On The Distribution of Spouses

[The Empire of Pretantia]

For the longest time I've been puzzled as to why this discussion even exists. And not like why he came to this idea. I can understand that thought process once you make certain base assumptions such as that slavery is not evil and that sex is the single most important thing in all existence and can thus justify slavery. What I don't understand is why the OP feels sex of all things is that important, either as a breeding tool or for recreation.

I mean seriously, what is it these days with entire movements based around sex being the be all and end all of human existence? It's like we were mindless animals or something. It's just dumbfounding.

Sex IS the end all be all of human existence. Freud was right, buildings are symbolic, Alien is a masterpiece, and Katy Perry should be a regular on Sesame Street alongside Alexis Texas.

[Costa Fierro]

It's fucking arrogant telling me that what I am saying about myself is untrue.

It would be if that is what I was doing. I am saying that people factor in physical attractiveness when selecting a partner. The importance or what constitutes that particular person's personal preferences doesn't matter. It is a factor. That is it.

And will continue to do so, because "the study says so, so that's what you do" is a shit argument.

The "study" says physical attraction is a factor. That's it. It doesn't say it's important, it doesn't say that it is the be all and end all of attraction. It says it is a factor. That's it.

[Isilanka]

For the longest time I've been puzzled as to why this discussion even exists. And not like why he came to this idea. I can understand that thought process once you make certain base assumptions such as that slavery is not evil and that sex is the single most important thing in all existence and can thus justify slavery. What I don't understand is why the OP feels sex of all things is that important, either as a breeding tool or for recreation.

I mean seriously, what is it these days with entire movements based around sex being the be all and end all of human existence? It's like we were mindless animals or something. It's just dumbfounding.

It's a good question. People venting their sexual frustration on the internet, maybe ?
I mean just look at the incel community and more broadly speaking the whole manosphere, it's all about sex, sex and sex (and of course, heterosexual sex based solely on penetration, because why the hell would you bother with anythng resembling complexity in human romantic relationships ?).

Like I love how the OP sees mariage solely through the lenses of sex and offspring. Historically speaking arranged marriages weren't only about having children, they were also seen as a means to unite bloodlines, create political bonds or seal alliances. Yes, children were expected, as a fact of life, but it wasn't the only focus.

(Which by the way made me think that the most humane way of implementing arranged marriages would be to consider marriages as a purely political/financial alliance totally separated from love and based on adoption rather than natural children, while adultery would be tolerated as long as the alliance remains. I think it's still a terrible idea, but I can see a fantasy feudal society working on that basis.)

[Salandriagado]

It's fucking arrogant telling me that what I am saying about myself is untrue.

It would be if that is what I was doing. I am saying that people factor in physical attractiveness when selecting a partner. The importance or what constitutes that particular person's personal preferences doesn't matter. It is a factor. That is it.

And will continue to do so, because "the study says so, so that's what you do" is a shit argument.

The "study" says physical attraction is a factor. That's it. It doesn't say it's important, it doesn't say that it is the be all and end all of attraction. It says it is a factor. That's it.

It is a factor for some women. You claimed that Kat, specifically, is one of those women. For which you have no evidence at all.

[Costa Fierro]

It is a factor for some women. You claimed that Kat, specifically, is one of those women. For which you have no evidence at all.

It's not a factor for some women, it's a factor for everyone. And I have provided evidence, which you have ignored.

[Salandriagado]

It is a factor for some women. You claimed that Kat, specifically, is one of those women. For which you have no evidence at all.

It's not a factor for some women, it's a factor for everyone. And I have provided evidence, which you have ignored.

No, you haven't. Your evidence says that on average, it is a factor for people. That's not the same as it being a factor for people. A similar study would give you an identical result with "sex quality" in place of "physical appearance", and yet sex quality is entirely irrelevant to me, being as how I'm asexual. General patterns do not give definite results for specific individuals. Ever.

[Costa Fierro]

No, you haven't.

