Alright, rejecting the red pill argument, and even saying I'm engaging in a "shaming campaign" (which I don't think I am, but several people do) then here's the refuting argument: I found the studies to which /u/7657457574 was referring. The only one specifically having to do with male seminal fluids having an effect on future reproduction only involved fruit flies, and a single (1) study found male microhimerism in women, which is the DNA he's talking about. But it was found in EVERY woman, regardless of whether they're ever been pregnant or not, and here's the conclusion of that one verbatim:

CONCLUSIONS: Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.

So yes, he levels of DNA are significantly higher. But when every woman carries male DNA received from being in the same womb that a brother was in, from carrying a child, from who knows what infinite number of possibilities, why is it right for someone to claim that having male DNA within them makes them less desirable?

Now besides all that I actually agreed with a few of his points. Telling a woman the truth, that you aren't comfortable having a relationship because she has had more partners than you are comfortable with, is entirely justified and a personal opinion. But his claim that she is a feminist out of nowhere, using a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT of double-standards irrationality and insults because that is the stereotypical vision, is wrong. These arguments simply don't have to be an "us vs. them" mentality that I see it taken to so often.