Lol. It’s a joke, it’s not meant to be mean, and it is funny. That said- there ARE “fat ugly” guys out there who have lots of sex with women. Asides from money and personality- most people can have casual sex if they really want by being in the right places, and having low standards/ not being choosey. As for the whole “men have to work...” at it thing- well... that’s just supply and demand.
That’s somewhat the point of the very thing he’s making fun of. It’s at least anecdotally true that men are more likely to take a strangers invitation for sex. Men have above 80% odds of reaching climax, are statistically less likely to be putting themselves in physical danger, and while they can make a baby or get STD’s- they cannot get pregnant and can potentially avoid paternity- especially with a woman of limited resources and multiple sexual partners. So there is lower risk and higher odds of reward for men with strangers as sex partners.
So if we wanted to use the term “slut,” (which I generally disapprove of-) we could say that not all men are “sluts,” but by nature men are more prone to “slutty” conduct or aspirations. Hence why men must work harder. Dick tends to be cheap and easy. For there to be “fat ugly” female “sluts,” you must have men willing to sleep with them right? You can’t be a “slut” if you never have a partner can you?
Since it is relatively easy to get dick of one is not terribly choosey, and not concerned for their safety or reputation- we know by default that there are many men willing to supply it. The fact Len must work harder to be “sluts” also by default means that there is a larger supply than there is demand- the electrical company doesn’t run many ads do they, but in a packed market like cars or soft drinks you see lots of competitive advertising and trying to make their product most appealing because there are many suppliers so suppliers know they have to step it up.
Tl:dr- quite actually- the evidence presented suggests that if men ha e to work harder- it actually indicates men are inherently “sluttier” on average, since women as indicated to be LESS likely to sleep with a man who doesn’t offer more than a set of genitals- but must fulfill other, often non sexual criteria. That indicates prudence and selectiveness.
That said- the definition of the word “slut” specifics female gender/sex. So “stud” could be the counterpart and the question would be more about why one word has a negative connotation and not the other- which of course is a social construct and more to do with the fact that- again, as self evidenced by the facts- men admire and or aspire to the trait of being able to have multiple sexual partners frequently where as women traditionally have not. Part of this is of course historically rooted in male controlled gender roles and the imposition of chastity as a feminine virtue- or at least faithfulness to a single male sex partner-
However, women also “slut shame” each other- to some degree as an artifact of these imposed gender ideals but to another degree it makes sense from the standpoint of human evolution and anthropology- with females giving birth to young and thusly having other females as “competition” for resources provided by a male mate in child care etc- it is to the disadvantage of the female in general to have another female engage sexually with her partner.
It’s all a bit complex and this hardly does a great job of going into it, but it’s interesting to me none the less and to use more detail and precision would make this even longer than it already is- so that will have to do.
There are more desperate people with surprisingly low standards than you think.