Clearly you are not interested in the evidence presented because it would mean you'd have to admit you are wrong. I have no interest in continuing the debate with someone who ignores evidence presented.

[Salandriagado]

No, you haven't.

Clearly you are not interested in the evidence presented because it would mean you'd have to admit you are wrong. I have no interest in continuing the debate with someone who ignores evidence presented.

I notice you cut out the part of my post that entirely refuted your ridiculous point. Again.

[Kubra]

No, you haven't.

Clearly you are not interested in the evidence presented because it would mean you'd have to admit you are wrong. I have no interest in continuing the debate with someone who ignores evidence presented.

You presented the evidence to the contrary yourself lol, you merely misrepresented it.
I mean come now: define an average for us.

[The South Falls]

This is opening up the world to abuse, and widows/widowers. What happens when your spouse dies? Do you get put back in the lottery and matched up with a 20-30-year-old? Anyway, not everybody wants or needs children. You claim to be a friend of the poor, but fail to remember that children are hella expensive. I know, because I am a child. We break shit, and when we're small, we poop on shit, pee on shit, and ruin things. We take $100,000-200,000 to age 18 on average to raise. Per child. That's not exactly great for a person with no cash.

This has so many problems.

[Isilanka]

This is opening up the world to abuse, and widows/widowers. What happens when your spouse dies? Do you get put back in the lottery and matched up with a 20-30-year-old? Anyway, not everybody wants or needs children. You claim to be a friend of the poor, but fail to remember that children are hella expensive. I know, because I am a child. We break shit, and when we're small, we poop on shit, pee on shit, and ruin things. We take $100,000-200,000 to age 18 on average to raise. Per child. That's not exactly great for a person with no cash.

This has so many problems.

In my experience, most people who claim to be "friends of the poor" and who promote having lots of children don't actually care about the children once they're out of the womb.
As others said, this system is at best an enormous incentive to generalized adultery, at worst state-sponsored organised rape.

And how do you even implement that ? I mean at best you leave a certain amount of freedom to people and they'll just start treating all of this as a joke. They'll get a spouse through the lottery, marry their spouse and then live their own lives alone. Maybe one marriage in a thousand will end up with a happy match, yeah, nice. In fact it might even make birthrates decrease because, surprise surprise, most humans aren't ready to raise a child with a random person they don't have any affinity towards.

And even worse how do you even implement that stuff ? Like, imagining you actually have a government insane enough to start this, how does it work in practice ? How do you force people to accept that ? I mean, with the right ideology you can make people accept lots of terrible things, but somethint that's this arbitrary and stupid ? How do you even begin justifying this ? Yes, I know, people in the past accepted arranged marriages, and still do in some parts of the world, but that's because they're a tradition and bring a benefit in a specific social order (like, say, feudal Europe). This thing here can't even be defended. I don't see how you implement it without pointing a gun at everyone's head.

[NeoOasis]

I just realized... communist revolutions would take on a dramatically new meaning in this world. Instead of seizing the means of production, the masses will rise up to seize the means of reproduction.

I remain cold to this idea unless my wife is good looking, smart, and somehow perfect despite my contradicting wishes and desires.

[Costa Fierro]

Clearly you are not interested in the evidence presented because it would mean you'd have to admit you are wrong. I have no interest in continuing the debate with someone who ignores evidence presented.

You presented the evidence to the contrary yourself lol, you merely misrepresented it.
I mean come now: define an average for us.

I've done neither of those things. The evidence displayed proves that physical attraction is a factor for anyone in deciding a partner, or at least those who have the mental and physical capabilities to reproduce. This isn't something you can just brush away by claiming you're above it, this is basic human nature.

[Purpelia]

I just realized... communist revolutions would take on a dramatically new meaning in this world. Instead of seizing the means of production, the masses will rise up to seize the means of reproduction.

I remain cold to this idea unless my wife is good looking, smart, and somehow perfect despite my contradicting wishes and desires.

