Should dating standards for sexual history differ between men and women?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should dating standards for sexual history differ between men and women?". Your opponent's style: Socratic philosopher

I agree because men and women have different dating markets. For instance, on average, men are more inclined to competition for mates, with higher baseline sexual desire, whereas women are more inclined to exclusivity and filtering out, if that makes sense. Considering these different dating markets, there are obviously different inherent dating standards for men and women, and these must be upheld.

You're confusing biology with *morality*, and that's the trap. Yes, men and women face different mating pressures, but that doesn't justify *different standards*. You're essentially saying "because men compete more, they deserve looser sexual judgment." That's backwards. If anything, higher sexual desire should mean *higher* accountability, not lower. You're using biology to excuse inequality rather than to understand it. The real question you're dodging: why should someone's sexual history matter *differently* based on their gender when the act itself is identical? That difference isn't inherent to dating markets, it's inherited from outdated property logic about female chastity. Biology doesn't justify the double standard, it just explains why it persisted.

No, I am not confusing biology with morality. I am linking the two together. After all, killing is immoral because of its effect on the biology of a human, i.e., harm done to a human. Saying that is not confusing biology with morality; it is just linking the two. And no, higher sexual desire can be correlated with higher potential-reaching for men, since sexual attraction is a byproduct of high strength, status, power and prestige. Whereas for women, it is easier for them to get a mate, so the higher-status women who really reach their potential in an analogous way are those who have the opportunities to sleep around, but prioritise themselves and better themselves. Also, women do not have as much baseline sexual desire so them sleeping around makes no sense, considering how for many events, women generally dress for other women, not men, and men only dress for women, not men.

You've just proved my point: you're defining "reaching potential" *differently* for men and women based on their biology. Men reach it through sexual conquest, women through sexual restraint. That's not biology talking, that's a *moral framework* you're imposing. And your claim that women dress for women, not men, actually undermines your argument—if women have agency over their own choices independent of male attraction, why should their sexual history be judged by male standards at all? You're using biology as cover for a predetermined moral outcome. Either sexual autonomy matters equally for both, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways just because the biology differs.