Sorry you took it the wrong way but in actuality the article was unbiased towards women with many sexual partners; and if you view it as I think it's meant to be viewed: with an understanding that its only theoretical, as a discussion on human behavior, with a filter, because human beings are so varied, then you could ascertain some insights and ideas that possibly never previously occurred to you. Not stating this with judgement, assuming you are "bitter" or covering anything up. In undisputed objectivity many women are in fact "covering up" details about their sexual past, but I wouldn't in any way leap to judge you to that point, the other reply was immature.
To disprove you're argument, the article praised the women with 20 plus partners and only abased those who were in "stage 3" because of negativity; something that many healthy people find unnatractive in a relationship and of course a tendancy toward infedelity which is a take as it appears situation with women: theyre all different and the writer bases this on a scientific theory while also plainly stating the source is obscure and therefore unreliable. I will say though that it makes a decent amount of sense, and that many men, myself included, question the number of partners with the idea that a lower number of partners means a better chance of faithfulness as (if not our main priority) one of our top concerns. It's my theory that this is also genetic and why men typically try to settle with non-promiscuous ladies. It's a gut instinct, our mammal intuition goal for a strong family in hopes of healthy, happy and stress-free survival. Stress kills. And the article doesn't judge anyone, as a matter of fact it is given with an open mentality. We all want what we want, or we don't know what we want until we find it. That's all love and romance is to me.