If high n count women weren't shamed but also generally weren't taken seriously as long term partners would you still find that unfair?

The analogy given when people complain about the sexual double standard is "Men are like keys and women are like locks. A lock that can be opened by different keys isn’t worth anything, but a key that can open many locks is."

I think this argument is incredibly stupid, dehumanising and I understand why women hate it. It's just as easy to say a q-tip that's been in many ears is disgusting while an ear that's taken many q-tips is clean. Let's not reduce people to objects.

That being said the analogy does touch on one of the reasons the double standard exists. But first to go through the 2 most common given reasons for the standard that do not fully explain the existence of the phenomenon.

First is that women have sex easier than men do, to sleep with 100 girls takes skill while to sleep with 1000 guys takes less effort than brushing your teeth. This explains why men are valued for being players but not why women are devalued for it.

The second is that generally promiscuous people are much more likely to cheat and cause turmoil in long term relationships. This explains why people would filter out for an overly promiscuous partner but not why men tend to be much more concerned with previous sexual history than women.

A quick segue and question for you ladies to ponder is this, is wanting a partner who's larger (in terms of height, weight, muscle mass, etc) than you an unfair double standard towards men smaller than you?

The real reason the double standard exists is that women have wombs and men don't. As such men can be subject to paternity fraud and through that genetic death as in the worst case we would be unable to successfully pass on our genes.

Slut shaming evolved as a way to mitigate the chances of this occurring and since more promiscuous partners are more willing to cheat they were eliminated as prospects for long term partners.

Just as women evolved the need for a sexual prospect to make them feel safe, hence larger and stronger than them, so too did men evolve the need for some level of paternity safety. Past promiscuity isn't a dead on marker for future paternity fraud but until the invention of DNA tests it was the best method we had as a species for 200,000 years to prevent it.

All that to explain that that aversion to partnering with previously promiscuous women is kinda deeply ingrained and you're not likely to get rid of it any time soon.

But we can likely mitigate the more misogynistic excesses of the thinking. So given that more and more women nowadays are becoming childfree/not interested in raising a conventional family (sperm donors, adoption without an opposite sex partner etc) I think we should try to let women choose what they want to do with their bodies and sexuality and not shame them for doing so.

But men who don't want women with high n counts as partners wouldn't be shamed for their choices. Additionally those who point out that if a girl is relationship minded it may be a detriment to sleep around aren't being misogynistic just accurate with reality.

Lastly and probably most controversially, men that tell other men that if they want happy relationships they're better off avoiding women who have had a lot of sexual encounters, not because there's anything inherently wrong with them, but it's just likelier to aid your need for paternity safety and hence trust, something we can all agree is paramount in a relationship.

Thoughts?