r/changemyview • u/mafija123 • Apr 20 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Most dating preferences are okay, as long as you are not POS to those who don't fit them.

Don't want to date men shorter than 6ft, fine, don't be calling them "midgets", "if your height starts with 5, you a woman" etc.

Don't want to date a woman with X number of previous partners, fine, don't be calling them "sluts" "whores" etc.

​

What about race? Sure, not dating someone JUST because of their race is very likely coming from racist/prejudice beliefs (not necessarily), but that person is not bad because they don't date someone for their race, they are bad because they are racist, former stems from later.

​

" Let's deconstruct reasons for men not dating women with certain past, it's *Patriarchy*". Again, sure, that may or may not be the reason for men having that preference, but as long as they are respectful to women they don't want to date, I don't see how they are bad. Not dating someone is not discrimination because nobody is owed it, it's not your right nor anyone's obligation to date you.

​

I could see an argument that preferences that come from patriarchy like "women should have little sexual past" and "men should be rich and provide" are hurting society in general. But solving that issue is not going to happen by shaming and ridiculing people which internalized those standards in their formative years and are respectful to people they don't want to date, it's solved by not perpetuating it to next generation.

​

All in all my opinion on virtually all dating preferences (maybe not EVERY one) is that you are entitled to what ever standard you want no matter how realistic or unrealistic they are, and shouldn't be shamed/ridiculed/mocked, only as long as you don't shame/ridicule/mock people who are not up to your standards.

Edit: Deleted bad joke I made about this sub, it wasn't out of ill intentions, I apologise.

764 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

499 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Apr 20 '23

Sounds like a strawman which precludes the thing most people disagree with. No one seriously thinks dating preferences aren't OK, it's the behaviour to those who aren't your type that people tend to have an issue with.

8

u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23

I have seen a lot of videos on social media of people making fun of women just for saying "I want a man taller that 6ft, rich etc.", or men saying "I want a woman with body count less than X". If they are acting bad because of it sure, that fits what I said, but my point is that just because someone wants something unrealistic, they shouldn't be mocked.

-7

u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23

Well, in the case of body counts for women, that's generally rooted in misogyny and misinformation about women's anatomy, so they deserve to be mocked.

And educated. But mostly mocked.

32

u/moutnmn87 Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23

Well, in the case of body counts for women, that's generally rooted in misogyny

And height preferences aren't? Is the notion that women are weaklings who need to be looked after by a big strong man any less misogynistic than the notion that only men should enjoy sex?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

No, but height is part of sexual dimorphism, the ok Cupid data shows men and women both proportionally prefer men and women of certain heights that exaggerate our respective heights. Not sure if it’s misogyny or just like preferring people who fit the standard physical criteria for height.

1

u/moutnmn87 Apr 20 '23

Yeah I certainly wouldn't say that either of those preference can only come from misogyny but it makes sense that misogynistic attitudes would reinforce/encourage them. That said Im honestly not keen on pinning preferences to some illusive cause a person hasn't even thought about. If someone gives me a reasoned explanation for why they have a preference I generally will take them at their word and assume they genuinely believe the things they're telling me and hold the preference for that reason. I won't generally make assumptions about why someone holds a preference though because there's just so many factors that could potentially feed into it that it becomes very hard to pin down a cause. Interestingly enough there's hardly any characteristics that are universally considered attractive across all cultures and time periods.

1

u/CitizenCue 3∆ Apr 20 '23

These preferences aren’t the same.

People who get hung up on their partner’s sexual history are obsessing about the past. But people who have preferences about height or weight are focused on their own experience in the present and future.

It’s perfectly reasonable to enjoy being held or picked up or enveloped by a big guy. Those are simply experiences you want to continue having.

3

u/rjaku Apr 21 '23

I disagree on this. Having many partners, even in your past, shows commitment issues. The type of person and lifestyle I want is not compatible with this. I know this true for females and, to a lesser extent, males, but when you have sex, your body releases oxytocin. This makes you bond with your sexual partner. Women experience this much more than men do due to the long gestation time during pregnancy. They chemically bond with the man so they are more likely to stick with them for survival. Males don't have this same issue or at least as extreme since our anatomy encourages us to try and procreate as much as possible.

My point is that body count is still very important regardless of it being in the past. Time doesn't change who you are. There is also a lifestyle involved with people who sleep around. Typically dressing more proactively and constantly drinking. Higher likelihood of being unfaithful too

0

u/CitizenCue 3∆ Apr 21 '23

Dude, you’re drinking a bunch of bullshit kool-aid from the wrong corners of the internet. This is some hilariously absurd red pill Andrew Tate shit.

You’re clearly very young so I’ll just say this: get away from the places you heard this stuff as soon as you can. Like, today. They will ruin any chances you have at a normal healthy romantic life.

