If the dating market is a market, then why it's not regulated,at least online dating

[Harlen Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Karmadhi yea I personally "am" attracted to ruthless guys.

 

Fairly typical. 

[Karmadhi]

@Preety_India Unfortunately most women are not as self-aware as you are. You cannot use members on this forum as the example of the typical person out there. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Karmadhi

[Bando]

Nice little food for thought question are we talking about sex or finding a relationship? Losing your virginity is not hard if you put effort to make yourself more attractive and become a more social person. Getting a quality relationship on the other hand can be more difficult as you have to be a pretty well rounded guy, (emotionally, physically ,mentally) ect. But seriously getting laid is not as hard as people make it out to be. 

You can compare it to making money, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why most people live a poverty-to- lower middle class lifestyle. It's mostly just bad choices and laziness (on a macro-level). Not saying its going to be easy but the bottle neck here seems to be information not anything else.

Most say they want millions of dollars but would be more than happy if they made enough to cover their living expenses and were financially free, just like how many guys say they would love to bang hundreds of chicks when in reality if they banged like 20-30 they would be content with that its all perspective.

[Karmadhi]

1 minute ago, Bando said:

are we talking about sex or finding a relationship?

Both tbh but no need for high quality relationships. This is a function of having it or not, not having it with a "high quality person".  You cannot talk about eating chef level food when you are starving, plain bread makes you happy at that level of hunger. Same logic here.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

@Leo Gura What can be done is for society not to demonize cold approach so much. It is hard for people to do it when 99% of society labels you a creepy weirdo for doing it.

That's not gonna happen because most PUAs are creepy and it is not very sustainable.

Quote

Imagine if learning new skills to get better job was demonized, how stupid would that be. I am not confusing being creepy and harassing with cold approach.

Cold approach is too socially unacceptable to be mainstream. Stop expecting mainstream support for such radical things.

Quote

Also online dating should either be banned or heavily regulated.

This is silly.

By that logic all porn and video games should be banned to.

If you ban all video games and porn, I guarantee you will solve the Incel problem over night.

Quote

but if kept at least to be made equal for everyone. Ads should be enough, no need to charge on top with boosts and shit like that. Greedy devils those firms are.

This is silly too. Companies are free to charge for premium services and visibility on their platforms.

Besides which, the cost is negligible.

Quote

Lastly, yes education is out there however we are not talking about special cases. We are talking about the average person.

The average person is not some creepy, broken incel who needs pickup.

The average person learns so socialize and date in school and college just through interacting with their peers.

Quote

 Very few channels i found to be effective yet conscious and ethical.

This goes for all social systems and businesses.

Quote

Education and removal of stigma for learning this stuff would be the best solution imo.

Maybe in 200 years your wish will come true.

- - - - - - - -

The bottom line is: you can keep wishing for someone to make life easier for you, or you can just bite the bullet and go talk to some girls.

[Harlen Kelly]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The bottom line is: you can keep wishing for someone to make life easier for you, or you can just bite the bullet and go talk to some girls.

It all boils down to: Talk to girls and stop the mental jerk offs. 

[Preety_India]

@Karmadhi I like having conversations with you. You're a very intelligent guy. Thank you for supporting me. It means a lot to me.

 

 

 

[Emerald]

Because regulating the dating market would mean regulating the dating/sexual choices of women without their consent.

Women in this scenario become the commodity that some regulating body (like the government) distribute to men. And men then become a class that are entitled to women as a commodity.

This is why you can't have a regulated dating market.

[Harlen Kelly]

@Emerald ''But why can I not have women as a commodity? What's wrong with women as a commodity?'' (sarcasm)

I can hear the guy saying. 

[Emerald]

22 minutes ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@Emerald ''But why can I not have women as a commodity? What's wrong with women as a commodity?'' (sarcasm)

I can hear the guy saying. 

I definitely know that some would make that argument. 

[Preety_India]

Where does commodification of women originate from?

 

[TK2021]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Because regulating the dating market would mean regulating the dating/sexual choices of women without their consent.

Women in this scenario become the commodity that some regulating body (like the government) distribute to men. And men then become a class that are entitled to women as a commodity.

This is why you can't have a regulated dating market.

He's not alluding to forcing women to have sex or something. That's quite a ridiculous strawman. He's seeing and pointing out to a MASSIVE societal issue, which is the unmet needs of a vast majority of men, and seeking to find healthy solutions. Not for himself, but on a societal scale.

I don't think any of the answers so far really understand the gravity of this problem - and the propositions given so far have missed the root of the problem. The problem is that when women are given sexual freedom it results into a Pareto Distribution, where 20% of the males get 80% of the women - at least in a purely sexual sense. This is the case, even if all the men are attractive. Only the top 20% most attractive ones will clear the table. Now I'm not saying that we should revert back to arranged marriages or something, but this is some really serious inequality, which is just mopped under the rug. And nobody has any solutions for this inequality, except for these sexless men to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Which is such a silly and naive, dead end proposition anyways, when taking into consideration the sexual nature of men and women.

There is zero empathy for these people - in fact, there only seems to be disdain. Just like the cliche capitalist views a poor person. "He is just a loser, he deserves his fate. UNLESS HE WORKS HARD. And even if he works hard and doesn't succeed, then he is just a loser, who deserves his suffering and it is not my problem." We cannot extend our empathy towards this issue - why is that? 

