The possible fact that young women now may avail themselves officially of the behavior always attributed to young men seems to stick mainly in the egos of those young men who now may feel as utilized by the women as they had once taken advantage of the female sex.
The "lower" working class were more open about their sexuality whereas the "upper" classes were more prone to condemn sexual interest outside of marriage for women.
I think the term "friend with benefits" is a better and more commonly used term for this.
Whether you like it or not, the two of you are going to get very close, very fast: it’s inevitable and irresistible (if you’re normal)—only the sociopathic seem capable of resisting its siren song.
The feelings we develop for someone we’re sleeping with are real and powerful and intense, as is the attachment, the craving, and the newfound neediness.
I feel the 'Morality' should be moved back to the end (in alphabetical order), as not adding any real value by being on top.
Also, I think it would be better to reword it (I couldn't think of a proper way yet), as to avoid absolutism (concept of f.b.
If you’re normal, you’re going to fall in love with the person you’re sleeping with—or they’re going to fall in love with you—sooner or later, whether you like it or not.
And there’s a simple reason for it: sex is love’s fast-forward button.
In an effort to create some semblance of respectability, I've moved the 'Morality' section to the top.
If someone feels that this is inappropriate, you can move it back down, and I'll let the issue drop.
--Yurik , (UTC) It seems that the concept of non committed sex has existed for the length of the human condition.