On The Distribution of Spouses

[Costa Fierro]

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

As Scomagia said, because the people engaging in intercourse with them find them attractive. Physical attraction doesn't mean supermodel looks. It means being attracted to someone's looks.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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.

I agree, the right to life is the most basal right, but continuation of your memory is not a right, but something you must secure for yourself.

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.

They're supposed to enforce rights, in that they're meant to stop them from being violated, meaning they're meant to enforce the right to life by preventing murder. In order to have the right to life, one must have the right to death. A right implies an element of choice in whether or not to use it. Incels do not have a wife because no one will accept them. Sucks to be them, but that's free association. MGTOWs don't WANT a wife, so to force them to have a wife would be a direct violation of their human right to free association. Another very basal right is free association. Spousal distribution would directly violate this right.

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.

So, random state sanctioned arranged marriages? That's repulsive. What if two people are in love, but their name is drawn to marry some stranger? What if the two drawn people are on the other side of the country? What if they despise each other, or one of them is a domestic abuser? "It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well." Arranged marriages are disgusting, barbaric, loveless affairs which have only served to constrain humanity. If you were a friend of the poor, you wouldn't violate their civil rights by forcing them to spend the rest of their life with someone they don't even know.

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).

It would not reduce crime. The majority of people are paired up as is. "as women calm men's darkest tendencies," That's just repulsive, misanthropic misandry. You think people wpuld be happier if they were forced to pair up with strangers? Natalist policies are garbage.

NSG summer is in full swing, I see.

[Ethel mermania]

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

As Scomagia said, because the people engaging in intercourse with them find them attractive. Physical attraction doesn't mean supermodel looks. It means being attracted to someone's looks.

So ugly can be attractive, or is there something else involved?

[Saiwania]

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

Well duh, an ugly person who has charisma and is good at mingling with people in social contexts, will have more success in that endeavor than a shut in who only has looks but can't or doesn't make much of any effort to put themselves out there. In that situation they're "invisible." People just don't know they exist or don't consider them to be of any consequence. That was Elliot Rodger's situation in a way.

Looks are important, but not as important as simply knowing how to communicate well and believing in themselves.

Most looks I find, don't come automatically in that it takes work. Want a muscular body? You have to have good nutrition and exercise regularly. Want to look more appealing? You have to spend time on yourself to not have acne, to have well trimmed nails, white teeth, to sport a good shave and haircut, learn good fashion sense and etc.

If someone doesn't look as good as they can be, it is often just their lack of motivation or direction showing. Other people pick up on that subconsciously. They won't care too much about someone who "doesn't care" either.

[Katganistan]

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

No one said that you don't have your own individual criteria for a mate. However, consciously or not, attractiveness factors into everyone's choice of mate. This includes you, whether you like it or not. That's all that's been pointed out to you.

And another person with no ability to comprehend what I've said.
Next you'll be telling me what I like to eat, and what my favorite color is.

[Katganistan]

Physical attractiveness is a factor in who you chose as a partner. Physical attractiveness is a factor in what keeps you with them.

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

No they don't, because that doesn't fit in with their world view, Ethel! That's why I'm being told what attracts me.

The arrogance is astounding.

[Katganistan]

Presumably because the people who fuck them don't find them all that ugly.

True, it's only in some people where the ugly goes deep down to the bone.

And for me, that's the stupid, mean, and humorless.

[Costa Fierro]

So ugly can be attractive, or is there something else involved?

It really depends on the person in question. There are some genuinely ugly people out there that won't get attention even from those who are inebriated, but therein exists things that fall under the definition of "unconventionally attractive". For example, I consider facial piercings to be unattractive, others do not. Some men like women who are morbidly obese, others like them if they're nothing more than skin stretched over a skeleton.

The crux of the argument though is that physical attractiveness matters when looking for partners, because you have to filter out others whom you don't consider to be attractive, and in some cases, people who you think are too attractive. It also matters in ensuring continued attraction to that person in a relationship. It's importance does fluctuate, but when it comes to things like dating, it is considered very important, for both men and women. In the same line, the level of attractiveness is biased towards people who are more moderately attractive.

No they don't, because that doesn't fit in with their world view, Ethel! That's why I'm being told what attracts me.

The arrogance is astounding.

You're being told that physical attraction matters in partner selection and the continued relationship with that partner. What you consider attractive in terms of physical attributes a person has is irrelevant, as long as they are attractive to you.

And another person with no ability to comprehend what I've said.

