Some thoughts.

Although the bar example seems to show women in a very privileged and powerful position … what is actually on offer is a very limited type of sex: casual, quick, no-strings-attached sex with a stranger. … Even if we accept the "women can easily get sex" proposition as true, we're not saying that women can fulfill their sexual needs easily, only that women can have this specific type of sex easily. x

A woman permits and denies access to sex, and all she has to do is want it bad enough. … [But this] is a lie. There is such a thing as being unfuckable and female, whether because of weight or lack of femininity or age or poverty or that desperation you start to emit in waves after a few years without … if you are unfuckable— and let's use the right word here— if you are a hag x

Also:

Let’s say that, for the sake of argument, a woman does want to have sex and doesn’t particularly care with whom. Let’s say she goes to a bar with the express purpose of finding someone to have sex with. No matter what happens next, she is already a “slut,” by social standards and therefore does not deserve respect from men or women. Any attempts to get the attention of possible sex partners will more than likely be interpreted as “dancing slutty,” “dressing slutty,” or “eye-fucking.” Men who employ similar tactics are not sluts; they’re “suave,” “smooth,” or “a player.” Even if it were true that women could have sex anytime they wanted, they would be considered sluts if they actually did it. x

Previous studies showed that something like 70% of men versus 0% of women were willing to take up a hypothetical offer of a sexual encounter … That 70% difference vanished entirely when Conley controlled for the perceived role of stigma— the socially held belief that women who engage in casual sex are “sluts.” Women will accept an offer of casual sex if they believe that they can avoid being stigmatized for their behavior. x