In an ideal world.

It's always the same thing at parties. A little awkward as you get to know everybody at first. Then as the drinks keep coming, there's more laughter, more friendliness.

The drinks just keep coming.

The guy in the corner who was just eyeing you appreciatively at the start is now loping towards you. You can see him mentally preparing for rejection, wiping his hands on his jeans. You consider it, but his face is just not appealing enough, and you notice he has a bit of a gut. Eugh.

So you force a tight smile, hoping that that itself will discourage him. Of course it doesn't. Your life isn't that easy.

He strides up, plasters what he hopes is a winning, but is actually a nauseating, smile on his face, and tries to make idle chit chat while you look around for someone who you can pretend is calling you over so you don't have to witness the end of this little encounter.

At long last he gets to the point.

"Can I get you another drink?"
Subtext: You don't seem into me yet. Perhaps if I can get you drunk enough..

"Want to go somewhere private?"
Subtext: I can't very well stick my hand up your skirt in front of all these people, can I...

"I've got some weed in my car"
Subtext: I give you weed, you let me diddle you a bit, it all works out.

"Want to go for a walk?"
Subtext: Come, let me lead you somewhere dark and creepy where your screams cannot be heard.

You say no to any of these, and they're like, "Oh come on, it's just a drink/joint/walk", as if they think you so stupid as to not have noticed the glaring implications of their question. Really. Don't insult our intelligence, boys.

Sometimes I just wish they'd get straight to the point, right?
"Hey, I think you're attractive, I'd very much like to make out with you at some point tonight.. would you want to do that?"

If no, he doesn't need to waste money, time, or weed trying to get in my pants.

And if yes, it doesn't have to mean we just go and get busy straight away, small talk can still continue, courtship can go on, except everybody knows what's coming, and it's a win-win.

Of course you're at perfect liberty to change your mind at any point if his behaviour becomes unattractive, or you get a better offer, and of course he can't be sleazy about it. I mean, you do have to seem like a nice, interesting guy in the first place and not just stick your tongue down our throats the moment 'yes' is uttered.. but if you're a normal kind of person, it could work out wonderfully.

Why doesn't anybody do this?

PS: Of course, leading a guy on and making him buy you drinks without assuring him any physical contact whatsoever has its advantages (free drinks), but that's beside the point.

Remember, promiscuity never killed anybody.

Let's examine the rationale behind usage of words like 'slut', 'whore', 'skank', etc.


Typically, these words are used against females who display an interest in sex, or who appear to display one, by showing 'inappropriate' (whatever that is) amounts of skin, or by having casual sex.


Now, for the life of me, I cannot come up with a valid reason to discourage girls, or anyone else for that matter, from having as much sex as they damn well please.


The typical argument is that it's 'disgusting' or 'immoral'.. but why should it be any of those? A higher likelihood of contracting and spreading STD's, you say? Well, they will in all probability, only spread the STD they may have, to other people who have casual sex. If you are not one of those people who have casual sex, then this should not bother you. If you are, then you shouldn't be protesting.


Furthermore, those who drive cars, or any motor vehicle, have a higher likelihood of killing/injuring someone than a pedestrian does. Do we call them motorwhores? Do we have ANY sort of derogatory name for such a wanton act of physical endangerment of others? No.


Apparently, potential death by traffic accident is no biggie, but liberal female sexuality is abhorrent.


From an evolutionary point of view, sexually conservative females are sexually conservative for the sole purpose of procuring a mate who is willing to wait for sex, thus showing a willingness to commit to and provide for the woman, and any potential offspring they may have. Thus, they are not going to want their hard-won mate 'tempted' by sexually liberal females who give out sex willy-nilly. Nor are they going to be as successful in getting such a mate, if that mate can get sex elsewhere without having to commit.


I have two things to say to that;
a) If your mate is going to be so easily tempted, surely you don't want him anyway.
and
b) Stop being a douche just because you're lonely. If you want a goddamned child so badly, provide for it yourself. And provide for yourself yourself. Security does not require physical strength anymore. You can do it.


I know that many females are unlikely to know that this is the reason for their 'disgust' of promiscuity, but it is. And now that you know it is, you can start getting the hell over it and acting like you belong in the 21st century.


Onto males;


Males who call girls such names are just retardedly stupid. You discourage liberal sexuality, and you're going to find it extremely hard to find a sex partner without proving commitment. Do you want that? Surely not. And even if you do (you weirdo?), what the hell is it to you if a girl wants to have sex a lot? How is it any of your business?


Also, let me point out the ultimate hypocrisy in praising your guy friends for getting laid, and simultaneously calling a skimpily dressed girl a 'slut', while, in all likelihood, enjoying the spectacle. Pathetic.


Do we call hot guys sluts for running around with their shirts off, arousing the rest of us with their six packs? 

No.

Therefore I will show my cleavage as much as I bloody well please, and expect you lot to shut your stupid mouths.


Let's note that what morons say does not bother me per se. What bothers me is that these morons exist in the first place, going apparently untold by the world that they are morons.