>

I agree!  Short women should only ask for short men, too!  Short women asking for tall men are just hypocrites.
ETA: Also, only successful, wealthy women should ask for a successful, rich man.  These broke girls asking for "high value men" are just hypocrites!
/u/GenocidalFlower (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

At the end of the day no one can force you to be in a relationship with someone you don't want to be, no matter the reason. That being said, I think it's fair to critique the underlying assumptions you are making about people when you state a preference such as this. Those two things are not at odds with each other.
I've had male acquaintances tell me they wouldn't want someone who's 'worn out and no longer tight' which is a) crude and sexist and b) based on an objectively false assumption about how female anatomy works, because having sex with many people has no impact on your 'tightness.' So while yes, they're entitled to only date virgins if they want to, I can still tell them that there's something wrong with the assumptions they're making and more generally how they're speaking about women as a whole. >

That is definitely an issue. People who search for virgins like it’s their screwed up fetish to take away people’s virginity. Of course, though, it’s cynical to assume that everyone with body count preferences is thinking this. (Which I know you’re not making that assumption) Personally, I don’t care if someone I’d be interested in is a virgin or not. Just as long as their body count isn’t like 80, and they brag about it like having sex is some kind of achievement. >

My point wasn't specifically about this situation, that was just an example to illustrate my actual argument: Just because you are entitled to a preference that does not mean you are free from criticism. 
You make the assumption that because you are allowed a preference, that preference is somehow untouchable. It isn't. People can critique you for it. >

!delta That is true! I posted this because I just saw a video of a woman cursing guys out who have body count preferences and then a minute later talking about how she’ll only date tall guys. >

High body count gives me reason to believe they’re more impulsive than someone who does not have a body count like that. And when someone tries to hide their body count from future mates it’s a sign they’re untrustworthy. >

What is a high body count? Like how many partners per year is too much? Assuming someone is impulsive because they like sex and want to explore different people is kind of odd, but I won't fault you for thinking that entirely. I just think there's plenty of people who had little sex and gambled their money on meme stocks and crypto. Or are impulsive in other ways. Not a lot you can get from a number alone.
Hiding something from fear of judgment is totally normal. Someone may hide the fact they make more money than most people. Some people may hide the fact they've been chronically single. There's a lot of assumptions being made based on a number nobody seems to give. And a lot of judgment made on a hypothetical that is not based on a realistic number. >

Depends on the individual psychology. Most people tho experiences mark them. Bad experiences mark them badly. Its why if u know a woman 3 divorces 3 kids. Something will be wrong about her. Could be a nice lady but something will be wrong. Things dont just happen. >

I don't understand how anyone would be fine with a person with high bodycount. If it is higher than 3, it means that the person has killed more than in a traumatic event and will likely kill another soon.
That is terrifying. And a absolute red flag. 
Edit: of course, not counting military veterans. They are fine with a high body count, considering that it is their job. >

Wtf are you talking about? >

When people use the term "body count" they're typically referring to the number of victims of a murderer. OP worded this a very odd way, and I'm still not certain I know what they're talking about. >

Number of sexual conquests is the other common meaning of the phrase "body count" >

This is the first time I've heard that. Is it more common outside the US or am I just becoming old and out of touch with slang? >

Same here! I made a comment saying I've never heard anybody talk like this before. The only body count I know about is by ice-t, other than that, it's used the way that the poster has stated, to represent a number of victims. >

It doesn’t seem strange to specifically use the words “body count” when referring to sexual partners? >

Yes. I honestly thought OP was talking about how many murders one has racked up. >

In which case, yeah, I’d probably filter by that too. >

The issue with body count preferences, from my perspective, is the following: the body count is not a personal characteristic due to the differences in human interpretation of the sexual act. Moreover, the definitive nature of the body count does not take into account the fact that people change, and their perception of relationship changes. If you become very restricted in terms of sexual relationships, but, for example, had sexually abundant teens, then the gross body count fails to differentiate this situation from somebody that has a middle life experimentation period after a single sex partner. At the same time, these situations are extremely different in terms of human traits that usually follow such behavior, to the point where unifying them under the same category (same body count) seems to completely fail the initial goal of trying to understand something about the human being you are interested in.
Preferences in relationships are intended to cluster some personal (ranging from emotional to aesthetical) traits that are important to you. Body count is a number that does not, by itself, differentiate any personal or physical traits. >

Does this mean that you wouldn’t consider it wrong to ask what their interpretation of what sex means to them is? >

Yes, absolutely. I consider this to be a very important part of building a relationship. To some, sex is just a pleasurable way to spend time together, and to others, it is a much more sacred act symbolic of sharing a deep feeling; to others, sex is directly tied to a desire of procreation. I think it can be traumatizing (both to the relationship or personally) to find out too late that your perception is different from your partner’s to an extent of compromise impossibility. >

!delta Okay, I see what you’re saying, thank you for the clarification! >

Wait why did you delta when he agreed with you tho >

Because the point is the issue isn't with body count, which can have a large array of different reasons, and may not reflect the person's current view of sex. The issue is with the way they currently view sex, which would be an actual compatibility issue. >

Is it just me or is that splitting the fuck out of hairs. I guess it sounds better to say our traits are incompatible. It sounds so dishonest to me. >

No... Because a person can have a long string of flings without being in a romantic relationship, realize that isn't what they want, reevaluate and rethink what sex means to them, and then they have the exact same values around sex as you.  The values can change, even if body count doesn't >

I don't need to taste the log i drop in the toilet to know it isn't what I want to eat, to reevaluate and what food means to me. Then again lot of people treat their stomach like a landfill anyway.
Idk maybe its elitist but I just cant justify someone claiming sentience and committing certain behaviors. I cant claim moral superiority or sentience or even personhood if I brazenly commit crimes. I didnt need to take a life to evaluate what it means to be human. All I needed was a book on cause and effect and how they link.
That's part of why I dont marry if I do it's for keeps, and it has to be someone who sees it the same way. I dont want to be like my friend who some piece of shit used him for 10 years for shelter while she went to college on his dime and got a career on his dime, then bolts first opportunity. 
Theres certain things you don't do. Convince me otherwise, otherwise get that log and see if it helps you evaluate what the taste of shit means and see who else has the same values around the taste of shit. It's a great starting point for a relationship.
I'm not trying to be mean btw this is just how I make a point. Someone mentioned earlier I sound mean I'm not trying to be.
The crux of it is something smell like shit and someone is offering something that smell like shit and saying here try this.
I didnt need to be a shitty husband to know not to be a shitty husband. Likewise I didnt need to fuck 80 people out of boredom or depression to realize i want a healthy relationship. She did? I'd say the emotional intelligence gap might be too wide. See this is based on an experience I evaluated. Apparently an emotionally intelligent woman would have left before the marriage and possibly not had a date 2 with a dude who it was always going to end in divorce. I like intelligence, and I don't like the chaos my partners lack of intelligence brings into my life. Seeing mom and dad taught me that on both ends. I'd say learning from the folly of others is good. Theres so many good examples. Maybe I'm a sapio sexual. >

How is any of this relevant to why OP changed their mind? >

I think it's ok so long as you are only holding the other person to the same standard you are. So if you have a body count of 20 and you wont date someone who has had sex with 5 people, then you're being a hypocrite. But if, say, you're a virgin and you only want to date another virgin, then I doubt many people will have issue with that.