[2lwxxtj]

>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.

[Pfhreak]

So... Oppress women is the solution you are proposing here? Why have you gendered it at all? Why do women have to face social stigma and not men? What about gay relationships, presumably you'd apply the same thinking (en route to a marriage or married)? What about poly relationships?

> I think from society's perspective, my wife should owe me a relationship.

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.

[2lwxxtj]

>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.

[dang]

We've banned this account for ideological flamewar (or whatever this is). Please don't create accounts to break the site rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[watwut]

Honestly, you not being able to have partner night have to do with you being coercive and potentially abusive partner. It is the way you think about relationships - you want to create set up in which your potential partners are helpless and have no choice. You don't care about how vulnerable to rape or domestic violence it would make them. You don't care about consequences to children.

As in, potential partners are better off single and alone.

[dang]

Please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[watwut]

Sorry. But I do really find this persons plans highly coercive and abusive. I dont just disagree, I in fact find it abusive and threat.

And it is also true that such setup would make women super vulnerable for rape or sexual abuse and then forced them to marry their rapists. That is exactly how it worked in the past and how it still works in some radical Christian circles.

It would also create environment in which domestic violence would flourish as women were unable to leave as partner starts the abusing.

The whole plan, in multiple comments, is about creating coercive setup that don't care about violence it puts people at risk for.

[dang]

I agree that the comments were egregious and banned the account. Nonetheless, it's against the site guidelines to feed such comments by replying to them—that just perpetuates flamewars.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

(Or, if you prefer Old Internet, please don't feed the trolls.)

When they don't get replies and are properly flagged, egregious comments are deprived of oxygen and the fires quickly die out. When they are fed, we end up in various circles of flamewar hell. Such flamewars are a co-creation of the provoker and the provokees. We're trying to avoid that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[2lwxxtj]

>Honestly, you not being able to have partner

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