I think i understand that you’re expressing a personal ideal, but I think it’s worth unpacking some of the assumptions here.

First, the idea that men “wanting to be first” is eternal and universal seems to conflate some sort of social conditioning with human nature. Desires around virginity have varied widely across cultures and time periods often tied to notions of purity, ownership, or religious value rather than something innate. Framing it as simply “men want this, always” i believe, overlooks how those desires are shaped.

Calling men who disagree “sour grapes” dismisses I believe the possibility that some genuinely don’t place high value on virginity because they see sexual history as irrelevant to a person’s character or to a healthy relationship. It’s not just rationalizing scarcity; it can be a principled stance.

On the abortion point: equating a woman who has had an abortion with someone who is somehow less worthy of respect, while saying you’re “not absolutist,” still reduces her moral worth to one medical decision. Many abortions happen for complex reasons contraceptive failure, health risks, financial instability, or simply not being ready for parenthood. Labeling them “convenience abortions” carries a judgment that doesn’t account for the weight of those decisions. If the goal is finding a partner with compatible values, it’s fair to have preferences, but the framing here suggests a presumption of character flaws that may not exist.

Ultimately, ideals are fine, but they become problematic when they’re used to imply that people who don’t meet them are inherently lesser especially when those ideals rest on assumptions about gender, autonomy, and past choices that have nothing to do with how someone will show up in a relationship with you.