3 ms·
They weren't judgemental towards casual sex... If you carefully parse the original sentence ("The top [..] men get [..] frequent sex with no reason to commit")
by matt4077 9y ago
They weren't judgemental towards casual sex...
If you carefully parse the original sentence ("The top [..] men get [..] frequent sex with no reason to commit") it is making the absolute statement that good-looking men have no reason to commit, implying that the only reason for commitment is securing a frequent sex partner.
They can be completely accepting of all sorts of kinky shenanigans (as I am), yet still not consider it a good idea to paint all men with the same brush.
- eecc 9y agoNope. “With no reason to...” is a contextual connector, it adds to the first statement. Your interpretation would be correct if it read “therefore have no reason to...”
- ohyes 9y agoMatt4077 is correct. I do not care what people do.
- eecc 9y agoAlright, whatever... although, grammatically I cannot see where you get that implication
- ohyes 9y agoThe context is "a person who has no trouble getting people to have sex with him." The statement within that context is that he has "no reason to commit to a woman." I guess it could be just a statement of fact. "A lot of these people, they're just doing it." It seems sloppy to throw that contextual tidbit into the middle of an unrelated sentence. Particularly given that it is a fact that doesn't really need to be explained to anyone listening. So yeah, maybe it is just sloppy writing. But I think that is being very generous given it would have to be superfluous information within an entirely unrelated thought, meaning the writer basically made two mistakes at once. People also tend to use with and therefore fairly interchangeably in colloquial settings.