycle. This is why domestic abuse victims and rape victims keep communicating, even in a friendly way, with their abusers. For whatever psychological and/or social reasons, women especially have a hard time blaming others for their received abuse.
So, talk to women and find out how they reacted. If you are listening, I expect you will learn your initial assumption is wrong. Also, I do not think you have any feel for ketamine's effect on cognition and consent. There is a reason it is a date rape drug.
Also, trying to make this about the culture wars is wrong. The abuse of women, and women's complex psychological reactions to it is species-long.
Okay, fair enough but then ask this question: in your world, is it possible that a woman consensually participates in group sex, feels shame over it, then calls it rape, but it not actually be rape? In other words - what could a situation like this look like in which it *wasn't* rape? You comment seems to imply that it wouldn't be possible for a situation like that to NOT be rape. That doesn't make sense, right?
Wait - what? What about your long campaign against believing women who regret may-December or boss-employee relationships? I’m so baffled by your response here.
You’re all in on “women make non standard choices for relationships and sex all the time and we should believe it’s what they wanted.” But now all of a sudden, you believe this woman’s distress is genuine, genetic, evolutionary behavior?
The way more obvious explanation is that she’s in a subculture that cannot believe a woman would choose what she chose, and they’re punishing her for doing it. The way out they’re giving her is to agree it was non-consensual. But there are other subcultures in America where she could have female peers who would not be giving her such a hard time.
I agree with part of your discourse here.
What I miss to understand is how individual freedom is the culprit of "our unwillingness to take human nature seriously enough". What is the solution that would lead taking human nature seriously enough?
Going back to the type of society in which women are "discouraged" from promiscuity and the ones who fall (or the men with whom they fall, which is the choice of Sweden over prostitution) are punished/exposed to social stigma? It does not seem a great solution to me.
You see, I am over 70 and I have seen it all, even if not in your country. When I was young, men were still men and women were still women (the ones on average more inclined to occasional promiscuity and the others on average more inclined to creating long term attachments); we had the sexual revolution and a lot of women also slept around, and a lot of men pushed to get laid; a number of women were unhappy that their sleeping around partners did not establish a relationship, and either decided to stop having casual sex or continued and groused, until they found a "serious" relationship. Nothing of this was called rape. Nor was a man's insistence or expedients to get laid considered a valid reason to call rape. Rape was when someone was forced to sex physically or with the threat of a weapon, or by blackmail -- and there is still enough of it.
Sexual liberation and telling women that they are free to sleep around if they wish are not the cause of all the frivolous accusations of rape that take place when one individual (an increasing number of young gay men seem to react in the same way) is unhappy with the consequences of a sexual interaction, either for the lack of something they hoped to get from it, or because of the judgement of their in-group.
The cause of those accusations of rape is the widespread victim culture (to which a certain feminism has contributed heavily) that has extended the concept of harm out of every rational bound (and yet, with some amazingly sophistic rationalisations). A culture in which, when you do not get what your wanted - took a decision that backfired - are unhappy, you have been harmed, and are owed some reparation and someone to blame. In particular someone to blame. Cruelty is a great treatment for personal dissatisfaction, and as you have often noted, it crosses political ideology, class, race. It is the true intersectional element. And it is poisoning us all.
The broken women (and men) are not created by our unwillingness to take human nature seriously, but by our willingness to make victimhood into a form of sainthood, desirable and desired for social status and as a solution to our personal problems. They are created by our refusal to teach resilience and the search for self knowledge, to point out the risks that emotional choices pose when divested of rational considerations, in favour of an attitude in which one must be always validated and never asked to contemplate what mistakes led to disappointment, what things are one's own doing. Only what is your doing is in your power to change for the future.
A note at the end about human nature. The blank slate theory of mind is a pernicious misconception, a half truth elevated to universal law. But the exclusively evolutionary theory of mind is equally faulty, despite we may need today a dose of it to counterbalance.
Evolution is not destiny. Evolved preferences point to a widespread tendency, not to a single unavoidable well defined road, and when measured they present a fat bell curve, not a thin pyramid. As our minds tend to demand all-encompassing absolute explanations of phenomena (also an evolutionary trait, born of the need to control the future and our environment) we make the mistake of wanting something to be true for everybody... and often pass moral judgement on the cases that point otherwise, or simply dismiss them.
All women are not not-promiscuous, all men are not promiscuous.
A majority of women have a tendency to prefer attachment to fleeting satisfaction (but many will serve themselves happily from the buffet, in subcultures where promiscuity is not stigmatised, because then acceding to fleeting satisfaction does not reduce the chances of developing attachment or monogamous relationships, after which one can choose whether fleeting satisfaction is more important than stability to the singular individual).
A majority of men have a tendency to want (and often indulge in) fleeting satisfaction. But most choose, after all, attachment in the long run, and frequently even monogamous relationships, even in the gay world. More men have a tendency to cheat (by the research we have now), and in particular the reasons for cheating seem to be different: a majority of men who cheat, do so out of sexual attraction; while a majority of women who cheat, do so for love.
What does this all bring to bear, though, on a young woman brought by in-group shaming to such a distress that ended in accusing of rape the men with whom she had had wild sex?
I do not believe that sororities or any other group should be the guardians and enforcers of supposed evolutionary tendencies. Even if a majority of women may be not really happy with being promiscuous, and a number may be pushed to be by pressures cultural or personal, for other this is not the case.
Shaming assumes that:
1) no woman could ever desire what woman X has done, so
2) woman X is a freak or
3) woman X has been brainwashed by a) the patriarchy in the form of vile gaslighting men or b) the corrupted godless hedonistic culture that surrounds us.
The culprit in all of this is first, the shaming, as you seem to notice. And secondly, the cultural trends that have divested women of any individual autonomy in favour of blissful disappearance in the collective wombyn.
Well said.