Or, men could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a woman.

As far as I can tell it's the women that are complaining about the lack of available men, not the reverse.

Tell from what? I've always heard it as the exact opposite. From the article:

From men:

> The apps are algorithmic doom barrels

> I’m fated to end up alone

> he has tried Bumble, Match, Badoo and Facebook dating, but in nearly three years has only met one person, with whom he had six dates before the relationship ended

> The vast majority of matches have resulted in no dialogue, most of the rest there was a bit of to and fro before being ghosted

From women:

> I meet so many men,” she says enthusiastically

> So I’ve given myself the challenge of flirting with one person every day, which has been a lot of fun

> I was getting a torrent of likes – and I absolutely hated it

> I’m simply looking for an interesting or creative person, and that’s one thing you can’t spot easily on an app, but then I’d get too many matches, which was really overwhelming

> I’d get a lot of comments about being a wheelchair user

Hell even disabled women seem to have absolutely no issue getting matches. Maybe the buffet of men they get to fastidiously sort through isn't well stocked enough for them? Well la di da, welcome to reality.

There appears to be quite a large contingent of women that are upset with so-called 'passport bros', as well as women that have hit the wall and haven't yet come to terms with the fact that it's too late to establish a family. But you are right that younger women are having the time of their lives; for that group, everything is possible on the dating apps.

s/available/acceptable and you have it.

There's a reason for this, how we raise girls is tailored to making good girlfriend/wife material. You don't see the incredible amount of effort that is spent over a lifetime to this end because we're used to it.

Once you see the dynamic you can't unsee it. It even happens with bisexual women where the joke is, "I'm attracted to like 10 men and every woman."

For better and worse boys don't get this treatment. If you spent 10,000 hours under the weight of intense social and societal pressure to mold yourself into someone that you think of as attractive because your social status depends on it, where the idea of what's attractive that has been planted into your brain since birth lines up with what women find desirable in a partner i'd bet you'd be a catch too.

There's a huge impedance mismatch that is set up to hurt men which is that being the kind of guy that women find attractive hurts your social status among men. Pretty boy is used as an insult but you will find no shortage of women throwing themselves at them.

> There's a reason for this, how we raise girls is tailored to making good girlfriend/wife material. You don't see the incredible amount of effort that is spent over a lifetime to this end because we're used to it.

No, you're mistaking pressure to conform for pressure to be attractive. Women are constantly pressured not to stray too far away from society's defaults, and they're judged much more strictly for non-conformism than men are.

But the things which mainstream society encourages for women in the name of conformity have a huge overlap with what men consider attractive anyway (a quick example which comes to mind is the pressure to stay thin). Whereas men still gain social status by being attractive, but are given much more leeway to deviate in their lifestyles.

> ...being the kind of guy that women find attractive hurts your social status among men. Pretty boy is used as an insult but you will find no shortage of women throwing themselves at them.

No, being attractive is still a boost for a man's social status. Being tall, or rich, or strong won't get you insulted at all. "Pretty boy" is an exception, but I could compare it to "bimbo" for women.

As someone chronically single, this is very true, but far from the biggest issue with modern relationships. I don't want kids and I absolutely, most of all, do not want my taxes to pay for raising children of other irresponsible men. Sharia and coverture have its issues, but at least leads to more men raising their kids.

There is a surprising amount of overlap between two groups of people: those who argue that society should not provide any material benefits or services (money, housing, healthcare etc.) to its members, and those who argue that society should be structured so that men have access to sex.

Men don’t have a right but “Too bad sucks for you” isn’t a sustainable approach to a basic biological function. Imagine saying “you don’t have a right to a meal” to a crowd of starving people. That’s how we get violent revolutions and bloody wars and mass shootings.

So what is your proposal?

I think the first step would be creating a well funded government organization or nonprofit with a broad mandate to solve the problems of community, relationships, and the birth rate in the 21st century. Make it a proper national security issue.

Creating a neutral dating app with proper moderation (against harassment and fake/spam accounts) and without the profit incentive would be a great entry point for that organization to study relationships in general.

And how would that help? Women are still going to filter for tall, successful fit men.

Every time the app successfully matches two people well enough that they form a long-term commitment to each other, that is a step in the right direction. When the app instead matches people adequately enough for a short-term relationship but keeps them coming back to the app for more, that aggravates the problem.

