It was a metaphor, you colossal idiot.
Lovely strawman argument there. Only a sexist liberal moron can look at a criticism of casual sex, which takes one person of each gender, and see some sort of anti-feminist statement. Are you claiming that women are naturally sluts, on whom restraint and self-discipline are a greater burden? You honestly have no reading comprehension skills at all, do you? You ascertain the topic of an article or a composition and your opinion of the piece reverts to your default feelings on the issue, regardless of whether or not the two are remotely connected.
My response was IN OPPOSITION to the original article, which defended the practice of using alcohol to induce partners into casual sex. I criticized the attempts to parse fine points of acceptable behavior in a sphere of activity that I find to be completely unacceptable.
The original article was saying "They are ruining the fun of taking advantage of loopholes in the rules for acceptable sexual conduct, by punishing men for having what they thought was a casual, mutually desired sexual encounter."
My reply was "Tough shit, asshole. Get to know her and commit to her, and really come to understand her as a person, so there won't be any mixed signals, you'll initiate a sexual relationship when both of you are in a proper frame of mind, and you won't be prosecuted."
But because I am espousing a position on sexual relationships that was established and formally approved of prior to 1960, your brain shuts off, stops reading, and spews a bunch of tired feminist talking points, that have created a world where women are casually raped because they had too much to drink. At least with traditional morality, there was a universal understanding that this state of affairs was to be avoided, rather than nit-picked to death about whose right to irresponsible gratification trumped whose.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*