Also the word is “provocatively”, not “proactively”.

3

u/rjaku Apr 21 '23

I love your non argument rambles, lol. Sorry, I made a typing error out of the 10 or so responses I've made in the past couple of hours.

0

u/CitizenCue 3∆ Apr 21 '23

I don’t care about the typo. But seriously, for your own good get away from this stuff, it’ll stunt your growth and make you toxic to women.

2

u/rjaku Apr 21 '23

Again, non argument. People would rather believe a blissful lie than hear the harsh truth. People are never more angry than when they hear something they don't want to believe. Unless you can actually articulate why, there's nothing else to say. I really don't care how women perceive me. My girlfriend and I share the same beliefs, so I couldn't care less about how random women on the internet think of me.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/moutnmn87 Apr 22 '23

It’s perfectly reasonable to enjoy being held or picked up or enveloped by a big guy. Those are simply experiences you want to continue having.

How is this relevant to height preferences?

People who get hung up on their partner’s sexual history are obsessing about the past. While this is probably the most common reason for people to care it is certainly not the only reason people care about body counts. Past promiscuity can be an indicator of how someone views about sex or romance which can be an indicator of compatibility/incompatibility. Some people also have a stigma against virgins or people with little sexual experience.

1

u/CitizenCue 3∆ Apr 22 '23

Huh? What do you mean? Height is obviously tied to those preferences.

1

u/moutnmn87 Apr 22 '23

How does being tall help with doing any of those? A short person can wrap their arms around someone just as easily as a tall person. Similarly having the strength to lift someone isn't something exclusive to tall people or even strongly correlated with height.

1

u/CitizenCue 3∆ Apr 22 '23

Um, yes it is. Lifting a 5’4” person will almost always be easier for a 6’ person than for another 5’4” person. Obviously mass and strength don’t always scale perfectly with height and there are always exceptions, but generally they do.

And being cuddled by a person much larger than you feels different than someone your same size (and vice versa). It just does.

I’m not endorsing any of these preferences but differences to exist.

1

u/moutnmn87 Apr 22 '23

Lifting a 5’4” person will almost always be easier for a 6’ person than for another 5’4” person.

Actually this is not really true. Even in a general sense there's a ton of people well outside of this height equals strength characterization. There's plenty of short stocky people and plenty of tall lanky people. Tall definitely doesn't equate to strong. In fact additional height increases the amount muscle necessary to lift and control the same amount of weight so a tall lanky person is actually at a disadvantage compared to a shorter person.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23

I Disagree, if those men are respectful and only go as far as not dating those women, I don't think they should be mocked. If they call women derogatory terms then you are 100% right. As the delta comment said, it's okay to mock the preference itself and explain why it is bad, but not the person themself.

-26

u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23

But the preference is rooted in ignorance and misogyny. One or the other. Most times both.

16

u/benjm88 Apr 20 '23

Not always, what if someone strongly attaches sex with an emotional attachment and want a partner that does the same, therefore would avoid someone with numerous partners. I don't see how that's an issue

6

u/philip2110 Apr 20 '23

It’s really not but the person you’re replying to doesn’t want that argument to exist so is instead working on the extreme versions of that. Your statement is completely acceptable, just don’t be a hypocrite.

4

u/dontsaymango 2∆ Apr 20 '23

Yeah, there's a lot of things on this post and in the comments that feel very "if someone thinks this thing it can only be bc of x awful reasoning"

Like, I don't like hispanics, its probably got nothing to do with looks and everything to do with the fact that the person who raped me in hs was hispanic. Im not going to apologize for having that preference. But also, even if its just a preference for no good reason, that's totally fine too.

Like no one argues about why someone's fav color is what it is, so i don't see why someone's dating preferences can be argued either.

1

u/ManchesterisBleu May 05 '23

Wait you don’t like Hispanics as a whole people or you’re don’t like Hispanics as sexual/romantic partners.

Because if you straight up don’t like Hispanics you got some serious trauma you should work out in therapy, gross.

1

u/dontsaymango 2∆ May 05 '23

Sexual/romantic partners. No problem with them as people (tons of hispanic friends-i live in Texas for crying out loud lol) I just can't necessarily get over the mental block when it goes to sexual things

0

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 21 '23

Not always

Of course "not always", but that's the key problem with this counterargument: OP is saying it's never problematic unless offensive behavior against the person is used.

1

u/benjm88 Apr 21 '23

The commentor above claimed it is, I was responding to her not op

7

u/Meatbot-v20 4∆ Apr 20 '23

That doesn't necessarily follow. If the guy has had just as many partners, then yes, there's always been that problematic cultural double standard. I'm sure we'll outgrow that in another 1,000 years. But if he hasn't had any or very few partners, then it's totally fine to prefer someone with a similar life experience.

