Singapore Pilots a Government-Built Dating Service (mashable.com) 182
Longtime Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Mashable: Singapore's government is trying its hand at matchmaking again. The country's Government Technology Agency (GovTech) has launched FirstDate, a pilot dating service for singles aged 21 to 35. For now, it's open only to public officers, according to the service's website. Applications close Oct. 5. FirstDate is designed as an alternative to endless swiping.
Instead of browsing a stream of profiles, users fill out a questionnaire about their interests, habits, values, and preferences. The service then sends them one match per cycle (the time it takes to mutually accept and presumably meet up). Each match includes a compatibility score, a brief description of the person, and a personal note. [...]
The pilot arrives as Singapore's birth rate hits a new low, according to the Singaporean newspaper The Straits Times. The country's total fertility rate fell to 0.87 children per woman in 2025, down from 1.24 a decade earlier. In April, the government announced a new workgroup tasked with addressing falling birth rates, which is expected to report its findings by early 2027, The Straits Times reported. The service relies on the Gale-Shapley algorithm, a well-known mathematical method that solves the stable matching problem by pairing two sets of participants based on their ranked preferences.
Once matched, users have 72 hours to mutually accept before contact details are shared, with optional "Date Quests" and post-date surveys designed to encourage and assess in-person meetups. Accounts are verified through Singapore's Singpass digital ID system to reduce fake profiles, and profiles are only visible to assigned matches. GovTech says user data is protected under government security standards, is not sold to third parties, and can be deleted upon request.
Instead of browsing a stream of profiles, users fill out a questionnaire about their interests, habits, values, and preferences. The service then sends them one match per cycle (the time it takes to mutually accept and presumably meet up). Each match includes a compatibility score, a brief description of the person, and a personal note. [...]
The pilot arrives as Singapore's birth rate hits a new low, according to the Singaporean newspaper The Straits Times. The country's total fertility rate fell to 0.87 children per woman in 2025, down from 1.24 a decade earlier. In April, the government announced a new workgroup tasked with addressing falling birth rates, which is expected to report its findings by early 2027, The Straits Times reported. The service relies on the Gale-Shapley algorithm, a well-known mathematical method that solves the stable matching problem by pairing two sets of participants based on their ranked preferences.
Once matched, users have 72 hours to mutually accept before contact details are shared, with optional "Date Quests" and post-date surveys designed to encourage and assess in-person meetups. Accounts are verified through Singapore's Singpass digital ID system to reduce fake profiles, and profiles are only visible to assigned matches. GovTech says user data is protected under government security standards, is not sold to third parties, and can be deleted upon request.
If you catfish (Score:5, Funny)
you get caned.
Caning ? (Score:5, Funny)
you get caned.
Wow, that list of preferences and interests is a lot more detailed than I would have guessed. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
you get caned.
Wow, that list of preferences and interests is a lot more detailed than I would have guessed. :-)
It’s a natural outcome of a toe may toe fettish.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess theres plenty of that on Fetlife around here...
Pay people better (Score:5, Insightful)
Radical humanism (Score:4, Insightful)
Subsidize baby formula and diapers. And make onsite daycare services required at larger companies in order to normalize the practice.
Give grandma a room in your home (Score:2)
Subsidize baby formula and diapers. And make onsite daycare services required at larger companies in order to normalize the practice.
Or give grandma a room in your home rather than the "retirement community." That worked for many millennia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ideal if grandma can get her wheelchair into your house. (I assume you own a house, but most younger people do not)
For people without children to take care of them, then caring for the elderly must fall on society rather than on family alone. My Mom depends on me because I'm her only living child, and if something were to happen to me she would really be at the mercy of the terrible system we have in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh when I had an apartment there was no extra room to give someone. And 2 bed where I live now is $3700/month, which is more than my remaining mortgage.
Plus there are educational benefits. I was fortunate enough to learn things from parents, grandparents, and briefly great-grandparents. Its amazing what institutional knowledge can get preserved that way, and first hand accounts of history.
Count yourself blessed to have a family and a good relationship with them. That kind of experience is not universal.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.
Re: Give grandma a room in your home (Score:2)
Yes, choices made by the parents.
My family was always shit to me and can fuck right off.
Re: (Score:3)
Subsidize baby formula and diapers. And make onsite daycare services required at larger companies in order to normalize the practice.
Or give grandma a room in your home rather than the "retirement community." That worked for many millennia.
Great if your elderly parents can care for your newborns. Definitely sucks if you have to care for both newborns and elderly parents.
