I think your post is an example of why social science isn't. You've strung together a few opinions with no backing evidence. 1: 'player/whore dynamic' I thin

I think your post is an example of why social science isn't. You've strung together a few opinions with no backing evidence. 1: 'player/whore dynamic' I think that is a bit of a generalization. And I think the follow up statement is pretty weak: 'Empirically, the vast majority of people who participate in casual sex have low self-esteem'. Even on the minor chance this was true, you haven't shown that the lower self esteem isn't from something other than their sexual relationships (eg parental figure). Where is your proof for 2)? What if both partners have engaged in casual sex? Point 3: I find it hard to agree that 'The medium of exchange is social status' wrt casual sex. Aren't you assuming one or more of the parties is 'kissing and telling'? The medium of exchange is pleasure. Point 4: When were societies pre-monagamous? Is it reasonable to think that 1 in 3 men would die at the hands of a male due to sleeping around (and it would be neat to see a reference for this surprising stat)? I'd be totally surprised to learn that 'pre-monogamous subculture' leads to violence and rape. And speculating on the reason that fights break out at night clubs is pretty faulty supporting evidence.