Possibly, the commercial incentives of these apps have them deliberately optimizing for short-term matches. Or it may be the case that the apps are doing as best as they can manage and the problem is simply very difficult to solve. If the former is the case, then removing or regulating the commercial incentive might help.

Do we really want the government regulating how people meet or even worse the government knowing every time you meet someone?

Personally I don't believe it would help, but I do think I understand civilitty's reason for suggesting it.

Do you really think I’m proposing giving anyone regulatory powers over dating? How would that even work outside an episode of Handmaid’s Tale?

Replying to scarface, who has no reply button... It would help to know that profiles are not likely to be a Chinese scammer, and it would help in that the app wouldn't be actively _hiding_ profiles of people that have expressed an interest you behind a "gold-level" function. Because that's what Tinder does: it finds the short list of people that might be interested in you, and then hides them behind a pay wall, occasionally trickling one out (and dare I speculate, the one that is least likely to lead to a relationship).

If anything, Tinder is the precise opposite of a dating app.

What’s wrong with expecting you to pay for a service?

Nothing, but if your only goal is to frustrate people, maybe that's a level of 'service' you should not be offering in the first place.

I like to stew on this a lot. The root of it all might be economic and social opportunity. If you can succeed, you can attract good partners. If you are secure, you can be a better parent. If you have good parents, you will have more opportunity.

Of course, this has little to do with dating apps.

That still doesn’t help the fact that no woman says “you know I really like short fat guys”.

As incellish as that sounds, I am 50 and I have been happily married for 13 years and before that unhappily married for four from the time I was 28-32. But my dating life mostly sucked in my 20s as a five foot 4 decently successful guy, in great shape as a part time fitness instructor, outgoing, and with a modicum of social skills.

A guy who is not financially successful and who is tall has a much better chance in the dating or at least the hookup pool than a short person who is financially successful.

Fair point, I’ve focused on “maybe you’re short, but you can still be fit, confident, great partner, etc”. However, unrealistic expectations and dating “market structure” that lets the top 10% of guys dominate the whole field can significantly undermine all that.

I think monasticism needs to make a come-back.

Great rant. Now explain why it is different with taxes.

I've heard taxation is theft, taxation is rape is definitely a new one.

Realistically, if I were forced into that I would kill my husband or myself. I would rather be in jail or dead than be subjected to institutionalized human trafficking and domestic slavery. That's the difference. You're trying to draw an equivalence between a mountain and mole hill in magnitude by saying that what they have in common is that they're backed by the force of law.

For several reasons. First, taxes builds the foundation of a productive society. Without them we would all be less productive. Second, taxes makes sure we provide for people who are not able to provide their basic needs for themselves, this is a moral obligation (in my opinion).

Taxes may build the foundation of a productive society, but reproduction builds the actual society. And in both taxes and coerced reproduction, something is taken by force from someone who has not consented to that. In the case of reproduction we are talking about roughly nine months of effort (at least), and in the case of taxes it depends on the country, but in mine it is roughly six months of effort (Tax Liberation Day falls on June 20th here). So that's roughly six month of coerced slavery, and unlike reproduction, it comes back every single year.

So I see a lot of similarities, yet one is generally accepted, and the other... not so much. Even though most of the world is heading towards population collapse, and surely the moral obligation you speak of also applies when it comes to ensuring society survives in the first place.

God I really hope when you're reincarnated it's as a woman so you can truly understand how completely certifiably insane you sound.

"the government death squads and taxes are both taking something by force that's not consented to -- life, and percentage of your income" -- like holy hell dude.

I don't even know where to begin to bridge the experience gap of someone who thinks that government sponsored human trafficking (because that's what forced marriage is), rape, and forced impregnation is comparable to taxes.

Give me the choice between working a menial dead end job until I die or the hell you're describing for only 1 year and I'll have my resume polished before you can finish the sentence.

They are taking literally HALF THE LIFE of every working person, and you are sufficiently brainwashed to think that that's perfectly normal. Or perhaps you know full well what's happening, but prefer the status quo because you are a net receiver in this situation.

For the rest, your total lack of empathy ("only women can suffer"), twisting of my words ("death squads", really?), and your willingness to kill your husband (irrational, but there you go) means I won't be responding to you in the future.

