Or, men could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a woman.
A contextually appropriate mirrored version of the statement I responded to would be something along the lines of "or women could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a rich, hot, committed and deferential movie star". Would you consider that no worse than the "enforced monogamy" claim?
And it applies even to your metaphor. Man or woman, if you explicitly say "no blacks" you are going to be eviscerated. Even if older OkCupid profiles did in fact show that african americans, both male and female, had fewer matches there.
Creating a neutral dating app with proper moderation (against harassment and fake/spam accounts) and without the profit incentive would be a great entry point for that organization to study relationships in general.
Possibly, the commercial incentives of these apps have them deliberately optimizing for short-term matches. Or it may be the case that the apps are doing as best as they can manage and the problem is simply very difficult to solve. If the former is the case, then removing or regulating the commercial incentive might help.
If anything, Tinder is the precise opposite of a dating app.
Of course, this has little to do with dating apps.
As incellish as that sounds, I am 50 and I have been happily married for 13 years and before that unhappily married for four from the time I was 28-32. But my dating life mostly sucked in my 20s as a five foot 4 decently successful guy, in great shape as a part time fitness instructor, outgoing, and with a modicum of social skills.
A guy who is not financially successful and who is tall has a much better chance in the dating or at least the hookup pool than a short person who is financially successful.
Do you want to sign up for the "might get forced to be with someone who's abusive" lottery?
Realistically, if I were forced into that I would kill my husband or myself. I would rather be in jail or dead than be subjected to institutionalized human trafficking and domestic slavery. That's the difference. You're trying to draw an equivalence between a mountain and mole hill in magnitude by saying that what they have in common is that they're backed by the force of law.
So I see a lot of similarities, yet one is generally accepted, and the other... not so much. Even though most of the world is heading towards population collapse, and surely the moral obligation you speak of also applies when it comes to ensuring society survives in the first place.
"the government death squads and taxes are both taking something by force that's not consented to -- life, and percentage of your income" -- like holy hell dude.
I don't even know where to begin to bridge the experience gap of someone who thinks that government sponsored human trafficking (because that's what forced marriage is), rape, and forced impregnation is comparable to taxes.
Give me the choice between working a menial dead end job until I die or the hell you're describing for only 1 year and I'll have my resume polished before you can finish the sentence.
For the rest, your total lack of empathy ("only women can suffer"), twisting of my words ("death squads", really?), and your willingness to kill your husband (irrational, but there you go) means I won't be responding to you in the future.
I'm not saying only women can suffer, I'm saying you literally can't grasp how much of a hell the world you're imagining with forced marriage is. And of course I'd kill my husband, in your world he's my government appointed rapist whose babies I will be forced to have. What other option do I have? Right now today that would be more than enough to qualify for self defense. You apparently think this is fine and the pregnancy is "just" 9 months of your civic duty while me and every other woman will say is the furthest thing from fine possible. You're arguing that "death squads" is too hyperbolic but I'd rather take the firing squad. Men would suffer in your hell too but you don't see any of the downsides I guess.
People are perfectly happy to say that in all sorts of places including this very forum.
From men:
> The apps are algorithmic doom barrels
> I’m fated to end up alone
> he has tried Bumble, Match, Badoo and Facebook dating, but in nearly three years has only met one person, with whom he had six dates before the relationship ended
> The vast majority of matches have resulted in no dialogue, most of the rest there was a bit of to and fro before being ghosted
From women:
> I meet so many men,” she says enthusiastically
> So I’ve given myself the challenge of flirting with one person every day, which has been a lot of fun
> I was getting a torrent of likes – and I absolutely hated it
> I’m simply looking for an interesting or creative person, and that’s one thing you can’t spot easily on an app, but then I’d get too many matches, which was really overwhelming
> I’d get a lot of comments about being a wheelchair user
Hell even disabled women seem to have absolutely no issue getting matches. Maybe the buffet of men they get to fastidiously sort through isn't well stocked enough for them? Well la di da, welcome to reality.
There's a reason for this, how we raise girls is tailored to making good girlfriend/wife material. You don't see the incredible amount of effort that is spent over a lifetime to this end because we're used to it.
Once you see the dynamic you can't unsee it. It even happens with bisexual women where the joke is, "I'm attracted to like 10 men and every woman."
For better and worse boys don't get this treatment. If you spent 10,000 hours under the weight of intense social and societal pressure to mold yourself into someone that you think of as attractive because your social status depends on it, where the idea of what's attractive that has been planted into your brain since birth lines up with what women find desirable in a partner i'd bet you'd be a catch too.
There's a huge impedance mismatch that is set up to hurt men which is that being the kind of guy that women find attractive hurts your social status among men. Pretty boy is used as an insult but you will find no shortage of women throwing themselves at them.
No, you're mistaking pressure to conform for pressure to be attractive. Women are constantly pressured not to stray too far away from society's defaults, and they're judged much more strictly for non-conformism than men are.
But the things which mainstream society encourages for women in the name of conformity have a huge overlap with what men consider attractive anyway (a quick example which comes to mind is the pressure to stay thin). Whereas men still gain social status by being attractive, but are given much more leeway to deviate in their lifestyles.
> ...being the kind of guy that women find attractive hurts your social status among men. Pretty boy is used as an insult but you will find no shortage of women throwing themselves at them.
No, being attractive is still a boost for a man's social status. Being tall, or rich, or strong won't get you insulted at all. "Pretty boy" is an exception, but I could compare it to "bimbo" for women.
> Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.