[FreedomOfExpression]

So the article's point is for women to be glad they had sex with a manipulative guy, because they could have ended up marrying him if they withheld sex.
Stupid and untrue point, because the manipulative guy wasn't looking for marriage, he was looking for sex with no strings and got it. If a woman sees through and dumps this shallow type of guy (I won't call him a man) or otherwise withstands the manipulation, he moves on to an easier target.

BTW, from the earlier comments and the unedited and unnecessary f-word in the article, what has FR become lately?

[Sir_Ed]

Yeah, it’s the first time in twenty years I’ve seen the “f” word used in Freep.

I don’t like it, it’s vulgar.

Ed

[Az Joe]

Yes, women are not manipulative to the slightest degree.

[Yaelle]

So the article’s point is for women to be glad they had sex with a manipulative guy, because they could have ended up marrying him if they withheld sex.

---

Or is it... its good to get men so lusty that you end up married to a creep because he felt he had to experience 5 minutes of sex with you? That isn’t a good way to choose a life partner either.

Do you know how many marriages break up because of sexual incompatibility?

No, people of both genders shouldn’t have constant sex with strangers. It isn’t healthy. But premarital sex, done carefully, is probably here to stay, even among the religious. People shouldn’t eat two big pieces of chocolate cake either, but it happens.

And being married to someone who only kisses your butt when he’s horny is definitely not a love relationship. Nor is it good for the man to plan to spend 30-40 years with someone who is so good at refusing sex with him.