Like I said in the quote from the Gawker article, she's written a book on the subject of being a virgin again. People write books in order to sway other people's thinking. I guess I was just generalizing from my experience with very vocal religious people who are always trying to get everyone else to see the error of their ways.
So if you think she is a prude, please tell us how much sex without marriage you think is okay, neither prudish nor slutty. Where is the balance?
Happy to oblige you. The correct amount is the amount you can handle. If you've taken all due precautions on disease transmission and conception prevention, have all you think you can handle without going into some sort of major funk over it. For some people, that is going to mean sex with condoms with someone who has also been tested for STDs, that they just met, and are hitting it off with, and for others, that means being sexual with the person who has promised to marry you.
By all means, if you cannot deal with premarital sex, then absolutely refrain from it. But don't expect everyone to emulate or admire you for it, especially if you're squeamish about kissing.
Is "the correct amount" measured by an objective standard, or by the subjective standard of "the amount you can handle"?
If the standard is entirely subjective, then why are you advising others regarding "the correct amount"? You've contradicted yourself.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction.
The purpose of intercourse is two-fold: reproduction and the unity of the spouses. The unity of the spouses is critical to the proper rearing of children.
This is simply the order of nature.
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
Oh please. They are just writing their beliefs and views, the same as you are doing on FR.
If writing down one's beliefs and views is a bad thing, you'd better sign off FR and never do it again. (Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite and say it is bad for others to do while you do it yourself.)