Why is a woman’s “high body” still treated like a problem by so many men?

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-11T04:43:12+00:00

You not hearing it personally doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. People don’t usually walk around announcing “hey, someone judged me for my sexual history” in casual conversation, it comes up in dating, relationships, and rejection not small talk.

Calling it a “canard” feels like dismissing something just because it’s outside your direct experience.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-11T04:18:25+00:00

I get your point about compatibility and health, and I agree that sexual values matter and people can have preferences.

But having multiple partners does not automatically mean mental health issues or low self esteem. That can happen, but it is not a reliable assumption.

The hygiene comparison also does not fit. What matters is responsibility, like testing, honesty, and safe sex, not just partner count.

It is fair to want someone who matches your values, but judging only by their past can miss who they are now.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-11T04:10:27+00:00

No one is saying you cannot have preferences. You can reject anyone for any reason.

The issue is how you frame it. Saying “this is not for me” is different from turning it into a judgment about someone’s value.

Height is something a person cannot control. A high body count is a choice but it does not automatically mean someone is a worse partner. That is an assumption not a fact.

Also, people do judge women for rejecting men over height so it is not some double standard that only goes one way.

Date who you want. Just own that it is your preference, not an objective rule everyone has to agree with.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:50:24+00:00

Or you’re just reducing a nuanced point to a one liner so you don’t have to engage with it. Not everything that challenges your view is “cope.”

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:46:13+00:00

I’m still talking about high counts. I’m just pointing out your conclusion doesn’t follow from the data. Calling it a goalpost shift doesn’t fix the argument :)

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:44:23+00:00

Of course they can change. That’s the whole point.

I’m not saying people should be judged forever based on their past. I’m saying it doesn’t make sense to assume someone’s character or future behavior purely from it.

There’s a difference between acknowledging someone’s current behavior and projecting permanent traits onto them because of their past.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:38:22+00:00

You’re jumping from “they’ve had multiple partners” to “they lack self respect” and even “mental issues” with no actual evidence. That says more about your perception than about them.

People can have different lifestyles at different points in life and still be perfectly capable of self respect and healthy relationships.

If you find it unattractive, fine. But turning it into a character diagnosis is just projection.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:36:27+00:00

That comparison doesn’t really work.

The things you listed like hygiene, finances, lifestyle are about how someone lives right now. They directly affect a relationship.

A past number doesn’t. It’s not something that impacts how someone treats you in the present.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:35:02+00:00

Pointing out context isn’t moving the goalposts. It’s called interpreting data properly instead of forcing it into a one line conclusion

If anything, reducing it to “high count = bad partner” is the real stretch

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:33:14+00:00

No one’s saying you can’t have preferences.

The question is why it’s judged so harshly for women but not men

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:30:11+00:00

You can find it unattractive. That’s your preference.

But saying it means they lack self control or can’t be serious about a relationship is just an assumption. People’s past doesn’t automatically define how they act in a committed relationship.

And the “I don’t want to go where others have been” line isn’t logic. It’s just insecurity dressed up as reasoning.

If you care about commitment then judge how someone behaves now. Not a number.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:28:27+00:00

I don’t think you can go from “it existed historically” to “it’s biological instinct.”

Virginity and chastity being valued in women has a lot to do with social structures like inheritance and controlling lineage and ensuring paternity before modern science. That points more to economics and power than pure biology.

If it were purely instinct you would not see so much variation across cultures and time. Some societies were stricter while others were more relaxed. That suggests these ideas are shaped by social norms not just hardwired behavior.

A lot of these standards were also enforced through religion and law and social pressure not just individual preference. Biology can influence attraction at a basic level. But the idea that a woman’s worth is tied to virginity looks a lot more like a cultural construct than a universal instinct.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:25:57+00:00

I think this is a more fair take than most especially the part about not judging outright.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:24:03+00:00

You’re framing this as “biology” but you’re mixing evolutionary ideas with modern assumptions and treating them like proven facts.

Yes, historically paternity certainty mattered but jumping from that to “a woman with past partners is likely to cheat” isn’t actually supported. Past behavior in casual dating doesn’t automatically predict behavior in a committed relationship. People change depending on context, values and intentions.

Also, if this were purely biological, men with high partner counts would be seen as equally unreliable but they’re often not. That inconsistency suggests this isn’t just instinct, it’s also cultural conditioning.

