On The Distribution of Spouses

[New Emeline]

High rejection rates are not a sign of low effectiveness. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I see it as the opposite. If you're trying to find someone, high rejection rates are a sign that you're not attractive enough to be considered as a potential partner, which effectively renders the whole process ineffective and thus inefficient.

Assuming I'm adding up right, 79% of those people met their partners starting from another relationship or connection.

39% through friends, that sounds like starting from another connection.

Depends on how one defines a proper connection or relationship.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

[Salandriagado]

High rejection rates are not a sign of low effectiveness. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I see it as the opposite. If you're trying to find someone, high rejection rates are a sign that you're not attractive enough to be considered as a potential partner, which effectively renders the whole process ineffective and thus inefficient.

No, high rejection rates mean that people are being selective. The objective, remember, is not to hook up with anybody at random, but to find someone you want to spend the rest of your life with.

[Costa Fierro]

I see it as the opposite. If you're trying to find someone, high rejection rates are a sign that you're not attractive enough to be considered as a potential partner, which effectively renders the whole process ineffective and thus inefficient.

No, high rejection rates mean that people are being selective. The objective, remember, is not to hook up with anybody at random, but to find someone you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Given that first impressions are based largely on physical attractiveness with regards to meeting people, one would assume that a high rejection rate is no different to people swiping right the majority of the time on Tinder or Bumble.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

It would depend on what you consider to be a relationship or connection. For example, do you consider the workplace to be a relationship or connection?

[New Emeline]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

It would depend on what you consider to be a relationship or connection. For example, do you consider the workplace to be a relationship or connection?

Even if you don't count the workplace, the highest percentage (39%) still comes from friendship.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Isn't psychopathy just the pop-psychology name for ASPD?

It is indeed and that's what I meant by it

I'm not a licensed psychologist and I'm not gonna use technical terms when speaking to my peers.

First of all, psychopathy isn't a professionally diagnosed thing, it exists only in the criminal justice system's mind, and there exists no diagnostic criteria for such an illness.

Secondly, most people with mental disorders are more likely to be victimized for their disorder than they are to victimize others.

Again, I haven't argued for the OP's system at all in this thread, what I'm arguing for is that there should be some kind of system to help people find partners if they struggle in that area, because such a system would ensure that fewer people are left behind by society.

What we need is better education about respect and about relationships, to ensure people stop growing up full of entitlement and believing in incel bullshit and having toxic relationship expectations. We also need better mental health resources available for at risk people.

We don't need a system to help timid and/or conventionally asocial people get laid. We need a system that ensures people who can be otherwise aren't needlessly timid and asocial.

While that would be great to have such a system, they've been trying to do that for decades and it's failed massively. Moreover, social isolation is increasing in our society, not necessarily because of timidity, but because of lack of social structures that foster including people in communities. There is very little such an idea as a community anymore, and the vast majority of people keep to themselves. If you don't already have friends, it's extremely difficult to get some.

[Katganistan]

It seems to me that if someone is making their decision based on looks, then that isn't a person you want to be in a relationship with.

Everyone factors appearance into their choice of partner, consciously or not. Using appearance as the sole metric is pretty foolish, however.

It's not so important to me. Intelligence, humor, kindness and the ability to take care of themselves matters to me.

Looks are fine but if you're dumb as a post you're not going to be attractive to me. Or nasty/mean to other people, because while you're treating them like dirt, I'm wondering when I'll be next.

[Crysuko]

Everyone factors appearance into their choice of partner, consciously or not. Using appearance as the sole metric is pretty foolish, however.

It's not so important to me. Intelligence, humor, kindness and the ability to take care of themselves matters to me.

Looks are fine but if you're dumb as a post you're not going to be attractive to me. Or nasty/mean to other people, because while you're treating them like dirt, I'm wondering when I'll be next.

And then you have people like myself who are plain at best, but don't have the slightest grain of self confidence. And that's the problem a lot of people have, they just don't know how to make the first step because the whole going out and meeting people aspect seems so unpalatable.