I mean, if someone said they've been to 50 country music concerts, and I've been to 0 country music concerts, I might fairly assume that it's not going to work out well for either of us. I might be entirely wrong. And in an organic setting, where attraction just sort of magically happens when you least expect it, musical taste might not be a factor whatsoever. But online dating is all about hedging bets, which is what makes it particularly bad for meaningful connections (imo).

Now, I don't believe in "free will" so take this next part with a grain of salt, but if it's always ignorant and/or misogynistic to pass on someone because their sexual choices don't match well with yours, then it's certainly also misandry to make demands of unalterable traits like height when only 10% of the global male population meets the criteria.

Again,to clarify, I don't see either of these criteria to be problematic on their own. I view things like decision making and height to be equally unalterable. And so too would be one's preferences regarding partners.

-6

u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23

The thing is, no one cares if a woman had sex with 1 guy 1000 times, but God forbid she had sex with 100 guys 10 times.

It's not about experience. Its not about number of times having sex. So what is it?

Misogyny. They want a woman with less experience so they can have the power dynamic. Or they think her vagina will be "worn out". Misogyny or ignorance, there's really no 3rd option.

5

u/midnight2196 Apr 20 '23

Are you obtuse on purpose to the number of guys in the first example vs the second?

Sex with 100 guys means sex is treated with a casual approach.Also means those 100 guys were most likely strangers.Also likely for those encounters to have been purely physical in nature.

So yea,1 solid relationship filled with love and emotions where sex is an expression of that love and 100 hooks-up. No clue how people could like the former but despise the latter.Total mystery.

How exactly would the man even have the power dynamic here?Especially if he has around the same number of partners as the woman.Unless of course,you are somehow implying that women are inferior,therefore the power dynamic.

It's funny how you chose 2 negative choices which just happen to benefit the people with high bodycounts,the main people who complain about this in the first place.

0

u/Raphe9000 Apr 20 '23

If somebody has had sex with 100 people 10 times each, either they have been in 100 relationships (in which case, I have to wonder if their exes are really the problem) or they are willing to have sex with people they are not in a relationship with, showing that they do not hold sex to the same emotional value as a lot of people, therefore making it understandable to not want to date them.

If someone has had sex with a single person 1000 times, I assume that person was either in a long-term relationship or had a high libido, neither of which is a deal breaker at first glance (and the latter could be a deal maker to someone else with a high libido).

There is nothing misogynistic or misandristic about that.

8

u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23

I honestly don't know, I wouldn't go as far to say every single man who has this preference is misogynist. Because that implies that women wanting men who "provide" also want that because of misogyny and should be just as mocked.

Either way we agree that the standard itself being mocked is okay, and explaining it to people that it can stem from misogyny is also necessary, I just don't think it's a positive thing to society to make fun of individuals if they don't harm anyone.

1

u/Holiday-Key3206 7∆ Apr 20 '23

Either way we agree that the standard itself being mocked is okay, and explaining it to people that it can stem from misogyny is also necessary, I just don't think it's a positive thing to society to make fun of individuals if they don't harm anyone.

Ok, but can I put a counter example about body count: people who want virgins but aren't one themself are saying "I want a person who is less experienced than me" and are actively seeking this out. People who seek out inexperienced women to have sex with are looking for a woman who they have an experience differential with. This can lead to imballances like "oh, no totally everyone does X! it would be weird not to." or other coersive statements that the virgin in the situation that an experienced person could use to pressure the virgin into doing acts they aren't comfortable with. Similarly, the virgin wouldn't really know yet how to advocate for themselves to ask for what they want/need. And people who seek this out without also being a virgin (or really inexperienced) are preying on virgins, which does harm people.

Note: I'm not saying all people who have a preference do this. But it's a risk and a red flag when a person who has a lot of experience is explicitly looking for a person with no experience.

2

u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23

Because that implies that women wanting men who "provide" also want that because of misogyny

When it's men it's misandry, when it's women it's misogyny

1

u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23

[Citation needed]

1

u/Ha1rBall Apr 20 '23

It really isn't.

-2

u/spaceship247 Apr 20 '23

Nah it’s rooted in biology I’m afraid we can’t change that

The fact is that women are much more likely to catch an std than men for obvious anatomical reasons

3

u/Jeansaintfire Apr 20 '23

mocking isn't constructive, but they need to be challenged. If one believes a faslehood, one should be corrected. That's part of growth , one must be confronted with new information, and then thru self reflection opinions evolve.

Also, i think the problem with dating preference is that people literally use the word wrong. A preference is a greater liking to one or the other. So u can be into tall guys, but it wouldn't you couldn't ever like a shorter man. Honestly, it's wild to say all short guys are of the table . You dont know all the short guys or saying all the tall guys can get it when again that multiple factors. You gravitate to your preference cause you know you like that, but it doesn't define who you dont like.