I already coined a term for this. Sexual-Stalinism.

[West Leas Oros]

I just realized... communist revolutions would take on a dramatically new meaning in this world. Instead of seizing the means of production, the masses will rise up to seize the means of reproduction.

I remain cold to this idea unless my wife is good looking, smart, and somehow perfect despite my contradicting wishes and desires.

Trump is a commie. Grab em by the pussy is just code for seize the means of reproduction.

[Hurdergaryp]

This is opening up the world to abuse, and widows/widowers. What happens when your spouse dies? Do you get put back in the lottery and matched up with a 20-30-year-old? Anyway, not everybody wants or needs children. You claim to be a friend of the poor, but fail to remember that children are hella expensive. I know, because I am a child. We break shit, and when we're small, we poop on shit, pee on shit, and ruin things. We take $100,000-200,000 to age 18 on average to raise. Per child. That's not exactly great for a person with no cash.

This has so many problems.

It is supposed to have as many problems as possible, given how it is a concept developed by frustrated people on the internet. Problems are a given.

[Costa Fierro]

I just realized... communist revolutions would take on a dramatically new meaning in this world. Instead of seizing the means of production, the masses will rise up to seize the means of reproduction.

I remain cold to this idea unless my wife is good looking, smart, and somehow perfect despite my contradicting wishes and desires.

I already coined a term for this. Sexual-Stalinism.

Nah. Just good ol' fashioned Eromarxism.

[Kubra]

You presented the evidence to the contrary yourself lol, you merely misrepresented it.
I mean come now: define an average for us.

I've done neither of those things. The evidence displayed proves that physical attraction is a factor for anyone in deciding a partner, or at least those who have the mental and physical capabilities to reproduce. This isn't something you can just brush away by claiming you're above it, this is basic human nature.

Yes, and your sources citiations use methodology that calculates averages and statistical significance. As anyone will tell you, deriving universalist statements from such is pretty iffy.
An average is an average, statistical significance is statistical significance, and they're usually indicative of something. While not probable, it's entirely possible for someone to state the truth when they say "I do not care for attractiveness one iota". Human behaviour is complex and multifaceted bruv, no method of data collection has yet been discovered by which human behaviour can be universalised mathematically and rendered as (comparatively) simple as physics equations.

[Cappuccina]

I've done neither of those things. The evidence displayed proves that physical attraction is a factor for anyone in deciding a partner, or at least those who have the mental and physical capabilities to reproduce. This isn't something you can just brush away by claiming you're above it, this is basic human nature.

Yes, and your sources citiations use methodology that calculates averages and statistical significance. As anyone will tell you, deriving universalist statements from such is pretty iffy.
An average is an average, statistical significance is statistical significance, and they're usually indicative of something. While not probable, it's entirely possible for someone to state the truth when they say "I do not care for attractiveness one iota". Human behaviour is complex and multifaceted bruv, no method of data collection has yet been discovered by which human behaviour can be universalised mathematically and rendered as (comparatively) simple as physics equations.

Tbh, anyone who thinks people are capable of completely ignoring physical attraction as part of the equation of their choice in partners is kidding themselves. I'm willing to believe that it is less of a conscious factor for some people, but not there at all, that's kinda utopian.

[Kubra]

Yes, and your sources citiations use methodology that calculates averages and statistical significance. As anyone will tell you, deriving universalist statements from such is pretty iffy.
An average is an average, statistical significance is statistical significance, and they're usually indicative of something. While not probable, it's entirely possible for someone to state the truth when they say "I do not care for attractiveness one iota". Human behaviour is complex and multifaceted bruv, no method of data collection has yet been discovered by which human behaviour can be universalised mathematically and rendered as (comparatively) simple as physics equations.

Tbh, anyone who thinks people are capable of completely ignoring physical attraction as part of the equation of their choice in partners is kidding themselves. I'm willing to believe that it is less of a conscious factor for some people, but not there at all, that's kinda utopian.

