2lwxxtj's comments

Their preferences may be innate, but their standards are not. Their standards change depending on their life experience. If men they find very attractive give them attention (but not commitment), they are going to have a harder time settling down with men they find less attractive but which are willing to commit to them.

The men that are ruining her life are not the sort of "weak men" being discussed here. The ones ruining her life, I can just about guarantee, exude the impression that they don't play by other people's rules. To women, that is strength.

>Honestly, you not being able to have partner

You can stop right there because as I said above, I'm married.

It means they don't get children.

>Yes, that stance is awful.

And I suspect that's exactly why he said "Why bother?".

>So... Oppress women is the solution you are proposing here?

If that's what you want to call shaming them for certain behavior, yes.

>Why have you gendered it at all?

Because women are, on average, different from men, and, on average, exhibit different tendencies. Different measures are needed to push their behaviors to the same point.

>Why do women have to face social stigma and not men?

As I said, a man who has sex with a woman outside of marriage should be pressured to marry her, or in other words, if he doesn't marry her, he should be shamed for it.

Note that I don't think that should apply if he's not the only man that's had sex with her. In that case she is the one that should be the subject of social shaming to discourage other women from following in her path.

>What about gay relationships, presumably you'd apply the same thinking (en route to a marriage or married)?

I don't think homosexual behavior is very relevant to the discussion of men being unable to find suitable wives, but generally speaking, I don't think society should put any effort toward ensuring homosexuals end up in healthy marriages. And if there is any conflict between the interests of homosexuals and the goal of getting normal people in to healthy marriages, the conflict should be resolved in favor of normal people every time.

>What about poly relationships?

I think society should reject polygamous relationships.

>I'm going to assume you mean owes you a supportive, caring, platonic relationship. Eg, two married people support one another to their mutual benefit. I'm going to assume you don't mean to imply your spouse owes you sex.

I mean both. Both are important to the maintenance of most healthy relationships.

>Yes, and it's shared by nearly everyone.

Not really. If you're talking specifically about whether an unmarried man that fits some particular criteria is owed a wife, most people in the western world at this point in time would agree with you. But that's far from universal.

>The alternative is that you believe someone does owe you a relationship, which is anathema to anyone who values individual liberty and freedom at any level.

Not really. "Individual liberty and freedom" is not one concrete set of ideas that you have to either accept or reject wholesale.

>Everyone who is advocating for making changes to society to improve their chances is really fucking cagey about the specifics.

Some are, probably. I don't know which you've been talking to.

>what changes do you propose

Bring back severe social shaming for women that engage in sexual activity outside of a committed monogamous relationship (e.g. marriage or on the way to marriage). Bring back social pressure for a man to marry a woman that he has had sex with outside of marriage.

>and who owes you a relationship

I am married, so I think from society's perspective, my wife should owe me a relationship. If either of us denies the other a relationship without very good reason (meaning something more than just not being happy any more), the one abandoning the marriage should be looked down upon as having done something very wrong.

Yes, there are more now than in the past. https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure1newlymaninc...

To be clear, "(almost) everyone needs some amount of physical intimacy to be happy," is a falsifiable statement of fact. You can go out and measure something to find out whether it matches reality.

On the other hand, "but it's not something anyone is entitled to" is fundamentally a statement of opinion, unless it is limited to a specific context like within a specific social system.

>It becomes toxic when it blames women for its problems. Feminism is all for men talking about their issues. It practically begs them to.

Gotcha, it wants them to talk about their issues, as long as they don't say anything unapproved. Why would any man want to go along with that, again?

>That's one bitter truth about life: (almost) everyone needs some amount of physical intimacy to be happy, but it's not something anyone is entitled to.

That's not a truth about life, it's an opinion.

It's not about not wanting to give money to them, it's about not wanting their products injected in to your body. The vast majority of people that get infected with the coronavirus do not get any pharmaceuticals put in to them whatsoever.

>Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. As far as I know, no one has done any long term (10+ year) studies to determine whether people that get vaccines end up using more pharmaceuticals than people that don't get vaccines.

>It's just highly intelligent educated experts giving their best possible estimate based on current data.

OK, but can we trust them to completely put out of their mind the interests of the people signing their paychecks? Do the people signing the paychecks blindly hire scientists without considering whether the scientists will be mindful of their interests?

People in the US rightly don't trust the pharmaceutical industry or the government. They may not be able to pinpoint why, but when they look around they see that every year the people around them are more obese and have more chronic health conditions. They may not be able to tie those things together consciously, but it leaves the powerful subconscious feeling that the government and pharmaceutical industries do not want them to be healthy.

As a parent, it is terribly hard to imagine your child not being there. I suppose what I'm curious about is, knowing what it's like to raise a child with Down Syndrome and what it's like to raise a child without, if you hadn't had either child yet, or perhaps were to have a third child, would you have a preference, and if so how strong of a preference?

People with Down Syndrome are not in any sense a nation or national group. It is not applicable.

How is it "damning on society"? Raising normal children is already a massive time commitment, and at the end you get a functioning adult that you don't have to take care of, and which can give you grand children. Why would anyone want a child that takes even more time and has to be taken care of for its entire life?

>which is kind of sad, since those with Down Syndrome can live fulfilling lives.

So can people that don't have Down Syndrome.

I said they have a lot of influence over which candidates are viable, not total control. Before becoming president, Trump was a very famous and interesting billionaire, which takes away a lot of the media's tools. The famous and interesting part makes it so people want to hear about him and will pull their eyeballs away from any media outlet that doesn't talk about him (which the media companies obviously care about because that takes away their influence), and the billionaire part gives him the ability to buy a credible campaign effort.

Certainly there are considerable numbers of people in this country that totally distrust the major media sources (for very good reason, in my opinion), but they still have considerable viewerships and therefore considerable influence over the thoughts and therefore votes of many.

Again, do you think Bezos was looking for the ad revenue? Or was he looking for political influence?

>The reason the MSM puts out news is to sell advertising

I'm pretty skeptical about that. The major media outlets have significant influence over the political ideas that circulate through the electorate. In a democracy, that means having a lot of influence over which candidates are viable in elections, which, given how powerful governments are, is worth quite a lot more than ad revenue.

Why do you think Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post? Do you think he was after the ad revenue?