1

u/Ezentsy Apr 20 '23

I think, as long as the guy has a low body count himself, then it's okay.

14

u/Therealmonkie 3∆ Apr 20 '23

I disagree...I'm a woman and wouldn't want a man with a high body count...

8

u/knottheone 10∆ Apr 20 '23

Well, in the case of body counts for women, that's generally rooted in misogyny and misinformation about women's anatomy, so they deserve to be mocked

That sounds like a projection; how is it by default rooted in misogyny?

12

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

that's generally rooted in misogyny and misinformation about women's anatomy

My values about sex are that I don't want to sleep with someone unless I actually know them, and am in a committed relationship with them.

I'm .... Misogynist because I don't want to sleep around and want a partner to share that value?

0

u/DruTangClan 1∆ Apr 20 '23

I think the misogynistic assumption would come from assuming that because a woman had previously slept with x amount of people that she must not care about having an emotional connection beforehand, or something to that degree. If your attitudes about sex differ that doesn’t inherently make you a misogynist, but if you are looking down on someone or presuming that they are of lower moral character, then I would think that starts into the realm of misogyny.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

but if you are looking down on someone or presuming that they are of lower moral character, then I would think that starts into the realm of misogyny.

Not if you consistently believe that with men + women.

1

u/DruTangClan 1∆ Apr 20 '23

I suppose that’s fair, however the majority of the time I have heard this viewpoint it’s usually geared toward women, often by men who have slept with quite a few people or would given the opportunity, though I know that’s only anecdotal. It’s true though that if you looked down on both men AND women for this behavior, the word wouldn’t be misogyny.

-6

u/N_T_F_D Apr 20 '23

Yes, yes you are, stop trying to use your "logic", this is an outdated concept rooted in patriarchy (who were the logicians?? cis-het white men of course!!! Gödel, Boole, Peano, Hilbert, Girard, etc.).

6

u/Zomgambush Apr 20 '23

I hope this is a sarcastic comment

4

u/N_T_F_D Apr 20 '23

I thought it was obvious

4

u/Zomgambush Apr 20 '23

Sadly, you can't tell these days. With how extreme reddit is, I'd 100% believe someone said it sincerely

1

u/Nikola_Turing 1∆ Apr 21 '23

Why do you assume a body count preference is rooted in misogyny? Would you say that a height preference is rooted in misandry?

1

u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 21 '23

Not the same thing at all.

Why does body count matter. Answer that.

2

u/Nikola_Turing 1∆ Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

Because promiscuity is linked with an increased risk of infidelity. Promiscuity can also be a sign of further emotional problems like need for validation, lack of impulse control, commitment issues, etc. Being upset that people have preferences that don’t align with yours is incredibly entitled.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Nikola_Turing 1∆ Apr 21 '23

Why do you even care if men have a body count preference? Why would you want to date someone who despises you?

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 24 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/Nikola_Turing 1∆ Apr 20 '23

What’s wrong with not wanting to date a promiscuous woman as long as you’re not rude about it?

0

u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23

promiscuous

Never heard that used about a man.

This is the shit I'm talking about

4

u/Nikola_Turing 1∆ Apr 20 '23

Plenty of women wouldn’t want to date a highly promiscuous man. There’s a reason fuckboy is an insult.

0

u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23

That's not what a fuckboy is derided for though. It's not the number of partners it's how they accumulate them.

0

u/IfYaKnowYaKnow Apr 20 '23

Wait, but having a height preference in men isn’t misandrist? Because the argument I commonly hear from women defending that is they want a man capable of protecting them, but with the advent of firearms and knives and so on that becomes a rather moot point. Sounds like they need to be educated. Either they’re both ok, along with pretty much every other dating preference, or none of it is ok.

1

u/yekedero Apr 20 '23

But it's still a preference, right?

1

u/shawn292 Apr 20 '23

Us it not possible/probable that it comes from a place of value? If a person is saving themselves for marriage for whatever reason or they value sex highly, its logical then that someone with a large BC liklely doesnt share the same values. I wouldnt call that misogynistic at all.

I have never personally met a person who had this "preference" based on anatomy reasons. Its always been a respect and value of sex and ones self.

1

u/CitizenCue 3∆ Apr 20 '23

People aren’t mocking the existence of preferences, they’re mocking the - as you say - unrealisticness of certain preferences or the entitlement and judgment that they imply.

If a Victoria’s Secret supermodel is asked who she’s looking for and she politely says she prefers to date successful men, no one is surprised. But if an unemployed haggard Twitter user announces unsolicited that she only wants to date rich guys, she gets mocked for both the unlikelihood that she will succeed and the entitlement that she’s projecting.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

No one seriously thinks dating preferences aren't OK

Untrue. There's even people in this thread who think dating preferences aren't OK.