- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
True. "I'm available for love" (though, "love?" ... how's about "like" for starters?) isn't the same as "I'm available for sex." This is the ultimate irony of sexual relationships, though, isn't it? Generally speaking, women want "love" first (to be then celebrated with sex), and men want "sex" first (which might deepen into love).
But t the same time, women are still regarded as the world's moral gate-keepers. She should be willing to sleep with a particular guy at the drop of a hat, but if she's "too" promiscuous she's "slutty."
Following BS's logic, if women simply behaved like rhesus monkeys, and gave out whenever anyone asked, in the name of "friendliness," they would quickly be branded as "skanks" and then avoided (at least when clothed). And the ones who refuse to "give out" would still be lonely, and probably labelled as "frigid." Ah, paradise!
