On The Distribution of Spouses

[Salandriagado]

What that tells me is that we had far too many children born 50-80 years ago. The solution to that problem is not to double down and have more children,

The amount of children born 50-80 years ago is far below the average fertility rate (TFR) that humanity has sustained for tens of thousands of years.

While also growing the population to the point that we're massively damaging the planet in our efforts to maintain quality of life for said population.

but to push through the problem period (probably raising the retirement age significantly as you go) to a stable equilibrium.

Problem 'period' implies an end.

We, as it stands, have a below replacement level fertility rate.

Which will fix itself (apart from not being true once you take into account migration). People don't have kids essentially because having kids is expensive as fuck,, due to said struggle to get enough resources. With a smaller population, there will be more resources available per capita, so we'll the fertility rate will rise.

In other words, over thousands of years our population will reduce itself to 0. It's not a 'problem period' because mathematics dictates that just because the 'bump' anomaly dies out, the 'problem' will remain, that being an ageing population that keeps getting smaller over time. Not only is there fewer and fewer to provide, there's more and more who are dependents as a proportion of the total. Unless you're arguing that, for whatever reason, fertility rates will rise again over time. Which is unlikely.

Sure, if by "unlikely", you mean "essentially guaranteed".

Japan's population, for example, will have been reduced by over 100 000 000 people by 2100 at current trend since their peak in 2004. Of those remaining, nearly half will be retired. That's either starvation or all out civil war.

That absurd claim has no relationship to reality. As of 2005, 9 different countries had dependency ratios at or above 1. Indeed, those countries with the highest dependency ratios are also overwhelmingly those with the highest birth rates (the first Western Europe/Anglosphere nations on the list are France and Norway, tied in 104th position).

[Salandriagado]

OP is making me agree with Costa Fierro (I despise the MGTOW thing, but incels are definitely worse).

Why do you hate women so much, if I may ask?

You are the one advocating what amounts to legalised and organised rape.

What I’m saying is that people get married for reasons besides having children and no one should be expected to become a parent if they don’t want to.

Those who refuse to have children are effectively committing suicide however.

No we aren't. Children are not extensions of their parents. They are their own individuals.

You're making a generalisation from a sample of one. Arranged marriage working out in your case does not make it some magical infallible thing.

Studies tend to favor the idea that arranged marriage doesn't have any less success than non-arrange marriage.

Arranged marriage? Sure. This crazy forced-marriage lottery system? No. Not at all.

Yeah, no. Natalist policies are fucking stupid, though nowhere near as stupid as this proposal. A stable population is the only option that's viable, and we'll hit that quite naturally.

I'm not sure we will hit that "naturally" before running into trouble.

In some lights, we are already running into trouble; while our population isn't yet shrinking, old people have massively disproportionate wealth and young people are taking home very little money. Part of the massive wealth and income inequality problem in the US has to do with the government spending less on young people (e.g., states subsidizing colleges at lower rates) and more on old people (e.g., Medicare), and part of the squeeze involved is the growing number of older people with adequate resources of their own being eligible for benefits.

Another major issue along the same axis is that when you bring in young people either as immigrants or as temporary migrants, those young people are coming in without resources, because the old people with the resources are passing it on to fewer and fewer children.

This factor also exacerbates income and wealth inequality because migrants without permanent status are more easily exploited by bosses with unfair leverage. Which in turn means that even native-born young people are working in a shitty job environment.

And that's not even starting to touch on the cultural and international frictions involved with relying on a flow of migrant labor, or the shocks to the economy that can result from national or international political shifts that change migration patterns.

Sure, there will be a period of difficulty. If you notice, I actually said so explicitly in one of the bits of my post that you cut out of your quote. But that's going to happen regardless (pro-natalist policies massively increase the dependency ratio, at least in the short term), so our only choice is how big the population we end up with afterwards is. Smaller populations mean more resources per person, so a better average quality of life.

Please explain your bizarre statement.

Life is not just our own lives, but those of our ancestors before us and those that come after us. Ending this through voluntary means is akin to ending ones life. Hence why they are effectively committing suicide and should undergo damnatio memoriae in response to such a great evil.

This is utter and complete bullshit. Children are not extensions of their parents.

[Vassenor]

You're making a generalisation from a sample of one. Arranged marriage working out in your case does not make it some magical infallible thing.