[soos_mite_ah]

@Preety_India It comes from the ye ol days when women were seen as the property of their husbands and fathers because men had so much authority over women to where they dictated all of her personal decisions. They were seen as a maid who would pop out children and that's it. Forget her personal goals, desire for education, agency of her sexuality, financial autonomy, emotions, or anything that would make her an independent person with rights.

Seeing people as property opens the door of all type of human rights violation ranging from sexism, slavery, and worker exploitation. You use people as tools for your selfishness without looking at what their agenda might be. It's easy to use, beat up, and discard an object because an object isn't sentient. It's difficult to do that to someone you see as similar to you.

When you identify as something or identify with someone, hurting them becomes a moral dilemma because it also hurts you because your ego picks up on the lack of love. To expand your consciousness, you need to expand your sense of self to include all of consciousness instead of the sliver your carved out for yourself that only includes your race, your family, your gender, your sexual orientation etc. Seeing people as property makes people more ruthless because they see objects as something they can't possibly identify with.  

[Harlen Kelly]

10 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

He's not alluding to forcing women to have sex or something. That's quite a ridiculous strawman. He's seeing and pointing out to a MASSIVE societal issue, which is the unmet needs of a vast majority of men, and seeking to find healthy solutions. Not for himself, but on a societal scale.

I don't think any of the answers so far really understand the gravity of this problem - and the propositions given so far have missed the root of the problem. The problem is that when women are given sexual freedom it results into a Pareto Distribution, where 20% of the males get 80% of the women - at least in a purely sexual sense. This is the case, even if all the men are attractive. Only the top 20% most attractive ones will clear the table. Now I'm not saying that we should revert back to arranged marriages or something, but this is some really serious inequality, which is just mopped under the rug. And nobody has any solutions for this inequality, except for these sexless men to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Which is such a silly and naive, dead end proposition anyways, when taking into consideration the sexual nature of men and women.

There is zero empathy for these people - in fact, there only seems to be disdain. Just like the cliche capitalist views a poor person. "He is just a loser, he deserves his fate. UNLESS HE WORKS HARD. And even if he works hard and doesn't succeed, then he is just a loser, who deserves his suffering and it is not my problem." We cannot extend our empathy towards this issue - why is that? 

What solution do you propose?

[Preety_India]

18 minutes ago, soos_mite_ah said:

Seeing people as property opens the door of all type of human rights violation ranging from sexism, slavery, and worker exploitation.

Yes that's exactly what I had pointed out before, to me considering women as a resource of gratification looks like slavery.

I don't know what other people think. To me human emotions are more important than someone's needs 

 

[Himanshu]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

In the future I would like to see schools teaching masculunity and femininity courses.

What do you think about David DeAngelo's and David Deida's material?

I am finding David De's material wholesome and balanced and RSD a bit too objectifying and rudimentary. Maybe just my preference. 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, TK2021 said:

There is zero empathy for these people

And how about empathy for women struggling to find stable long-term male providers?

How about we regulate the dating market such that you cannot sleep with a woman unless you show the government your bank account. And if your bank account has less then $100k cash, no sex for you.

The framing of this entire thread is itself sexist and deeply male-biased. It ignores the reproductive difficulties and agenda of women. Because this thread is just another lame attempt at making excuse for not talking to girls.

The excuses you guys invent are truly crafty. Anything to not talk to a girl.

You feel entitled to sex but you don't feel the need to work for it.

Regulating capitalism is a lot easier than regulating dating. Capitalism already has regulations in place, so tightening those regulations is reasonable and doable. And the excesses of capitalism affect all genders, races, peoples, rather than one segment of the population.

[intotheblack]

you can’t regulate dating, would be impossible. 

Just comes down to lack of socialising and relationship education from a young age.
most people learn this already, of course unconsciously learning, but naturally learning.

relationship education is already changing and in the U.K. it’s now compulsory for primary school children and it’s already been part of the curriculum in Scandinavia for years.  

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education/relationships-education-primary

It’s ever since the rise of the Internet and video games that we saw the rise of hermits, before this a hermit was simply a book worm, but even they would still go out and meet people.
 Just so happens that this all entwined with women having more freedom of choice.  So people will think ‘yeah it’s the women’s fault, we should never have allowed them choice!’  Without realising that as society changes, you also need to change with it, not resist it.

Most of today’s generation also pretty much skipped a healthy stage blue foundation and went straight into orange/ red-orange so we have a lot of low integrity, materialistic, self absorbed and unloving, disrespectful and entitled people running around. 

get off the Internet, go socialise, integrate some healthy stage blue and be a better human.  All starts with reparenting yourself. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by intotheblack

[somegirl]

Wishing society and human nature would be different to suit your lack of willingness to put yourself out there and find someone you like and who likes you back, is silly. 

Reality is already the way it is. What attracts women and what attracts men is the way it is. Instead of wishing things would be different and "women lower their standards and be less picky and entitled" because some men have trouble with how things already are, it would be wiser to learn the rules of the game and play by it. 

Girls also have to learn rules, what works and what doesn't. Girls also have their own struggles, which are valid just like men have their own.

Edited May 27, 2021 by somegirl

[Shin]

Just fucking go talk to girls !

It's not Everest we ask you to climb ???

It's not that hard, just scary, but you know what, everything in life that matters will be scary.

You can't just pick which hottie you're gonna fuck with a button like in Mass Effect, you gotta actually move your body, your mouth, and get some life xp ???