Re: (Score:2)
And so are todays grandpas. Which means grandma aint moving in with you when she's only just 10 years out of her youngest moving out of home when she can live with grandpa whos still got a job and has boomer cash to throw about.
Re: (Score:2)
Half the kids would be happy to be able to afford a house with just a room. When the most you can expect is a studio appartment where you sleep next to the toilet and the rent is 60% of your wage, grandma aint getting the spare room.
Also grandpas live to 80 now. When grandpas died at 60, chances where better that you'd have a spare grandma to move into one of your 4 bedrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this "home" thing you speak of? How does one obtain a "home" in which there is more than one room? My benevolent landlord partitioned the storage container I live in so that my neighbors could move in next door. Actually we share the same rolling door, so it's no longer "next" door, it's just door.
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends where you are talking about. In Kansas or Montana, can you rent an extra room relatively cheaply? Sure, probably for $500.
Can you do the same thing in New York or the San Francisco Bay Area? Only if you want to pay an extra $1k+ more in rent.
Re: Give grandma a room in your home (Score:2)
And those places with cheap rents have no jobs.
And no culture.
That's fine if you stay indoors all the time and are retired or can work from home...
Re: Give grandma a room in your home (Score:2)
Not interested in clown shit about do I live here from maggots. Get fucked, clown.
Re: Give grandma a room in your home (Score:2)
Maggots like you mod me down all day so that's a skill issue
Re:Radical humanism (Score:4, Informative)
It's going to need a bit more than cheaper baby supplies. For example, a lot of people can't afford to buy a family sized home.
Re: (Score:3)
You can suggest that, but you are saying "give up your close ties to family/friends/social life", and "move further from your job, or find a new one". Obviously if they really want kids they will make it work, but it's the ones who would like them but are not willing to give up so much of their lives, and limit themselves to one or zero.
The "fuck you, kids are your problem and I'm not paying for them" attitude has a lot to do with the declining birth rate in some countries.
Re: Radical humanism (Score:2)
Don't subsidize shit.
Subsudies are money paid by the state to the producer. The state has its money essentially from middle-class taxes, while "producers" is just a code word for upper-class investors. So subsidies are esentially just abother way of redistributing wealth from bottom to top.
Instead, pay people enough that subsudies aren't necessary. That's wealth distribution from top to bottom, as it should be for a more uniform result.
Free formula and diapers won't make a dent. (Score:2)
Subsidize baby formula and diapers. And make onsite daycare services required at larger companies in order to normalize the practice.
Some places do that. It doesn't help. Many countries have tried cash payouts that far exceed the diaper budget. Also, rich people tend to have similar numbers of kids to middle class folks. The main barriers to having more kids is housing and support. Most high paying jobs are in areas with expensive real estate, so having room is a massive issue, but even if we had enough housing, most parents can't fathom having a 3rd kid because having 2 is such a struggle today. You have to do sliding scale daycar
Re: (Score:3)
And in general, it only works in countries who's cultures have shared domestic responsibilities. That isn't the case in Singapore, where women reportedly do twice as much domestic and household work while being expected to have a full time job as well. So instead of "pay people better", how about "Dads and Husbands step up".
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the countries with highest fertility rates. I guess all these countries have shared domestic responsibilities:
Top Countries by Fertility Rate (2026)
Rank | Country | Total Fertility Rate
1 Chad 5.84
2 Somalia 5.81
3 Democratic Republic of Congo 5.80
4 Central African Republic 5.69
5 Niger 5.64
6 Mali 5.33
7 Angola 4.89
8 Burundi 4.57
9 Afghanistan 4.56
10 Mozambique 4.54
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think international experience backs that up. The places where birthrates are highest are places where people can barely afford to eat. Scandinavia still has low birthrates despite a lot of family-friendly policies. The Central African Republic has high birthrates despite being one of the poorest countries on earth.
When given a choice, most people will choose either no kids or to only have 1-2. Kids are a lot of work no matter how much money you have.
That's far from enough according to the data (Score:2)
Once people get a job in the city, they don't want kids. You can't make someone want them. All you can do is make exis
Re: (Score:2)
https://incendar.com/united-st... [incendar.com]
Check out 1929-1940 in particular. Notice how the population surplus was higher then than it is now? And no economic conditions aren't worse today than they were during the Great Depression so fuck off with that rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to increase birth rates you need to stop educating girls beyond what's required to be a mother. But no liberal country can do that so they will die out instead.