We know what you're saying, the problem is that you have been responding to this as if somehow this is an attack on your character.

[West Leas Oros]

This idea wouldn’t work. If your spouse was simply allocated to you, it’s not a meaningful relationship. This is one of the few times I will oppose equal distribution.

[NeoOasis]

I agree with this.

But if the OP is being serious, then no. Arranged marriages should not be enforced by the state. People should not be forced to be in a relationship if they don’t wish to be. That is state sponsored rape.

Tbh, extramarital affairs would become extremely common in that system. very few people would willingly stay together with someone who they were forcibly partnered with by some government lottery.

Probably this, and I imagine everyone, but a few, would be pretty okay with this. Just imagine having the equivalent of a college roommate forced on you... for life.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of arranged marriage. The only upside I can see here is at least it isn't totally random. Marriage by lotter in comparison sounds like utter hell. I've never won anything playing any lottery, and I doubt I'd "win" here.

[Dogmeat]

Next you'll be telling me what I like to eat, and what my favorite color is.

Senior Moderator Blue.

[The Blaatschapen]

No one said that you don't have your own individual criteria for a mate. However, consciously or not, attractiveness factors into everyone's choice of mate. This includes you, whether you like it or not. That's all that's been pointed out to you.

And another person with no ability to comprehend what I've said.
Next you'll be telling me what I like to eat, and what my favorite color is.

Lamb

[Ethel mermania]

True, it's only in some people where the ugly goes deep down to the bone.

And for me, that's the stupid, mean, and humorless.

Stupidity and arrogance in combination is what does it for me.

I don't mind dumb people, not everyone is a genius
I don't mind arrogant people if they can back it up.

But the combination of the two, and they do seem to go together quite a bit, I get murder in my eyes.


Kindness to me is a turn on.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

We should do like in my hentai and have baby factories where either the men or the women are kept, depending on the target demographic.

[The Blaatschapen]

And for me, that's the stupid, mean, and humorless.

Stupidity and arrogance in combination is what does it for me.

I don't mind dumb people, not everyone is a genius
I don't mind arrogant people if they can back it up.

But the combination of the two, and they do seem to go together quite a bit, I get murder in my eyes.


Kindness to me is a turn on.

You must have very conflicting feelings about me.

[Nettunia]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

Thread is super long so I apologize if someone responded to this before. But there's an interesting manga called Love and Lies, where the premise is that the government of Japan is able to do perfect matchmaking based on people's collected profiles and it enforces their marriage. Story isn't finished though so it's unknown whether the author will let this work out in the end or the MC will choose to elope with the crappy highschool sweetheart he was with before the government called him.

(They also made an anime from it but the ending is so utterly bad it's not worth it)

[Mint Jelly]

Stupidity and arrogance in combination is what does it for me.

I don't mind dumb people, not everyone is a genius
I don't mind arrogant people if they can back it up.

But the combination of the two, and they do seem to go together quite a bit, I get murder in my eyes.


Kindness to me is a turn on.

You must have very conflicting feelings about me.

Him maybe.. but I don't.

[Salandriagado]

It seems to me that you have asserted it repeatedly, but provided precisely zero evidence for your claim.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens- ... ality.html

Researchers asked young women (ages 15 to 29) to choose potential dates from a series of photographs and descriptions, while the women's mothers (ages 37 to 61) were asked to select possible boyfriends for their daughters using the same information. Results showed that a man's looks influenced both groups of women more strongly than his personality profile. This held true even if a man's profile was filled with highly desirable personal qualities, such as being respectful, honest and trustworthy.
...

The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine Fugère, a professor of social psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic.

...

The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities.

Both young women looking for men and mothers seeking boyfriends for their daughters consider a minimum level of attractiveness to be an important criterion in a potential mate, the researchers concluded.

So we know (ignoring, for now, all of the other problems with either this study or the reporting of it that have already been mentioned) that some women do that. I'm not seeing any evidence for this being universal. In particular, there's some pretty good reasons for thinking it isn't: prosopagnosia exists.

[Salandriagado]

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

Physical attractiveness is a factor in who you chose as a partner. Physical attractiveness is a factor in what keeps you with them.

Oh look, more blind assertions.

[Salandriagado]

So ugly can be attractive, or is there something else involved?

It really depends on the person in question. There are some genuinely ugly people out there that won't get attention even from those who are inebriated, but therein exists things that fall under the definition of "unconventionally attractive". For example, I consider facial piercings to be unattractive, others do not. Some men like women who are morbidly obese, others like them if they're nothing more than skin stretched over a skeleton.

