Could you be a little more specific as to what you disagree with?
1. The article claims (and you seem to agree with it) that the only way to enjoy a sexual encounter is to achieve orgasm. I disagree.
2. Your commentary on this study is "As the liberal left spread their lies and filth, the truth continues to come out," which has literally nothing tying it back to the study at all. I could argue that this study shows why conservatives all beat their wives and it would make just as much sense, which is to say, exactly none.
3. You later claim that "To say women can be as sexually liberated as men is a lie," which is a position I vehemently disagree with. Again, you're equating an orgasm as being the sole purpose of casual sex (which I've already disagreed with) and now you're using that to justify a claim that because women may not achieve orgasm in casual sexual encounters as frequently as men, they can't be as sexually liberated. But sexual liberation isn't just frequency of orgasm. And even if it was, you still have 40% of women claiming that they had an orgasm in their last sexual encounter, so that's a pretty large group of people who apparently can be just as sexually liberated as men.
4. "The only ones spreading lies is the liberal left. Telling women they can enjoy casual sex just like men is a lie." A doubling down of your last two points; first, that somehow this is related to the "liberal left," as if conservative women weren't having casual sex; and second, continuing the argument that the only way to enjoy sex is if orgasm is achieved (and discounting the women who did achieve orgasm). I disagree with both these points.
5. "When a woman has an organism she increases her chances of getting pregnant. Why would a woman want to get pregnant by a man she "knows" is not going to be there tomorrow?" I'm assuming you meant "orgasm" and not "organism" (I already mocked you for this), so let's move on to the argument you seem to be making: A woman who has casual sex will intentionally try to avoid orgasm as a method to reduce her chance of getting pregnant. You've already claimed several times that the only way to enjoy casual sex is to achieve orgasm, so claiming that anyone would have casual sex but intentionally try to avoid orgasm seems to fly in the face of your own logic. But even accepting that, if these women were so concerned about getting pregnant, why bother subjecting themselves to a sexual experience they won't enjoy when their odds of pregnancy drop off to zero by refraining? I have no idea what you're arguing here, but any way I dissect this argument, it seems entirely illogical and I disagree with your assertion.
6. "Liberal left - not only should women have the right to get an abortion, the taxpayers are going to pay for it." For some reason, this thread has devolved into partisanship and an abortion debate, and you're fanning the flames with ad hominem attacks against some perceived threat of women enjoying casual sex and using your tax dollars to fund her abortion absent any evidence and with no regard to what your original linked study was talking about. Pointless drivel, and doesn't merit as much of a response as it's gotten.
So that's a start.
