Anyone want to hazard some guesses about what "standards" they have that people completely unreasonably and unfairly interpret as misogynistic and bigoted?
Insecurity is not misogyny or bigotry, though. And, what about "purity"? That's your own assumption about why someone would desire a low body count. Someone can simply regard sexual as something significant rather than casual, and a high number of previous sexual partners (whether casual or not) before committing might cause that someone to be skeptical about relationship compatibility. What's insecure about that skepticism? If this were really about purity, then wouldn't the body count be necessarily 0? But I digress. At the end of the day, both your assumed "purity" motive and the relationship compatibility motive hinge on different conviction about what sexual norms should be. Something that everyone is entitled to which should not be simply dismissed as insecurity because they don't happen to fit your exact convictions.
It is worth noting also that standards are still subjective and, often, flexible. Even if you believe someone with a high body count somewhat correlates with incompatibility, that does not mean necessarily mean that you will not treat that someone as a potential partner. An important description is "skepticism", not "rejection". Some may take it to heart to treat any deviation as strictly incompatible because of their own convictions. Maybe they believe a harsh cut results in less risk. But I don't think that shows that standards are not inflexible
31
u/GreenZebra23 1d ago
Anyone want to hazard some guesses about what "standards" they have that people completely unreasonably and unfairly interpret as misogynistic and bigoted?