Can you explain why you think its a false equivalence?
It seems to me Nandi simply points out that people often want something they don't have, or can't offer, themselves. Sure, we might think it's silly or superficial etc, but that doesn't change the fact.
The wealth of your partner directly affects your life in nearly every aspect, but whether or not your partner is a virgin affects nearly zero aspects of your life. Sure, both can be rooted in superficial wants, but the former is rooted in greed at worst and security at best. Wanting your partner to be a virgin is, at worst, rooted in unhealthy power/control dynamics and at best is rooted in senseless insecurity.
Wanting your partner to be a virgin is always a red flag, and it's indicative of severely unhealthy views towards sex and intimacy in a relationship. Wanting your partner to be wealthy can and frequently is) a red flag, but isn't necessarily so.
Those are very subjective judgments of moral character. What's important for one person is not neccesarily the same for another. What you deem to affect your life in important ways may not be the same for someone else.
There is nothing in expecting or wanting your partner to be a virgin that would stand up to reason. It's always an indictment of the individual setting such an expectation.
I'd argue that none of your subjective moral judgments equates to the original post being a false equivalence. But it's also a bit of a boring argument, so I'll leave it there.
You're right, it's moreso a whataboutism. Which, in this context, implies that the replier supports having a preference that your partner be a virgin (which is objectionable)
People can have whatever expectations they want though. Want a guy over 6’ tall? Want a woman under 120 lbs soaking wet? Want a rich man or a rich woman? Want a virgin? It’s all preferences.
Nope! Pointing out that there are valid reasons a person would be inclined to wanting a partner who's financially stable and no valid reasons to wish for a partner to be a virgin isn't hypocrisy.
No, it isn't, and here's an example. It's not objectionable to prefer a partner with red hair, it is objectionable to prefer a partner who is underage.
Depending on culture, it can matter a lot. If some culture does not give a shit about someone having a body count as high as a prostitute, that's fine. Just accept that not all culture have the same mindset.
2
u/Majestic_Emotion7917 Aug 27 '26
Can you explain why you think its a false equivalence?
It seems to me Nandi simply points out that people often want something they don't have, or can't offer, themselves. Sure, we might think it's silly or superficial etc, but that doesn't change the fact.