Studies tend to favor the idea that arranged marriage doesn't have any less success than non-arrange marriage.

Let's see those studies then.

[Monda Registaro]

No because a "right to life" doesn't entail forcing women to have sex with you.

[The Blaatschapen]

No because a "right to life" doesn't entail forcing women to have sex with you.

Also the other way around, forcing men to have sex with women.

[Monda Registaro]

No because a "right to life" doesn't entail forcing women to have sex with you.

Also the other way around, forcing men to have sex with women.

Yes that's true but he specifically mentioned incels and mgtow as the reason for this which are solely male groups.

[Monda Registaro]

Adding on to my other comment women don't seem to have as much interest in sex which is why the incel community is entirely male from what I've seen. Maybe it's that there are less female "incels" or maybe they don't care as much about it. Regardless, it's more of a problem for men than women.

[Costa Fierro]

This and this alone disqualifies you from being a misogynist. This is a net good for women.

Net good for me too. It's a win-win.

It's a little bit stupid to try and reinvent the narrative considering all our posts are visible here.

I'm not trying to reinvent the narrative, I asked you where I was going on a woman-hating rant.

[Bakery Hill]

This and this alone disqualifies you from being a misogynist. This is a net good for women.

Net good for me too. It's a win-win.

It's a little bit stupid to try and reinvent the narrative considering all our posts are visible here.

I'm not trying to reinvent the narrative, I asked you where I was going on a woman-hating rant.

Anyone who's spent a good deal of time on this god forsaken place and has two brain cells to bounce off each other will confirm that your entire posting history (with a few breaks) amounts to a woman-hating rant. The comment was more reflective of you general behaviour. You make long anti-woman posts that oscillate between "they only want my money" and now "they're out to kill me". Your first post on this thread is a marginally more restrained example of this trend.

Really as you've demonstrated in the post above ("this is j-just australia it means nothing" and "I'm right because I am that's why") you've got no real desire to connect your hysteria to the truth.

[Cekoviu]

Yeah, that too. I actually don't know why.

I mean, testosterone and traditional gender roles that put us in positions of authority of combative jobs like police and military.

I was thinking testosterone might be a factor (because it often makes you more aggressive) but the latter wouldn't really be relevant to murders that much, due to police and military "legally" killing people most of the time.

[Cekoviu]

i don't understand how that is bad?

I don't either, but apparently feminists and traditional conservatives think men avoiding women is somehow a horrible thing destined to bring down civil society as we know it.

Feminist here. Please, go your own way all you want.

[Costa Fierro]

Anyone who's spent a good deal of time on this god forsaken place and has two brain cells to bounce off each other will confirm that your entire posting history (with a few breaks) amounts to a woman-hating rant. The comment was more reflective of you general behaviour. You make long anti-woman posts that oscillate between "they only want my money" and now "they're out to kill me". Your first post on this thread is a marginally more restrained example of this trend.

Really as you've demonstrated in the post above ("this is j-just australia it means nothing" and "I'm right because I am that's why") you've got no real desire to connect your hysteria to the truth.

In other words, you couldn't find anything and so basically are now trying desperately to find ways of discrediting something that you can't find fault in.

Feminist here. Please, go your own way all you want.

You betcha.

[Hurdergaryp]

Studies tend to favor the idea that arranged marriage doesn't have any less success than non-arrange marriage.

Let's see those studies then.

It probably has something to do with the fact that arranged marriages tend to be arranged in more traditional societies where the peer pressure is rather high to stay at your preordained station in life.

[Bakery Hill]

Anyone who's spent a good deal of time on this god forsaken place and has two brain cells to bounce off each other will confirm that your entire posting history (with a few breaks) amounts to a woman-hating rant. The comment was more reflective of you general behaviour. You make long anti-woman posts that oscillate between "they only want my money" and now "they're out to kill me". Your first post on this thread is a marginally more restrained example of this trend.

Really as you've demonstrated in the post above ("this is j-just australia it means nothing" and "I'm right because I am that's why") you've got no real desire to connect your hysteria to the truth.

In other words, you couldn't find anything and so basically are now trying desperately to find ways of discrediting something that you can't find fault in.

Feminist here. Please, go your own way all you want.

You betcha.

You made a long post of bullshit that ended with nine entire news articles of women killing their spouses with the implication that this is a rational reason to avoid certain relationships. This complements your entire posting history. I don't have to desperately find anything.

