The Art of Whore was a beautifully written article and, for those of you who have not read it, basically says the whore is defined by the poor choices she makes: she's had sex with so many intimate partners who all thought she wasn't good enough for the long run. Therefore, since she is the common denominator in all these failed relationships, its reasonable to assume she is the problem, even when she says otherwise.

This logic makes sense when viewed from the outside but I'm trying to trace how we can get to the same conclusion from inside the whore's mind (before cognitive dissonance/hamstering kicks in).

What I mean by this is that you can escape the logic if you disconnect sex from love and you're willing to have sex with anyone. In other words, the woman could argue that you could have a lot of 1 night stands but very few long term relationships. This would be consistent with the assumptions of The Art of Whore but lead to a contradictory conclusion. Since her standard for chosing who to have sex with is different from the standard of who she's intimate with are different, she could be sexually promiscuous and not a whore.

This irks me. For one, this sounds like she is justifying friendzoning and if you call her out on it, she just shuts down and says that she is sexually free to fuck whoever she likes. I'm trying to work the logic to the point before she hamsters and shuts down.

The best I can come up with is that she's just being selfish but then she will just say "why do I have to have sex with someone I love? Isn't showing emotional intimacy enough? I can have sex with a bad boy and keep a nice guy around for my emotional needs." Its essentially the same logic of friendzoning from a woman's point of view.

How can I reason through the whore's mind and, using whore logic, arrive at the same conclusion as The Art of Whore? Any thoughts?