Yeah but has everyone been single _all of the time_? Your reasoning reminds me of the "suck it up, we all have been bummed out before" mentality toward depressed people.

> most peoples' experiences dictate that it's probably not as bad as being poor or disabled.

Empathy isn't soap, it won't be spent. You can feel empathy for the poor, the disabled, _and_ the chronically alone.

In general, this is less true than it often seems. It won't be possible to reach every individual, but I can think of some things that would help a lot of individuals who find themselves excluded.

For example, sociologists (or even just friends) identifying traits that lead to exclusion, and then others developing and incorporating antidotes to those traits in media and relationships.

If it's people being unfit, find ways to make fitness more culturally appealing to more people (disassociating fitness with "jockness" would be one way to help e.g. nerds want to be more fit). If it's smell, find a way to make soaps or dietary changes or microbiome therapies or whatever more available and appealing.

If it's specific behaviors, find ways to show those behaviors and non-pejoratively show narratives in popular shows of people freeing themselves from those unappealing behaviors.

If there's some missing adaptation to society's norms and unspoken means of communication due to being excluded at very a young age, maybe someone can create a LARP that teaches those. If it's just being in the wrong place, make it easier for people to move and reinvent themselves in a new place with a culture that fits them better.

Ah, let's just go ahead and "dismantle" one of the most basic psychological needs, that's a great solution.

>Ah, let's just go ahead and "dismantle" one of the most basic psychological needs, that's a great solution.

Sex itself may be a basic psychological and physiological need (for most people, not for everyone,) but "the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners" is not. The latter is entirely a cultural and social construct.

Why would you literally quote one fragment of one sentence from claudiawerner's comment just to misconstrue it entirely in rebuttal?

I was referring to companionship rather than sex.

> "the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners" is not. The latter is entirely a cultural and social construct

I think claudiawerner is making an extremely uncharitable assumption in the first place that the primary complaint is about ego rather than loneliness.

But, even granting that point: it does not seem, to me, like a "cultural and social construct" that one's self-esteem would be affected by this type of loneliness. I find that claim self-evidently absurd, to be honest.

> Why would you literally quote one fragment of one sentence from claudiawerner's comment

Because that's the point that I wanted to reply to.

> just to misconstrue it entirely in rebuttal?

I think you are the one misconstruing my argument.

That wasn't my assumption at all. Ego is irrelevant to feelings of self-worth, which is a basic psychological need, as is togetherness. It's not self-serving the ego to want to feel like one has some worth. My point was only that the idea of a man's worth being in the number of sexual partners he has had is harmful to men overall, and places undue pressure and causes doubts about self-worth.

I think you’re equivocating between two extremely different things. I would actually agree it’s not necessary or good for men to derive any self-worth from the difference between, say, 5 or 15. But it’s probably unavoidable for men to derive some degree of self-worth or self-esteem from the difference between zero and non-zero, which is the situation under discussion.

I don't see why that's unavoidable. Humans have shown tremendous development in overcoming their (what was assumed to be insurmountable) biology and associated reponses, and of course the cultural factors which influence responses through upbringing. Perhaps we should feel empathy for those people, but I think it's a mistake to think it is immutable. Most Buddhist monks, for example, do not consider being or not being a virgin, much less having an active partner recently, to be worth of much status.

I think it is a leap to assume sympathy would escalate to entitlement. As deeply social species, it is in everyone to need love, both receiving and giving it, to have intimacy. Entitlement is a value judgment that should not be relevant to have empathy for this; when people's deep needs are unmet permanently, they hurt, and in turn that hurt can turn back to society. (Not talking about anything extremist just to be clear, I mean it clearly shows in our mundane daily lives if the people we interact are healthy, content, loved people vs not.)

I agree that having a romantic partner is often touted as an absolute normativity, and people often make the mistake that a romantic partner can fulfill all of their affiliative needs, but I think it is an artifact of our hyper-individualistic settings where there is rarely an alternative, rather than mere entitlement.

And assuming therapists can contain and heal this "hurt-payload" of the entire society is naive IMHO. There is a better, peer-to-peer topology that scales and to me it is best expressed in words "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another" (I am not even Christian and not trying to invoke religion here, just really like how this particular expression captures the idea). This agapic love (as opposed to consumptive, erotic love) might be the cure. To answer your question, I think the best we can do is "We are sorry you are hurting in loneliness, while we hope you find love in whatever form you need, don't forget we also love you in our own, fellow human way, why don't you come over for board games and dinner because we enjoy your company?"

In my experience, it's not remotely close, been poor is far worse than been single.