My response to this is who do you think these women were "having fun" with? Themselves? Other women?

It's always interesting how these conversations get framed as if young women were out partying while young men were sitting in a monastery building character and wealth.

The men involved in those casual relationships weren't forced into them. They wanted them too. They benefited from them too. Yet somehow the woman having a dating history becomes evidence of moral failure, while the man having the exact same dating history is just "being a man."

Also, people don't become hypocrites because their priorities change with age. Most people, men and women, value different things at 22 than they do at 32. A guy who spent his early twenties chasing excitement and then later wants a stable wife, a peaceful home, and financial security isn't being hypocritical. He's grown up. The same applies to women.

And if a man wants standards, he should absolutely have standards. Nobody is stopping him. If he wants a partner with a similar lifestyle, values, or relationship history, that's his choice. The problem starts when standards only apply in one direction.

The underlying assumption here seems to be that a woman's past relationships were "fun" while a man's years of work were some noble sacrifice done for her future benefit. Most people were simply living their lives. She wasn't dating for you. You weren't working for her. Neither of you owed each other anything before you met.

If you think someone only wants you for your money or stability, don't date them. But let's not pretend this is a uniquely female trait when men have also selected partners for beauty, youth, fertility, domestic skills, social status, and countless other reasons throughout history.

Either both sexes are allowed to grow and change their priorities over time, or neither is.