You didn't make an "argument." All I heard from you is whining about how you're upset that women have sex that doesn't involve you. You're allowed to be upset about that, but it's a silly thing to be upset about.

> Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins?

Yes, it is. Also for generally being misogynistic by holding women to a different standard that you hold yourself.

> It's in our DNA.

Lots of things in our DNA are not part of civilized society.

> The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.

Cool. I'll just go and have lots of children with a series of non-virgins, while you can cry yourself to sleep alone in an onanistic frenzy.

Do you know the definition of "wife"? It's a married woman. There are plenty of women who are willing to be married, but one of two things is preventing that: (a) you are disqualifying them for silly and capricious reasons, or (b) they are disqualifying you because you're a misogynist who thinks you're entitled to dictate what women do with their bodies before they've even met you.

> Yes, everyone is.

Plainly false.

> I've had my fair share of women in the sack.

The more I listen to you, the more clear it is to me why you can't find a partner.

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Equating stress about whether my company's stock price stays about $200 with stress about whether I will be able to afford a meal for my children is simply not on the same level.

Billionaires may choose to be emotionally involved in their financial situation, but a person in poverty has no choice. A bit of mindful meditation will solve the former problem; only money can solve the latter.

A billionaire is not orders of magnitude happier than a millionaire. But a millionaire is much happier than someone who is worried about being able to pay rent, afford food, etc.

Thus, the solution to maximize happiness is to distribute wealth evenly.

The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is much closer to the socioeconomic stratum to that of their employer.

Same goes for the other examples in the article. The author, having a fancy car, modern phone, etc, clearly enjoys a high level of wealth and is able to leverage that wealth to acquire goods and services at a high level. But that only works if there are people willing to provide those goods and services for a price that he can afford. The author didn't mention that the people who provide these goods and services do not enjoy the same benefits of those goods and services: their nanny cannot afford to hire a nanny, nor a Chinese EV, nor a giant smartphone.

The Netherlands has made the intentional decision to reduce wealth inequality and to achieve a fairer society. You can agree or disagree with that decision. But if I had to choose between NL and China, being cast into one country or the other without any choice about where in that society or what level of wealth, NL would be a much better option.

I prefer the term "misogyny-shaming."

> Also, in Muslim countries

Really, Muslim countries? Muslim countries that are world-famous for denying women even basic legal rights? Muslim countries that treat women strictly as men's property? You're telling me that those same countries have strong cultural norms about controlling women's sexuality? I am truly shocked.

Are you having trouble in the dating market? Perhaps you're frustrated by frequently meeting women who are experienced enough to recognize your inadequacy.

The solution is to improve yourself, not to shame women.

I'm not saying you are one, but using this kind of language really makes you sound like a full on incel misogynist, who has sublimated his sexual frustration into antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality. But I'm sure that's not accurate.

That is certainly a simpler explanation, but it doesn't mean that it's a correct explanation.

* "Looking intimidating" doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at providing safety

* Providing safety isn't necessarily the sole responsibility of a sexual partner

* Other factors may be more important than height in selecting a sexual partner

* Evolution selects for attributes other than mate suitability

Given the wide variety of preferences across the human species, I find it highly reductive when someone asserts a simplistic reason for such a human behavior, ignoring the many cases when humans do not follow that behavior.

You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.

Is that what your great-grandma told you?

Cultural prohibitions on discussing sexual matters didn't actual limit in pursuing sexual matters.

I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.

Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.

Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.

No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.

Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.

It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts.

> Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?

Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.