4 ms·

> most obvious solution is to go back to enforced monogamy. Nothing repugnant about that... And there it is. Yes, that stance is awful. Going back implies rem

> most obvious solution is to go back to enforced monogamy. Nothing repugnant about that... And there it is. Yes, that stance is awful. Going back implies removing the right of women to choose who they partner with. Enforced monogamy removes the ability of folks to choose how many partners they have. And who gets to define 'monogamy' and who does the enforcement? It also completely ignores the poly folks out there, or the folks who are not interested in long term relationships. It's at best, a narrow and puritanical view of human sexuality.

2lwxxtj 5y ago
>Yes, that stance is awful. And I suspect that's exactly why he said "Why bother?".
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Yes, that stance is awful. And having a dating scene with an 80/20 distribution isn't? Monogamy seems like the only way to give everyone chance. So I guess this comes down to whether you think everyone should have a fair chance to find a partner. Do you? And if so how would you achieve that? > Going back implies removing the right of women to choose who they partner with. Nope, they can still choose whoever they want. The point is to get the top 20% of men committed and off the dating pool as quickly as possible. > Enforced monogamy removes the ability of folks to choose how many partners they have. Yes? That's the point. > And who gets to define 'monogamy' ... The dictionary. > who does the enforcement? I don't know, society? > It's at best, a narrow and puritanical view of human sexuality. Probably. I did say it was the most obvious. Do you have a better idea? Because this "just be better" stuff doesn't seem to be working. Assuming people even want to help these incels to begin with. Other posts I've seen just want to pacify them so they don't become violent or something.