Not the anon you responded to, but I do agree with his viewpoint.
You haven't tried to argue his counter points at all, instead you choose to repeat the same thing over and over again using different words.
The risk you and he talk about are the same. There is calculated risk in everything one does, and one can mitigate that risk by taking certain precautions. To judge an action based on risk that is heavily dependent on the individual is not looking at the whole picture. A motorcyclist who speeds and doesn't wear a helmet is a fool. To conclude that riding motorcycles is dangerous is a poor conclusion
In the second point, you are using your own definition of intimacy to explain why casual encounters are bad. This is circular reasoning, because you never established a reason for why no intimacy is a bad thing, this point is just assumed in your narrative. Besides, like the other anon said, this is simply another level of intimacy.
This image of "giving oneself to a man" is perpetrated by porn and the media. What would you say if we were talking about a lesbian, or a gay man? This is not something that is done to someone, this is something that someone participates in.
And I don't consider his vocabulary too advanced. It sounds like you just don't understand some of his words, in which case google is a great tool
The bottom line is, OP, that the old OP asked if it's wrong that he couldn't trust promiscuous girls. The answer is obviously yes, not because their lifestyle is superior ( and it's not, it's just not worse either) but because you must have an extremely fragile ego to not trust someone because they don't follow the highly subjective worldview that you have. No one is saying being promiscuous is better, it's up to the individual to decide if that's something they want to follow. But many people who immediately pull the slut card are afraid of these people because they are a threat to the world they believe in