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.