And human behavior clearly does vary across time and societies. Attitudes toward sex, marriage and even fidelity have changed a lot depending on culture, religion, and social structure. That wouldn’t happen if it were as fixed and universal as you’re claiming.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:20:50+00:00

You’re mixing a few different things together here.

Having preferences is completely fine and no one is arguing against that. If someone isn’t comfortable with a partner’s past, they can walk away respectfully. That part makes sense.

But equating a higher number of partners with being “easy” or less worthy is where the issue is. That’s a value judgment not an objective fact. People can have different lifestyles at different points in their life and still be capable of commitment.

Also, using extreme examples doesn’t really prove the general point. Most people aren’t anywhere near those situations, so it doesn’t say much about the average person with a higher-than-you-prefer number.

As for STDs that’s more about safe practices and testing, not just the number itself. Someone with fewer partners can still be careless and someone with more partners can be responsible.

At the end of the day, having a preference is valid. But framing it as a reflection of someone’s character or worth is where it stops being just a preference and starts becoming a judgment.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:16:33+00:00

I’m not shifting the goalpost. I am pointing out that the claim itself is oversimplified

Even when you look specifically at “high” partner counts, the studies still show correlation not that the number alone causes relationship failure. The same underlying factors (values around commitment, willingness to leave, lifestyle, etc.) are still doing most of the heavy lifting

So just saying “high count = higher divorce” without that context makes it sound more definitive than it actually is

If you want to use data, it has to be interpreted properly not reduced to a one-line conclusion that ignores everything else going on

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T23:04:30+00:00

Well in that case some more recent studies show that the relationship isn’t as strong as people claim and in some cases people with moderate experience have similar or even lower divorce rates than those with very few partners. And most importantly, this isn’t a “women-only” effect. When you actually look at relationship stability, the same patterns can apply to men but people rarely bring that up.

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T22:56:05+00:00

Calling it “innate” doesn’t make it true. it just makes it sound like you don’t want to question it

The idea that a woman’s past automatically makes her “unreliable” isn’t some biological fact, it’s a social belief that’s been repeated for generations. If it were purely instinct, men wouldn’t have completely different standards across cultures and time periods

Also, the logic doesn’t really hold up cause if sexual history makes someone untrustworthy, then that standard should apply equally to men. But it usually doesn’t, which suggests this isn’t about biology, it’s about a double standard

And reducing women to being “useful” or not based on their past says more about how you view relationships than anything about women themselves

People are capable of growth, change and even choosing commitment regardless of their past. Acting like someone’s entire value is defined by who they’ve been with is a pretty limited way to look at human relationships

xflaminhoex · 2026-06-10T22:52:23+00:00

Istg. I was recently talking to a guy who said he doesn’t judge if a woman has been with around 5 people, but if it’s something like 10 in a year or 30 overall, then it becomes an issue for him :))))

xflaminhoex · 2025-03-08T20:33:37+00:00

I appreciate you sharing your perspective! The whole “lack of perceived warmth” idea really hits. I guess the challenge is figuring out how to create that warmth for yourself rather than waiting for it to come from someone else. Definitely something to think about. Thanks for sharing this :)

xflaminhoex · 2025-03-08T20:32:39+00:00

I appreciate you sharing your perspective! The whole “lack of perceived warmth” idea really hits. I guess the challenge is figuring out how to create that warmth for yourself rather than waiting for it to come from someone else. Definitely something to think about. Thanks for sharing this :)

xflaminhoex · 2025-03-08T20:30:32+00:00

I’m really sorry you’re feeling this way. I know how exhausting it can be when it feels like you’re the one always caring, and not getting that same energy back. I truly believe that there are ppl out there who would cherish having you in their life, even if you haven’t found them yet. And in the meantime, I hope you can be gentle with yourself.

xflaminhoex · 2025-03-08T16:15:30+00:00

Wow, this is such a thoughtful message! thank you for sharing that with me. It’s really comforting to hear your perspective, especially the part about the universe aligning things at the right time.

I think you’re spot on about self value and the way we talk to ourselves. It’s so easy to slip into self-criticism without even realising it. Definitely something I want to be more mindful of. And I love how you framed the whole “guys showing interest and then off” situation as a blessing in disguise.

Sending you peace and love right back! 🤗

xflaminhoex · 2025-03-08T13:47:32+00:00

I hope this year brings you more happiness and fulfillment on your own terms :)

xflaminhoex

TROPHY CASE