I mean if we’re talking about things in terms of skilled practices that take time to learn, is not the position that “everyone has to start somewhere” generally the more productive one?
Sure. But also relationships are a two-way street. I'm not dating for charity, here. I'm looking for someone who I can be with long term. And inexperienced people tend toward the selfish, the shortsighted, and the mercurial. That's fine for a youthful fling, but not great when you're looking to build a real long-term relationship.
IDK, you’re gonna do in your personal life what you’re gonna do, but I don’t see how this perspective could ever allow anyone to grow into anything if they weren’t already a “winner” by college.
Everyone grows at their own pace. I'm not suggesting inexperienced people are undateable or unfuckable or whatever. I'm not even ruling out dating the proverbial 40-year-old virgin. But there's a very different attitude towards dating, sex, living together, and marriage that comes from someone who has never done any of these before relative to someone who has done most or all of these things. Going back to the Key/Lock metaphor, I'd honestly consider someone in their 30s/40s with lots of experience who is looking for a partner with zero dating experience kind of predatory.
I guess what I’m getting at is that I don’t see how this perspective, if applied at a broad social level, doesn’t ultimately resolve into like a kind of medievalist idea of everyone having a particular “place” in society.
I think you're approaching this from the perspective of a caste system, wherein one is born a low class virgin and achieves some kind of royal apotheosis as an elderly fuckboi.
To go back to dancing, I'd simply consider someone who could dance well more attractive than someone who couldn't. If that's unfair to everyone that's never danced before... shrug I don't know what to tell you.
Everything is a two-way street; that’s the point of analyzing things in terms of dialectical frameworks.
Again, a relationship isn't a charitable endeavor. Its an emotional bond. Expecting people to form attachments out of some perceived sense of public equity isn't a thing that works in any practical sense. This is the chud-logic "government assigned girlfriend" tier of thinking.
They are arguing about whether, or not our society should be structured around the premise that some people are just better than other & should be regarded as such.
"Better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, here. Some people are going to be more charismatic than other people thanks to a whole host of material conditions. That said, you can try to address the underlying conditions. But there's nothing you can do to just jam people together in the bureaucratic pursuit of minimizing the loneliness index.
My goal is to have a society that does not have social classes
You're going to struggle with that one, as that's a Dunbar's Number problem more than a Capitalist Accumulation problem. In some sense, its the opposite problem, as capitalist accumulation is limitless and accelerating. Social accumulation is highly constrained with every new unit coming at increased expense.
You self-consciously want to maintain a standard that you know is unfair
I don't consider people building relationships out of a sense of mutual attraction unfair. I consider it stocastically determined. There's a lot we can do to improve the general quality of life of people, but there is no individualistic panacea for loneliness. Certainly, trying to finger-wag at a random person online and shame them into... what even is the ask here? Pinkie promise to swipe right more often on Tinder? Hook up with more single senior citizens? Do you even have a remedy you're advocating, here?
Whatever. Nagging randos on the internet is always a winning strategy for whatever social reform you're plugging. Good luck at work. I'm sure your coworkers will be fascinated to hear more of your dating views.
My goal is to have a society that does not have social classes; that is, one in which most people have roughly comparable experiences in life.
in the context of people having different numbers of sexual partners, this sounds like you’re talking about a “state-mandated gf” scenario…
:visible-disgust:
Well I mean, there you go. You self-consciously want to maintain a standard that you know is unfair because it’s more convenient for you to do so, and it helps you avoid associating with people that you see as less desirable & inconvenient to you. 👀
oh my god lmfao shit like this is why you’ve never “danced” dude
Removed by mod
Sure. But also relationships are a two-way street. I'm not dating for charity, here. I'm looking for someone who I can be with long term. And inexperienced people tend toward the selfish, the shortsighted, and the mercurial. That's fine for a youthful fling, but not great when you're looking to build a real long-term relationship.
Everyone grows at their own pace. I'm not suggesting inexperienced people are undateable or unfuckable or whatever. I'm not even ruling out dating the proverbial 40-year-old virgin. But there's a very different attitude towards dating, sex, living together, and marriage that comes from someone who has never done any of these before relative to someone who has done most or all of these things. Going back to the Key/Lock metaphor, I'd honestly consider someone in their 30s/40s with lots of experience who is looking for a partner with zero dating experience kind of predatory.
I think you're approaching this from the perspective of a caste system, wherein one is born a low class virgin and achieves some kind of royal apotheosis as an elderly fuckboi.
To go back to dancing, I'd simply consider someone who could dance well more attractive than someone who couldn't. If that's unfair to everyone that's never danced before... shrug I don't know what to tell you.
Removed by mod
Again, a relationship isn't a charitable endeavor. Its an emotional bond. Expecting people to form attachments out of some perceived sense of public equity isn't a thing that works in any practical sense. This is the chud-logic "government assigned girlfriend" tier of thinking.
"Better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, here. Some people are going to be more charismatic than other people thanks to a whole host of material conditions. That said, you can try to address the underlying conditions. But there's nothing you can do to just jam people together in the bureaucratic pursuit of minimizing the loneliness index.
You're going to struggle with that one, as that's a Dunbar's Number problem more than a Capitalist Accumulation problem. In some sense, its the opposite problem, as capitalist accumulation is limitless and accelerating. Social accumulation is highly constrained with every new unit coming at increased expense.
I don't consider people building relationships out of a sense of mutual attraction unfair. I consider it stocastically determined. There's a lot we can do to improve the general quality of life of people, but there is no individualistic panacea for loneliness. Certainly, trying to finger-wag at a random person online and shame them into... what even is the ask here? Pinkie promise to swipe right more often on Tinder? Hook up with more single senior citizens? Do you even have a remedy you're advocating, here?
Whatever. Nagging randos on the internet is always a winning strategy for whatever social reform you're plugging. Good luck at work. I'm sure your coworkers will be fascinated to hear more of your dating views.
you were amazingly patient with whatever the fuck I just read
What too much theory and not enough touching grass will do to a mf.
love to be dehumanized into a misogynistic entitlement. “women = surplus labor value” is such a :galaxy-brain: take though
@zifnab25 i think u are correct
in the context of people having different numbers of sexual partners, this sounds like you’re talking about a “state-mandated gf” scenario…
:visible-disgust:
oh my god lmfao shit like this is why you’ve never “danced” dude