[Petrolheadia]

No, we aren't. If you'd just read, my dear Geneviev, you'd see that the other individual clearly said that they did not consent or were even consulted for their marriage which makes it a forced marriage, not arranged.

And? It benefited both of us and our families.

Anecdotal fallacy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Studies tend to favor the idea that arranged marriage doesn't have any less success than non-arrange marriage.

Let's see those studies then.

Usha Gupta; Pushpa Singh (July 1982). "An exploratory study of love and liking and type of marriages". Indian Journal of Applied Psychology. 19 (2): 92–97.
Xu Xiaohe; Martin King Whyte (Aug 1990). "Love Matches and Arranged Marriages: A Chinese Replication". Journal of Marriage and Family. 52 (3): 709–722. doi:10.2307/352936.
Jane E. Myers; Jayamala Madathil; Lynne R. Tingle (2005). "Marriage Satisfaction and Wellness in India and the United States: A Preliminary Comparison of Arranged Marriages and Marriages of Choice". Journal of Counseling & Development. 83 (2): 183–190. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00595.x.
Pamela C. Regan; Saloni Lakhanpal; Carlos Anguiano (June 2012). "Relationship Outcomes in Indian-American Love-Based and Arranged Marriages". Psychological Reports. 110 (3): 915–924. doi:10.2466/21.02.07.PR0.110.3.915-924.

[Petrolheadia]

Let's see those studies then.

Usha Gupta; Pushpa Singh (July 1982). "An exploratory study of love and liking and type of marriages". Indian Journal of Applied Psychology. 19 (2): 92–97.
Xu Xiaohe; Martin King Whyte (Aug 1990). "Love Matches and Arranged Marriages: A Chinese Replication". Journal of Marriage and Family. 52 (3): 709–722. doi:10.2307/352936.
Jane E. Myers; Jayamala Madathil; Lynne R. Tingle (2005). "Marriage Satisfaction and Wellness in India and the United States: A Preliminary Comparison of Arranged Marriages and Marriages of Choice". Journal of Counseling & Development. 83 (2): 183–190. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00595.x.
Pamela C. Regan; Saloni Lakhanpal; Carlos Anguiano (June 2012). "Relationship Outcomes in Indian-American Love-Based and Arranged Marriages". Psychological Reports. 110 (3): 915–924. doi:10.2466/21.02.07.PR0.110.3.915-924.

India and the US are two different countries, with a lot of cultural factors influencing the statistics.

[Galloism]

When it comes to Australia, part of that is statistical methodology compared with perpetrator methodology IIRC. So a man that kills his wife is an intimate partner homicide, while if a woman and her boyfriend kill her husband, it’s a multi-perpetrator homicide or something along those lines (can’t remember the details and I’m on a cell phone).

Ah so it's not that men kill more often, it's just that convicts can't do the methodology properly! The malign forces of international feminism have been defeated again. Or maybe not?

Most domestic/family homicide incidents involved a single victim and offender (n=960; 88%) (see Table 5). Although rare, when additional victims/offenders were involved, they tended to be family members as well. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, a small number of intimate partner homicides (n=54; 8%) involved multiple victims and/or offenders. Of the 27 intimate partner homicides that involved multiple victims (including incidents with multiple victims/offenders), 23 (85%)

The table below then shows that 4% of intimate partner homicides involve multiple offenders. I'm not sure that really changes the reality of what's going on.

Moves the needle a bit.

Another factor could be the absence of men’s shelters resulting in men killing their spouses in self defense (which we don’t frequently recognize). Here in the states, when women’s shelters were opened en masse, the number of men killed by their wives dropped dramatically.

Another could be that with men’s greater physical strength, violence is more likely to be fatal in general.

[Kvatchdom]

Ah so it's not that men kill more often, it's just that convicts can't do the methodology properly! The malign forces of international feminism have been defeated again. Or maybe not?



The table below then shows that 4% of intimate partner homicides involve multiple offenders. I'm not sure that really changes the reality of what's going on.

Moves the needle a bit.

Another factor could be the absence of men’s shelters resulting in men killing their spouses in self defense (which we don’t frequently recognize). Here in the states, when women’s shelters were opened en masse, the number of men killed by their wives dropped dramatically.

Another could be that with men’s greater physical strength, violence is more likely to be fatal in general.

