I thought is was a self-evident truth. Are you claiming that women can be honest for sex and not guys, but have a more difficult time enjoying short term relationships with guys? Many women claim guys are willing to lower their standards merely to obtain sex, why would only guys need to lower their standard if it was easier for guys to be honest with women regarding short term relationships when no money is being considered?
Wealthy guys who can afford a five thousand dollar an hour petty cash fund may be able to get laid easier than some women; but that is usually not true of guys without recourse to that wealth in our money based, mixed market, political economy.
The proof is, I have never had to lie to a woman for sex whenever I had a petty cash fund for that purpose. But, can't seem to get laid by being consistently, that moral and that ethical, for free. Yet, I would not have a problem if women told me that they needed to confirm a hypothesis which states that if they use guys for sex long enough, a guy will eventually either clamor for a relationship or overcome his commitment phobia, simply to avoid getting used for sex as much by women who have higher sex drives than men.
I agree to disagree. Sex is porn, simply because porn is sex. Can there even be "porn" without sex being involved? What is the difference between live porn on a stage and sex in a bedroom regarding that physical act between two consenting adults? If there is no difference, then why distinguish; therefore, porn is not bad, in and of itself, but could be bad when used for badness and not goodness. In my opinion, porn should always be used for goodness and not badness.