1. Their evaluations are separate. How much she values an encounter does not logically determine how much he values it. Mutual participation does not establish equal enthusiasm.

2. “Best” and “worst” depend on comparison sets. An encounter can rank above everything she has experienced and below everything he has experienced. Those rankings need not contradict each other.

3. You must keep the quantities consistent. Her greatest pleasure, her strongest attraction, and her most desirable partner are different propositions. Likewise, his least enjoyable sex does not necessarily mean his least attractive partner. If you explicitly posit that she desired him intensely while he barely desired her, then unequal desire is the conclusion.

4. His judgment adds nothing to her comparison with you. If your premise includes that she desired him more than she desires you, you have already assumed that preference. Whether he considered her exceptional or disappointing does not change it.

5. A historical peak is an observed maximum, not a proven ceiling. “Her best experience so far was with him” does not establish “nothing with you could ever surpass it.”

The defensible core is: someone can be another person’s most desired partner while regarding that person as a disappointing option. But his low valuation does not make her pleasure counterfeit, establish her objective worth, or independently tell you what she feels for you. Those are additional claims requiring additional premises.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3353303&forum_id=2#50214743)