This is trivializing a genuine problem by comparing it with completely different issue.
It's usually called "whataboutism" and was a favorite of Communist Russia.
But you could also roll it into "distraction/deflection/denial", which has wider applicability.
Your post is actually self-refuting.
Simplified:
* You've had too many opportunities to interact, but don't want what's on offer.
* SteelBook has had too few (if any) opportunities to interact, so he doesn't even get the opportunity to select according to his preferences.
A food comparison: SteelBook is starving, while you have easy access to sustenance, but you're unhappy because you want Cordon Bleu, but only US-style chain restaurants and fast food are available.
Another perspective that's interesting in this case: There's a modern saying:
"XX's control access to physical intimacy: XY's control access to relationships".
This is one of many very solid indicators that the dating/mating game is XY/XX asymmetrical.
The current game is so dysfunctional that the best strategy for XY's is not to play for a few decades. There are actually signs that this is happening, but it's too soon to make predictions.
One of the first indicators you'd expect, and seems to be happening, is that XY's have stopped "paying in advance" and instead are either achieving their tactical goals immediately, or walking away.
Which I think is highly amusing, because it means the behaviors consistent with evolutionary psychology are re-asserting themselves.
It will be interesting to see how modern 'Critical Theory" explains this away /lol.