[The Blaatschapen]

Everyone factors appearance into their choice of partner, consciously or not. Using appearance as the sole metric is pretty foolish, however.

It's not so important to me. Intelligence, humor, kindness and the ability to take care of themselves matters to me.

Looks are fine but if you're dumb as a post you're not going to be attractive to me. Or nasty/mean to other people, because while you're treating them like dirt, I'm wondering when I'll be next.

If I treat people like dirt, it's only because I want to have grass grown on them

[Costa Fierro]

It's not so important to me.

You don't consciously consider it to be important or a factor, but there is a subconscious part of your partner selection process that factors in physical attractiveness. Unwittingly playing into female stereotypes aside, who you chose to pursue interest in further is always going to be partially or even subconsciously completely determined by how attractive they are. Humans treat attractive people better than unattractive people. Everyone is guilty of this.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

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.

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. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

This would basically interfere with the principle of natural selection.

Let people choose their mates freely, and rotten apples and their defective genes will be weeded out from the population over time.

How about that?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

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.

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. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

This would basically interfere with the principle of natural selection.

Let people choose their mates freely, and rotten apples and their defective genes will be weeded out from the population over time.

How about that?

We long ago discarded the principle of natural selection from society.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

This would basically interfere with the principle of natural selection.

Let people choose their mates freely, and rotten apples and their defective genes will be weeded out from the population over time.

How about that?

We long ago discarded the principle of natural selection from society.

Are you sure about that? A good portion of anti-welfare propaganda comes down to a natural-selection argument.

"If you're too lazy to work, I have no obligation to pay to feed you..."

[United Muscovite Nations]

We long ago discarded the principle of natural selection from society.

Are you sure about that? A good portion of anti-welfare propaganda comes down to a natural-selection argument.

"If you're too lazy to work, I have no obligation to pay to feed you..."

If we really were for natural selection, we would stop medical research and treatment for people, and let people with severe medical conditions die a natural death. Medical science's existence and near-universal acceptance is proof that society has rejected the principle of natural selection.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Are you sure about that? A good portion of anti-welfare propaganda comes down to a natural-selection argument.

"If you're too lazy to work, I have no obligation to pay to feed you..."

If we really were for natural selection, we would stop medical research and treatment for people, and let people with severe medical conditions die a natural death. Medical science's existence and near-universal acceptance is proof that society has rejected the principle of natural selection.

Not all countries have universal healthcare. In some countries you will not have access to quality healthcare if you don't have money, or a health insurance (which, in turn, depends on you having money.)

But even if we had completely discarded natural selection in matters pertaining to providing people with food and healthcare, it couldn't be stretched to "distributing spouses," simply because spouses are human, and are thus not to be treated as if they were commodities, like food or medicine.

As far as mate choice goes, natural selection still applies. And it SHOULD apply.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If we really were for natural selection, we would stop medical research and treatment for people, and let people with severe medical conditions die a natural death. Medical science's existence and near-universal acceptance is proof that society has rejected the principle of natural selection.

Not all countries have universal healthcare. In some countries you will not have access to quality healthcare if you don't have money, or a health insurance (which, in turn, depends on you having money.)

But even if we had completely discarded natural selection in matters pertaining to providing people with food and healthcare, it couldn't be stretched to "distributing spouses," simply because spouses are human, and are thus not to be treated as if they were commodities, like food or medicine.

As far as mate choice goes, natural selection still applies. And it SHOULD apply.

Modern healthcare at all is a rejection of national selection. Being rich shouldn't give you an exemption to pass on your defective genes if we accept the principle.

This is why arguments from nature don't really apply to modernity.

[Purpelia]

Modern healthcare at all is a rejection of national selection. Being rich shouldn't give you an exemption to pass on your defective genes if we accept the principle.

This is why arguments from nature don't really apply to modernity.

No, it really isn't. Natural selection is not something you can reject any more than breathing. What modern healthcare does is modify what parameters are important for the selection process moving it away from genetic predisposition toward good health and toward other factors like wealth, intelligence, ability to earn money etc. The process is still happening.