I'm not a receiver in taxes, I'm a software engineer who pays far more than I will ever receive in taxes. It's fine, they're not taking half my life they're taking (for my last tax year) about 30% of my gross income. I wouldn't suddenly get 4 months off if I had that money back. My salary negotiation takes taxes into account. I just voted for two tax levies one being for schools where I don't have and never will have children going because I have a private school I want to send my future kids.

I'm not saying only women can suffer, I'm saying you literally can't grasp how much of a hell the world you're imagining with forced marriage is. And of course I'd kill my husband, in your world he's my government appointed rapist whose babies I will be forced to have. What other option do I have? Right now today that would be more than enough to qualify for self defense. You apparently think this is fine and the pregnancy is "just" 9 months of your civic duty while me and every other woman will say is the furthest thing from fine possible. You're arguing that "death squads" is too hyperbolic but I'd rather take the firing squad. Men would suffer in your hell too but you don't see any of the downsides I guess.

People's autonomy over their sexual activity is universally acknowledged to be much more important than their autonomy over the totality of their paycheck. For a start, getting taxed is much less distressing and psychologically / spiritually / physically damaging than getting raped.

> “you don’t have a right to a meal”

People are perfectly happy to say that in all sorts of places including this very forum.

Difference is it's widely accepted that people do have a right to a meal. It's internationally recognized as a human right.

Say what you mean; just tell the majority of men to fuck off and die miserable and alone. Oh, and do it quietly too.

I didn’t exactly win the genetic lottery at 5 foot 4. My only saving physical grace was that I build muscle fast and even when I do let my weight go to hell, I look muscular.

But is the problem that men who are looking for 10s are twos? I’m in no way considering myself more than a 5.

I’m a social person by nature, I like to try different things and I’ve really spent my adult life working on my emotional intelligence. I was in more or less great physical shape throughout my 20s and 30s and even after being married for 12 years I make it my mission to stay in shape the best I physically can as does my wife - at 49 and 47.

The unstated alternative here is that women would be forced into the misery of sexual slavery. As a man, my daughters have the freedom to decide to participate in marriage, and nobody will take that right away from them.

Nobody _owes_ you love nor sex. Nobody at all.

This is a spectacularly polemic framing that can only serve to score points, not advance civil discussion. In other domains it seems that our society has come to terms with the idea that systemic discrepancies in attainment can't just be dismissed by looking at low-attainment individuals in isolation - would you accept "$minority people could accept that they don't have a right to a job at Google/spot at Harvard/position in government" as a retort against allegations of racial discrimination?

I mean, it doesn't seem more spectacularly polemic to me than "Social pressure to commit to monogamous relationships is the only possible solution to this".

It does to me; your quoted sentiment amounts to a concrete claim that can be argued for or against, and does not insinuate that the position of the speaker's opponents is due to something that everyone in the discussion would be bound to agree to be an indefensible moral failing.

A contextually appropriate mirrored version of the statement I responded to would be something along the lines of "or women could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a rich, hot, committed and deferential movie star". Would you consider that no worse than the "enforced monogamy" claim?

Women aren't saying they have a right to go out with a movie star. At worst, some of them are choosing, upon finding out they can't get the movie star, to remain single. Which would seem to be their right, no? Even if us non-movie-star males might prefer if they chose differently.

I don't agree. The difference is that people do have a right to not be discriminated against because of their race etc. But no right to force another person to be in a romantic relationship with them.

true. But the issue here is that if men start stating physical preferences for women they are seen as sleazy at best. This isn't an equal playing field socially, even if the sentiment of "no one is owed a relationship" is a technically correct one.

And it applies even to your metaphor. Man or woman, if you explicitly say "no blacks" you are going to be eviscerated. Even if older OkCupid profiles did in fact show that african americans, both male and female, had fewer matches there.

I think your google example is a bad one. Almost everyone is more "libertarian" about the right to choose your partner / choose to be single then they are about the right to freely choose who to employ without any constraints.

Let me introduce you to the article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

> Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

This comment is so eye-poppingly fatuous that I don't even know where to begin. The parent commenter is speaking about how people (a group which includes women) have the right to choose who they want to marry, which includes the right to marry nobody at all. You appear to be using the declaration of human rights to imply that the desire of one person to marry another somehow overrides the prior right, which is utter nonsense. Please refrain from commenting if you can't provide a more cogent argument than ChatGPT.

Such pressure does exist. And it's even stronger in, say, Christian communities, but I don't think it makes finding a partner a breeze in them (although they do tend to get married sooner?)