Whenever a man deviates from this reproductive gender role, he's labeled as kind of a pussy. When a woman deviates from the role, she doesn't get off so easy—she's a bad, immoral, evil slut. It's funny: even those who believe that men and women were "created" this way though the process of evolution—and not via some God who wove his moral authority into our very genitals—will still argue that deviating from gender norms results in great moral depravity.

Except for gay guys! When gay men are sexually promiscuous—you know, like men are evolutionarily wired to be—they are bad, immoral, evil sluts, too. Welcome to the club, guys (there are no free towels). It's funny: even those who believe that there's nothing wrong with being gay still argue that gay sex results in the great moral depravity usually reserved only for female sluts. Why? Because there are no women around to virtuously refuse to have sex with them.

Yesterday, The New Gay editor Zack made the gay man's double-standard clear. Zack has been seeing his boyfriend for two years. And one time, Zack peed on someone's face in a kiddie pool (consensually). Sure, it's not the most effective way of spreading one's seed, but whatever—he's a dude, and it's only natural for him to want to do some freaky stuff with his penis, right? Wrong. Zack peed on a man's face, which is a no good very bad slutty thing to do. And it's not because men loving men is bad—it's because men fucking men is bad. And it all comes back to us ladies. Zack writes:

Though gay men’s lives are not purely defined by sex — I don’t need to tell you that the richness of the modern queer experience goes beyond an eternal search for dick in ass — I think we do ourselves a disservice by forgetting that we have been designated like we are because of sex. Not love, not companionship, not dating, but sex. Gay marriage is verboten because it leads to gay sex. Parent freak out about gay teachers because they think we’ll teach their children about abhorrent sex. Gay adoption, gay blood donors, all “controversial” aspects of us as a people can be traced back to a popular disdain for how we get off.

However, the way to address this is not to cut sex out of our lives entirely. Some people seem to think that we can whitewash ourselves to equality. Show no affection, no desire, no indication that you have anything between your legs but a smooth strip of plastic and we’ll be able to do what everyone else does. This is true in a sense, but if we win our acceptance as a sexless people we’ll be forever robbed of sex. It’s common sense. Not everyone wants to be joined in holy matrimony or to fight in the military, but everyone wants to have sex. And if the way we have sex is fundamentally accepted, then all of our other rights would fall into line. I’m sure of this.

The parallels between gay rights and women's rights here are obvious. There's a reason that feminism is so centered around reproductive rights (it's the sex). Birth control allows women to have sex the way we want, for the reasons we want to, and without the responsibility of bearing all the moral consequences that come with having sex (chiefly, babies). And yet, even when sex is very explicitly undertaken for pleasure instead of reproduction, women are still called upon to bring some morality to the situation. A woman who takes her birth control pill every day is still a slut. A woman who uses a condom is still a slut. A man who pees on another man's face, where insemination is impossible—as is transmission of HIV, which often acts as a moral-responsibility stand-in for pregnancy—is still a slut.

In response to Zack's coming out as a slut, commenter B.B. wrote:

I am so exhausted from hearing excuse after excuse about why having sex with anyone and everyone anywhere and everywhere is “okay.” No, it is not okay. Let’s also not fool ourselves into believing that straight men are just as slutty as gay men. Women are still socialized to rebuff men’s attempts to have sex with them. I do not doubt that many straight men would have sex as often as possible if they could, but there is still a certain degree of dignity in the straight dating arena.

Ah, dignity. Where does this dignity come from? Why, it comes from us, the women, who must be forever chaste in order to save all of mankind from sluttiness. But once you take women out of the equation, sexual relationships become a lot less dignified—in fact, they become something approaching equal!

Behind the slut-shaming of gay men and the slut-shaming of straight women is the same irrational fear: the fear of equality in sexual relationships. And it sucks for everybody. In accordance with gender roles, men are considered morally inferior to women. Women are considered morally responsible for men. Men who have sex with men will never have their immoral natures redeemed by women. Women who have sex with women are wasting their feminine virtue.

I'm with Zack on this one—it all comes down to equality in the bedroom. When women are allowed to want sex like men, we will all be made responsible for our own personal relationships—and not the collective morality of our entire society. And when everything is equal between men and women, gay men and women will no longer be considered morally inferior to all heterosexuals. And consensual kiddie pool face-pissing will be available for all, if that's what they're into.

and hot girls:

This month's psychological musings include a handy guide to figuring out which girls are slutty. Great. I love psychology.

"Is a short skirt just a welcome mat with a belt?" asks writer Matthew Hutson, to which I reply, "Do skirts have belts?" and also, "No." No, it is not.

Hutson cites a Florida State University study where researchers "recorded 24 women working on a Rubik's Cube with a male partner for a few minutes and played the soundless tapes to other students." They then, naturally, asked the viewers to rate how slutty they think each of the girls are! And it worked. "The viewers showed surprising ability to guess the women's proclivity to sleep around," Hutson writes.

Let's take a look at what Rubiks Cube solving behaviors "tag a tart," according to the study:

Yes, fellas, it's true unclear! If she looks at you or lifts her brows, she's down to fuck. If she dresses provocatively, tilts her head, laughs, or smiles, you just think she's down to fuck. No surprise there: A girl labeled as a "sluts" doesn't have to actually want to have sex for observers to think she wants it. Sometimes, all she has to do is wear a "welcome mat with a belt" and then reject the guy—those girls are called both "sluts" and "teases."

Strangely, these indications that you think a girl totally wants to fuck you are also the characteristics that make her more desirable to bed—call it wishful thinking. They're happy, attractive, and expressive. I'm sure they have a lot of sexual prospects to choose from. A lot of them probably have significant others, too, who will probably kick your ass when you approach her in a bar, indicate her smile, and assume she wants to fuck you because you find her attractive.

—

UPDATE: Okay you guys are totally right, I can't believe I overlooked that. I'VE READ MY AGATHA CHRISTIE. But I'm confused! What does "red herrings" mean in this case then? Are they signs that viewers reported as being linked to sexual activity, but that actually are not? Or just cultural misconceptions about what sluts do?

UPDATE 2: I'm keeping the post up in the interest of transparency, because taking down a post that makes me look dumb is kind of a dick move, right? Also, if the "Red Herrings" were suggested by study participants, are then I think the critique is still valid—that people's ideas of "slutty" women are invented from their own perceptions, and off-base. I have an e-mail out to Hutson asking him is that's the case, and will update when I hear back.

Also, creative writing majors are dumb! Sorry!

UPDATE 3: Here's the word from Huston on the "Red Herrings" category:

The red herrings are a combination of two sets of cues:

- The researchers listed "misleading cues" as those performed a lot by women who were perceived by others to be open to casual sex but who in fact were not. Presumably observers were using those cues to inform their judgments.

- The researchers listed "poor cues" as those performed no more or less by women open to casual sex, and no more or less by women people perceived to be open to casual sex. These cues didn't mean anything, and people didn't use them anyway.

Some of the other editors here were confused by the distinction between "poor" and "misleading" cues, and it can be argued that in the real world some people's perceptions probably are influenced by those poor cues (even though in the study, on average, subjects were not), so I combined poor and misleading cues into one category and called it red herrings.

Okay—so there are three categories of women at issue here:

a) Women that are perceived to be sluts, and are.

b) women who are perceived to be sluts, and aren't.

c) women who are not perceived to be sluts.

The Red Herrings include gestures that observers popularly linked to sluttiness, but which weren't actual indicators of openness to casual sex. So, if she looks at you or lifts her eyebrows, she's down. If she looks pretty or dresses provocatively, you only think she's down. Sorry for the confusion—I've edited my post to reflect the changes.