Even though I am not a student of women’s studies, I must still disagree with this title. "Slut" and "Stud" are both words. The meaning of words differs between societies and between times. And even if they had the same meaning in every society and at every time, all that would mean is the social conditions are constant - it does not mean they result from biology or genetics.

In particular, the differences in male and female reproductive patterns reflect the interest of individuals, not the social interest which should influence language. Think about the term "miser”; someone who is careful with their money and reluctant to share it with others. This is a quality which in evolutionary terms is very advantageous to the individual. Yet socially it is undesirable, a miser makes a bad friend who will never take their turn buying drinks. Hence society is unkind to misers: we call them cheapskates and dirty capitalists.

Logically, the same should go for “studs”. By impregnating more than their fair share of fertile young ladies, they inflict a social cost on the rest of the male population. Hence, if nature was the only factor at work, our language would alter so as to make "stud" have the same negative connotations as miser, and these promiscuous males would face the same social ostracism as “sluts” in ancient times. Since they do not, there must be other factors at work.

The most likely explanation is that men are emotionally weaker than women. In line with the workings of capitalism, the strong dominate the weak. The reason studs are not socially ostracised is that the rest of the male population is too weak and wimpy to confront them for their anti-social behaviour. This is politics, not nature.

There is in fact a hostile name for “studs”, it's “fucker”, but it is not widely used in that sense. A principle problem men have in seeking to internalise the negative externality of their own sex’s promiscuity is that those males in positions of responsibility, the Kings and the Judges, who should be protecting the little people, have historically found it difficult to resist the temptation to use their social status to gain access to elicit sex, at the cost of their fellow men who find themselves cuckolded.

Hence my explanation for the sexual double standard is this. Women have historically dealt out harsh punishments to any member of their sex who messes around with their husbands, in case their man pays less attention to the family, thereby reducing their economic security. They have punished their transgressing sisters either through social ostracism, or by proxy (encouraging their men folk to stone adulterers). We men on the other hand have been too weak - we have failed to enforce collective punishments upon those men who sleep around.

So the sexual double standard is indeed about power relations. The only solution I can imagine is to elect a totalitarian government, and install hidden cameras in every room of every house and behind every hedgerow, and severely punish anyone who plays around with any member of the opposite sex who is not their life partner. Or maybe we should just forget the whole thing.