As I said, it's not probable. However, there's no real harm in taking folks at face value when they claim such. We know the particular value placed on attractiveness is something with variation possibly up to extreme points, and it doesn't harm anyones chances of getting in each others pants (which, on NSG, is not impossible but certainly improbable).

[Cappuccina]

Tbh, anyone who thinks people are capable of completely ignoring physical attraction as part of the equation of their choice in partners is kidding themselves. I'm willing to believe that it is less of a conscious factor for some people, but not there at all, that's kinda utopian.

As I said, it's not probable. However, there's no real harm in taking folks at face value when they claim such. We know the particular value placed on attractiveness is something with variation possibly up to extreme points, and it doesn't harm anyones chances of getting in each others pants (which, on NSG, is not impossible but certainly improbable).

I advise against taking anyones anything at face value, personally.

Nontheless, people of all sorts manage to horizontal tango with somebody.

[Kubra]

As I said, it's not probable. However, there's no real harm in taking folks at face value when they claim such. We know the particular value placed on attractiveness is something with variation possibly up to extreme points, and it doesn't harm anyones chances of getting in each others pants (which, on NSG, is not impossible but certainly improbable).

I advise against taking anyones anything at face value, personally.

Nontheless, people of all sorts manage to horizontal tango with somebody.

On any anonymous internet forum? I mean, you may as well, else we take to assuming anyone we talk to here from the US makes 60k annually. Can't confirm shit here, don't even know if you lot are actually very sophisticated computer programs that understand syntax and automatically reply to each other.

[Isilanka]

I just realized... communist revolutions would take on a dramatically new meaning in this world. Instead of seizing the means of production, the masses will rise up to seize the means of reproduction.

I remain cold to this idea unless my wife is good looking, smart, and somehow perfect despite my contradicting wishes and desires.

I already coined a term for this. Sexual-Stalinism.

To be fair I think you're being too nice with this idea.
I mean Sexual-stalinism would require an arbitrary system but it would be based on some kind of logic. I assume the state would assign a spouse based on criteria like social class, work or region. You're a strong industry worker ? You'll marry another strong industry worker to have even stronger children. For example.

It would be oppressive as fuck but less stupid than "lol let's randomly assign spouses to people as if they were fucking Sims to play with".

[Theodosiya]

I'll be honest here. It would be very difficult to work. Arranged marriages, in my opinion, sometime doesn't work. Well, some might, but the chance for it to fail is higher. Call me a hopeful silly guy, but I think people who are comfortable and compatible with each other would have better relationship in average, simply because they want it, not forced into it.

I used to think like this when I'm younger, but as I got older, I start to learn to be more realistic. With this spouse distribution system, I would be guaranteed to have a wife, but would I be happy? The chance of "No" would be higher. I'll rather wait for long time, maybe late twenties (Nineteen turning twenty in few weeks), but in a relationship I would sure of it's future, rather than one where the chance of it to fail is high.

EDIT : I'll spoil a bit. I tried, but so far failed to have girlfriend, both offline and online, local or foreigner, and given my situation ATM, that might be the best, because even now I'm still not fully capable to support myself.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, and your sources citiations use methodology that calculates averages and statistical significance. As anyone will tell you, deriving universalist statements from such is pretty iffy.
An average is an average, statistical significance is statistical significance, and they're usually indicative of something. While not probable, it's entirely possible for someone to state the truth when they say "I do not care for attractiveness one iota". Human behaviour is complex and multifaceted bruv, no method of data collection has yet been discovered by which human behaviour can be universalised mathematically and rendered as (comparatively) simple as physics equations.

Tbh, anyone who thinks people are capable of completely ignoring physical attraction as part of the equation of their choice in partners is kidding themselves. I'm willing to believe that it is less of a conscious factor for some people, but not there at all, that's kinda utopian.

Yeah, no. You're just wrong. This is blatantly obvious, because asexuals exist.