4 ms·

Why isn't there a more political movement around "lookism?" Seems equivalent to the body positivity movement and the anti fat-shaming movement. Incels and othe

Why isn't there a more political movement around "lookism?" Seems equivalent to the body positivity movement and the anti fat-shaming movement. Incels and other types who find little success with women have a certain right to be frustrated that we just accept other forms of social justice while leaving them out. Consider that some european states already believe that sex is a transcendental enough experience to call for or implement policies like this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-sexual-assistance-prostitution-disabled-people-greens-scharfenberg-a7519721.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-sexu... https://www.mic.com/articles/85201/the-surprising-way-the-netherlands-is-helping-its-disabled-have-sex https://www.mic.com/articles/85201/the-surprising-way-the-ne... Incels and other folks who are truly marginalized from the dating and/or casual sex market should have have a good reason to long for state assistance. This would be very good for society as a strong reason for radicalization of the youth is shame over being marganalized from the sexual marketplace...

meiraleal 6y ago
Because men prefer to aim to be in the top 20% than make life better (and average) to 100%.
throway98752343 6y ago
Capitalism's answer is to improve access and affordability of "cosmetic" surgery so everyone can keep up with the Kardashians. You won't have a right to romantic love, but you'll have a right to become hot enough to qualify for it. That or sex robots fill the demand. Either way, the economy grows.
lopmotr 6y ago
I tend to agree. However it's not hopeless - we already have a system to serve them. It's the culture of monogamous relationships and marriage. That removes the most attractive men from the dating pool, leaving the remaining women available for the less attractive men. If we didn't have that, we'd probably instead have a lot of polygamy with most men missing out entirely and most women sharing a partner. That's effectively what it's like for short term relationships - women don't get exclusive access to the attractive men - they have to take turns.
leetcrew 6y ago
if nothing else, it's just not practical. fulfilling basic material needs is a tractable, if politically difficult, problem. a dollar taken at gunpoint buys just as much food as one freely given. moral qualms aside, you can force people to marry, but you can't make them care about each other.
- jvsg 6y ago
  >you can force people to marry, but you can't make them care about each other That's incorrect. Arranged marriages are forced in some sense, but people do come around to care. Put a man and woman together in captivity and they start caring for each other. That's how human nature is. And regarding the gunpoint thing, there's something called Bride kidnapping in central asia. Ofcourse those brides cry for first few days or so, but eventually settle in, with equal or probably more happiness than the women of the so called free world.

meiraleal 6y ago

Because men prefer to aim to be in the top 20% than make life better (and average) to 100%.

throway98752343 6y ago

Capitalism's answer is to improve access and affordability of "cosmetic" surgery so everyone can keep up with the Kardashians. You won't have a right to romantic love, but you'll have a right to become hot enough to qualify for it. That or sex robots fill the demand. Either way, the economy grows.

lopmotr 6y ago

I tend to agree. However it's not hopeless - we already have a system to serve them. It's the culture of monogamous relationships and marriage. That removes the most attractive men from the dating pool, leaving the remaining women available for the less attractive men. If we didn't have that, we'd probably instead have a lot of polygamy with most men missing out entirely and most women sharing a partner. That's effectively what it's like for short term relationships - women don't get exclusive access to the attractive men - they have to take turns.

leetcrew 6y ago

if nothing else, it's just not practical. fulfilling basic material needs is a tractable, if politically difficult, problem. a dollar taken at gunpoint buys just as much food as one freely given. moral qualms aside, you can force people to marry, but you can't make them care about each other.

jvsg 6y ago
>you can force people to marry, but you can't make them care about each other That's incorrect. Arranged marriages are forced in some sense, but people do come around to care. Put a man and woman together in captivity and they start caring for each other. That's how human nature is. And regarding the gunpoint thing, there's something called Bride kidnapping in central asia. Ofcourse those brides cry for first few days or so, but eventually settle in, with equal or probably more happiness than the women of the so called free world.