Aye, more shelters in general need to be opened. I hope that the newly opened Feminist Party in Finland will be similar to it's counterpart in Sweden in opening shelters for more men via charity and other means, though I wouldn't vote for them. The best case scenario is governments understand the problem and enforcing men's shelters to be opened in most municipals.

[The Endless Black]

There are so many things I find wrong with the idea of a spousal lottery. (Only read the OP so far, so maybe I'm being redundant, or not responding to changes the OP has made, but I'll try to respond to any of that later.)

Marriage doesn't even necessitate sex, and if you force these couples to have sex it's essentially state sponsored rape. People should be with who they want to be with for however long they both find the relationship working adequately at least, if not all they want it to be. If parents are responsible, they can even raise a kid while separated from each other if their personal spousal relationship isn't working, so a couple could have a kid willingly together and then splitting up isn't the end of the world for the kid. So forcing couples to stay together (not even addressing forcing them together in the first place) just seems unecessary and a recipe for disaster.

I fear this would also result in more murder/suicides of families if put into practice if a person felt trapped in a miserable abusive relationship.

Also, loads of cheating would happen in the unhappy relationships, unless you had some sort of punishment for cheating which just seems like more negativity spawned from this proposal.

To touch on something I mentioned earlier but isn't directly related to this topic. If you want to have happy couples with kids who don't split up, planned parenthood seems the most reasonable thing to propose, which seems like the opposite of forcing couples to have kids at a designated time. People are most happy when they feel they have autonomy and control over their lives. When they feel the most ready and prepared to have kids with their chosen partner seems to me to be obviously the best time to have kids.

There may be issues with falling birthrates in some countries. I think the issue is really complicated and might need a thread of its own besides this one unless it is okay to talk about that in depth here. But either way I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to have a solid stance there, but I would be open to talking about it. But, the proposition in the OP definitely isn't the solution as far as I'm concerned.

[Hurdergaryp]

And? It benefited both of us and our families.

Anecdotal fallacy.

That normally never happens on the internet!

[Bakery Hill]

Ah so it's not that men kill more often, it's just that convicts can't do the methodology properly! The malign forces of international feminism have been defeated again. Or maybe not?



The table below then shows that 4% of intimate partner homicides involve multiple offenders. I'm not sure that really changes the reality of what's going on.

Moves the needle a bit.

Another factor could be the absence of men’s shelters resulting in men killing their spouses in self defense (which we don’t frequently recognize). Here in the states, when women’s shelters were opened en masse, the number of men killed by their wives dropped dramatically.

Another could be that with men’s greater physical strength, violence is more likely to be fatal in general.

Pretending that violence isn't really heavily gendered is just as stupid as pretending that no women are ever violent. This is a very profound form of identity politics going on here.

[Galloism]

Moves the needle a bit.

Another factor could be the absence of men’s shelters resulting in men killing their spouses in self defense (which we don’t frequently recognize). Here in the states, when women’s shelters were opened en masse, the number of men killed by their wives dropped dramatically.

Another could be that with men’s greater physical strength, violence is more likely to be fatal in general.

Pretending that violence isn't really heavily gendered is just as stupid as pretending that no women are ever violent. This is a very profound form of identity politics going on here.

It IS heavily gendered. I’ve never argued otherwise.

At least in the states (where I’m familiar with the data) women are more likely to initiate domestic violence and women are more likely to be injured or killed by it. It’s very likely that creating men’s shelters (and encouraging their use) would do for women’s fatalities what opening women’s shelters did for men’s fatalities.

I’m not convinced Australia is a complete 180 on that trend.

[Great Minarchistan]

Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Having children (not so) late if the optimum way in which new life is created. Unlike many of my claims I don't really have a batch of data behind this one, but having children before your early/mid 30s is a really great way to cripple you, your spouse and your child altogether due to the lack of accumulated capital (as well as the lack of life experience and lack of enough maturity to be a parent).

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

So if you are in such a bad situation nobody wants to marry or have sex with you, you are entitled to get State-issued spouses? I hope this isn't serious.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives.

What if I don't like my spouse? Will I be forced to stay with a loser forever?

I'll stop replying to what's left of the post, as this is shitposting at its prime. Unironically laughing irl

[The Liberated Territories]

I've no interest in women, OP. Can there be at least an "opt-out" system or something? Can I get a tax credit?