Her standards are her standards. I don't want other women (or men) dictating to me what my standards should be either. They are what they are for a reason, because I've determined that's what I need to love my best life and thrive. And I've seen what happens to too many women (and men) over time who settle. It's not pretty.
My rights and desires end where her personhood begins.
Like I said in a another comment in that thread, you can question the behavior, you can write an essay about how it negatively impacts you, you can challenge it, you can talk about how much you don't like it, you can say how much you wish it were otherwise.
But you don't get to perpetuate a double standard by "calling out" a double standard that only exists in your head. You don't get to demand someone else surrender their agency to cater to your ego, you don't get to insist on different 'rules for thee but not for me'.
It comes down to this. R H is demanding pretty women make themselves available to all men without regard to whether or not she is attracted to them and whether or not their lifestyle, beliefs, day to day preferences, etc, will mesh with hers. And he's claiming it's a double standard if they don't because he finds her attractive she should give him consideration. Clearly his desires are all that matter here. He's saying it's a double standards because women complain about men's behavior.
But women do not complain about men's standards. In fact, generally speaking we wish men had more standards because they have none, generally speaking. Women complain about how men manipulate to get sex, generally speaking. That's what it all boils down to.
Okay, so if you men want equality and you want to set those parameters to what that equality is, i.e., everyone who's interested on you must be given consideration regardless of whether or not you find them attractive, then I demand from here on out you men must take out every grossly obesse, , blue haired, unshaven, mustached, loud mouthed, moomoo wearing, stained and missing teeth, tattooed, covered in moles woman who bats her eyes at you whether she shows for that date with curlers in her hair or not. At least she tried to look pretty for you. That has to count for something. You will take her out to thr fanciest restaurant in town, whether you can afford it or not. If she wants sex from you after, you will put out and ensure she has enjoys herself. Doesn't really matter if you do or not. And if she had to do something underhanded and manipulative to "help you" overcome your "natural" resistance and comply with her desires, like get you too drunk or drug you, then you will not cry foul because you DID go out with her.
As you wanted, your desires and personhood don't matter. Only the one who holds the attraction does.
Now we have once again established equality and eliminates double standards. How does it sound to you now? Do want to double down on R H's way or do you want to stick with reasonableness where her standards are her standards and you can go find someone who's standards align with yours and say 'no' to those who would demand you surrender your agency and sacrifice your personhood to the momentary whims of their desire?
Tread carefully gentlemen. Think it through.
