>>82308444 (OP)
>guys with too high standards
So what part is too high of standards?
The virgin part? Because admittedly yes, very few women are virgin or have less than 5 bodies, especially at age 20 or older. But that shouldn't be a 'high' standard, only a 'morally and socially just' standard. Women have the capability to remain a virgin, they just choose not to. That isn't our fault.
The 'don't be obese' part? Because admittedly yes, in most first world countries, women do tend to be more obese in larger numbers, ESPECIALLY in the USA, UK, and Australia. But that shouldn't be a 'high' standard, only a 'responsible' standard. Women have the capability to watch their diets and be careful with their bodies, they just choose not to. That isn't our fault.
The 'want to have children' part? Because admittedly yes, in most first world countries, women are far less likely to want to have children in many cases. But that shouldn't be a 'high' standard, only a selfless standard. Women have the capability to bear a child and help take care of it alongside a man- hell, after the first few years, more of the childcare ends up on the father's hands even if he's the primary worker anyway. Women just choose not to. That isn't our fault.
The only standards we should say are 'high' are for the ones we try to impose on people without any capability to change them. Height, since it's genetic. Extreme wealth, since it's mostly luck/hereditary from only select people in 99.9% of cases. Perfect skin, since it's a product of so many things NOT going wrong in life ever since conception.
Wanting a woman who isn't a landwhale, isn't promiscuous, and wishes to have a future shouldn't be a 'high' standard. Women just don't want to admit that they simply are too weak to take care of themselves, let alone anyone else, and want to justify being babied for their whole lives.