The crux of the argument though is that physical attractiveness matters when looking for partners, because you have to filter out others whom you don't consider to be attractive, and in some cases, people who you think are too attractive. It also matters in ensuring continued attraction to that person in a relationship. It's importance does fluctuate, but when it comes to things like dating, it is considered very important, for both men and women. In the same line, the level of attractiveness is biased towards people who are more moderately attractive.

No they don't, because that doesn't fit in with their world view, Ethel! That's why I'm being told what attracts me.

The arrogance is astounding.

You're being told that physical attraction matters in partner selection and the continued relationship with that partner. What you consider attractive in terms of physical attributes a person has is irrelevant, as long as they are attractive to you.

And another person with no ability to comprehend what I've said.

We know what you're saying, the problem is that you have been responding to this as if somehow this is an attack on your character.

Again: you are claiming that this is universal. You have provided no evidence for that, nor have you responded to the evidence to the contrary that has been presented.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Hmmmm, while arranged marriages have served humans well in the past, it has also been prone to abuse and mistreatment for political gain. A cruel husband makes for a poor companion in bed, as well does a shrew, does not make a good wife.

Considering modern marriages it is likely the best version of marriage by far. If people follow the cultural norm, and get permission from their parents, it tends to leave a positive reinforcement that your parents believe that the marriage will work and they'll be a good spouse. Essentially all the positives of arranged marriage without the bad, since you the individual ultimately makes the decision.

A lottery system would be foolish, since it's a gamble. What is good about marriage ends up irrelevant, since the choice no longer is yours or your parents- taking the importance of getting married into a mere milestone, like getting out of middle school. Furthermore more people will end up unhappy, and a unhappy marriage makes a poor marriage. Besides merely funding this system with tax money would be a pain for sure.

[Costa Fierro]

Oh look, more blind assertions.

Considering I have provided sources to back that up, they're not a blind assertions.

Again: you are claiming that this is universal. You have provided no evidence for that, nor have you responded to the evidence to the contrary that has been presented.

I have provided evidence on more than one occasion. With regards to the evidence presented against me, someone repeatedly going "nuh uh" does not constitute evidence. It simply constitutes a contrary opinion.

[Salandriagado]

Oh look, more blind assertions.

Considering I have provided sources to back that up, they're not a blind assertions.

Again: you are claiming that this is universal. You have provided no evidence for that, nor have you responded to the evidence to the contrary that has been presented.

I have provided evidence on more than one occasion. With regards to the evidence presented against me, someone repeatedly going "nuh uh" does not constitute evidence. It simply constitutes a contrary opinion.

No you haven't. You've presented evidence that some women underestimate how strongly they weight physical attractiveness, which is wildly different from your claim that literally every human assigns a non-zero weight to physical attractiveness, against which a counterexample absolutely is evidence. And that also isn't the only evidence presented: you appear to have missed the post bringing up such factors as Prosopagnosia.

[Costa Fierro]

No you haven't.

I have. Take the time to read them please.

You've presented evidence that some women underestimate how strongly they weight physical attractiveness, which is wildly different from your claim that literally every human assigns a non-zero weight to physical attractiveness, against which a counterexample absolutely is evidence. And that also isn't the only evidence presented: you appear to have missed the post bringing up such factors as Prosopagnosia.

It's not wildly different. Kat said that she didn't believe that physical attractiveness wasn't important to her, or important at all, and I said "that's not true" and provided evidence that proved this. Her refusal to accept that is not evidence, it's a perfect example of that underestimation about how much physical attractiveness matters.

[Salandriagado]

No you haven't.

I have. Take the time to read them please.

You've presented evidence that some women underestimate how strongly they weight physical attractiveness, which is wildly different from your claim that literally every human assigns a non-zero weight to physical attractiveness, against which a counterexample absolutely is evidence. And that also isn't the only evidence presented: you appear to have missed the post bringing up such factors as Prosopagnosia.

It's not wildly different. Kat said that she didn't believe that physical attractiveness wasn't important to her, or important at all, and I said "that's not true" and provided evidence that proved this. Her refusal to accept that is not evidence, it's a perfect example of that underestimation about how much physical attractiveness matters.

They are wildly different. "Some" (or even "most") and "all" are wildly different statements, and you have provided only evidence for the former. I notice you continue to ignore the whole Prosopagnosia point.