[Cannot think of a name]

You know what would make the idea of women not liking my so very much worse? Forcing one of them to be paired off with me so that now she not only doesn't like me, but resents that she's stuck with me. I'd rather die alone than die with someone telling me to pick up the fucking pace.

[Fartsniffage]

Every time I see this thread title I get a mental image of spouses in full wedding dress being catapulted around a country to where they're needed most.

I just thought I would share that.

[Ifreann]

Every time I see this thread title I get a mental image of spouses in full wedding dress being catapulted around a country to where they're needed most.

I just thought I would share that.

This is the 21st century, surely we can at least manage spouse cannons rather than spouse catapults. And we should really be working on spouse railguns.

Velocitas maritare.

[Cannot think of a name]

Every time I see this thread title I get a mental image of spouses in full wedding dress being catapulted around a country to where they're needed most.

I just thought I would share that.

This is the 21st century, surely we can at least manage spouse cannons rather than spouse catapults. And we should really be working on spouse railguns.

Velocitas maritare.

Or just airdropping spouses like propaganda leaflets in world war II

[United Muscovite Nations]

Modern healthcare at all is a rejection of national selection. Being rich shouldn't give you an exemption to pass on your defective genes if we accept the principle.

This is why arguments from nature don't really apply to modernity.

No, it really isn't. Natural selection is not something you can reject any more than breathing. What modern healthcare does is modify what parameters are important for the selection process moving it away from genetic predisposition toward good health and toward other factors like wealth, intelligence, ability to earn money etc. The process is still happening.

That's artificial selection, not natural selection.

[Cannot think of a name]

No, it really isn't. Natural selection is not something you can reject any more than breathing. What modern healthcare does is modify what parameters are important for the selection process moving it away from genetic predisposition toward good health and toward other factors like wealth, intelligence, ability to earn money etc. The process is still happening.

That's artificial selection, not natural selection.

That might be splitting hairs. Natural selection ultimately breaks down into survival of the fuckable more than anything else. We get caught up in 'the fittest' because in most instances the most fuckable is the best fed one that wasn't eaten by something else, but there are plenty of instances of species picking a mate or favoring traits that really can't be argued to do much more than give them boners. Plumage and dancing displays or random gathering of shit, stuff that doesn't really relate to an ability to find food or defend young, that shit just turns them on. That's not necessarily survival of the fittest, that's survival of the most fuckable. Advances in nutrition and medical sciences don't make our selections unnatural same as liking blue eyes or brown eyes or red hair or blonde hair, or if say you're really attracted to "Betties" but don't have enough tattoos or like rockabilly enough but dammit you'd really like to date a Bettie even if you know it'd end in disaster...

...where was I? Oh yeah. That's definitely not a survival instinct, but that's not artificial either. It's just survival of the fuckable.

[Yagon]

Or nasty/mean to other people, because while you're treating them like dirt, I'm wondering when I'll be next.

Just use your womanity to calm his darkest tendencies.

It sounds like the opening line from a terrible romance manga fan-fic: "He was seeking the woman who could calm his darkest tendencies...and alas, in the dark world into which he was born, this was not accomplished stochastically...."

[Black Koyunlu]

Every time I see this thread title I get a mental image of spouses in full wedding dress being catapulted around a country to where they're needed most.

I just thought I would share that.

This is the 21st century, surely we can at least manage spouse cannons rather than spouse catapults. And we should really be working on spouse railguns.

Velocitas maritare.

Now I am become Marriage, the destroyer of worlds

[Yagon]

This is the 21st century, surely we can at least manage spouse cannons rather than spouse catapults. And we should really be working on spouse railguns.

Velocitas maritare.

Now I am become Marriage, the destroyer of worlds

So the OP started by chasing a "right to life" of some kind, and now we're magnetically launching our marital partners at super sonic speeds.

I guess if each particle of their body still counts as "spouse", then they'll definitely be "distributed"...