First off, I made no statement about promiscuity. So you're the only one talking about that. Are you sure you're replying to the correct person? Your entire judgement of my post has nothing to do with what I said.

The context was:

>The top percentage of men get the lions share of the dating options and presumably more frequent sex with no reason to commit to the ladies in question while lower tier men suffer disillusionment from their lack of options.

It is explicitly stated that more attractive men have 'no reason to commit'. This seems to be an incredibly sad statement about the possibility of having a connection with another person on levels other than sex.

edit: I don't get what's wrong with what I said here? Can someone explain.

Nothing directly “wrong”, but you seem to be judgmental towards people who have (just) casual sex, going so far as to imply they objectify women, which is a word that has a strongly negative moral connotation in today’s world. But really, there’s nothing wrong with casual sex.

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.

Nope. “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...”

Matt4077 is correct. I do not care what people do.

Alright, whatever... although, grammatically I cannot see where you get that implication

The 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.