Holy shit are you off your rocker. Keep those women poor, barefoot, and pregnant, right fellas?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pay people better (Score:5, Informative)
More generally, there's a strong negative correlation between reliable contraceptive methods being available and birth rate. There's also a strong positive correlation between infant mortality and birth rate. Comparing the situation today with Victorian Britain as though the only thing which had changed is the working time directive overlooks those two significant differences (and surely many other relevant ones).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have no idea what the posters actual intention was, but there is a difference between an idea being the only thing that will work, and the idea being a good one. There are plenty of problems around where the solution is bad enough that it brings into question if you are even solving the right issue.
I view the birth rate issue this way.. I suspect the person is not that far off, and while you can mitigate the falling birthrates through various incentives and supports, the big driver really
Re: (Score:2)
But I think the solution is really going to have to involve coming up with a political and economic system that does not depend on constant growth.
This is key but that's not capitalism. Maybe we can develop "sustainable capitalism" where if what you are doing is not environmentally sustainable, then you cannot do it and no business license for you.
I don't see that developing in the United States any time soon. We'll just continue to let immigrants in as needed. They tend to be younger and have more children. Besides, after this Trump fiasco, it's hard to say if the Republicans will continue to lean into anti-immigration as hard as Trump did. They migh
Re: (Score:2)
God I hope so.....we still have a LONG way to go to get rid of all the illegals that are currently here and need to go....
Re: Pay people better (Score:2, Troll)
Undocumented immigrants pay more taxes than it costs to support them and commit fewer crimes than ICE, you racist little fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Is your daughter available?
Re:Pay people better (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't think of any other solutions besides subjugating 50% of the human population I think your priorities are different than just having babies.
There was a line from the last Elephant Graveyard video: From my research, it sounds like they're terrified that the unfuckable are going to be unfucked out of the gene pool of humanity forever.
Anyone who says shit like this probably deserves it.
Re:Pay people better (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't think of any other solutions besides subjugating 50% of the human population I think your priorities are different than just having babies.
Although there's a suggestion of misogyny in the comment you're replying to, it seems that there may be at least some truth in his fundamental point: https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Having children can limit women's work and career choices. Becoming pregnant while employed may be a CLM, and may even result in outright termination. Employers often find ways around the laws protecting women from this kind of discrimination.
There's more nuance to this discussion than your "subjugating 50% of the human population" characterization allows for.
Re: (Score:2)
Women are not going backwards, they're not going to stop going to school, they're not going to stop having control of when they can have kids, they are not going to give up careers, they are not going back to the 1950's.
It is well known, extremely well known that as countries develop advanced economies their birthrates fall, that's all your link is getting it. It's a multivariate problem that is tricky to solve.
What we do know is the stick isn't going to solve it so carrots it is, the OP's solution is all
Re: (Score:2)
Scale matters though and a counterexample France has been the most developed country who was able to slow the decline more than their peers, as I understand they only recently dipped below replacement and their measures are more comprehensive than even Norway so there is something there, I mean, obviously there is, we all operate around incentives, this whole problem is one of incentives.
Do you think more people would have a child if they got $500k or a million dollars for it? If the answer is yes then ther
Re: (Score:2)
... and yet, they have reproduction rates that mean fewer people in the future. Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing per se.
I would even say that it's a good thing - but it needs to be managed carefully.
For civilization to remain viable we need to deal with global warming. Part of that "dealing" must involve reducing the total number of humans on the planet. I see that as the only way to ensure that Earth's "carrying capacity" - ever-shrinking because of AGW - isn't exceeded.
But of course, declining birth rates are also responsible for demographic collapse, which at scale could threaten human civilization. Some extremists might
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
It is NOT necessary to reduce population to flight AGW. That is only the easiest way to fail at it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is NOT necessary to reduce population to flight AGW. That is only the easiest way to fail at it.
A pretty large part of CO2 emissions comes from producing food. Sure, we could be more efficient and less wasteful; but it seems to me that having a much smaller population would result in much lower greenhouse gas emissions.
I can concede that it may not be necessary, but why do you believe that it would actually be counterproductive?
Re: (Score:2)
I can concede that it may not be necessary, but why do you believe that it would actually be counterproductive?
I didn't say or imply counterproductive. What I implied was uselessness.
There are multiple reasons (several of them related to decisions by the ultra-wealthy) but I think the best one is that most people's emissions aren't very high. You could remove the bottom 50% of the population as measured by income off of the map entirely and not make things much better.
Another reason is that most of what we do could be much lower-emissions if we used strategies we already know how to implement. Take agriculture for e
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are on the case eh?
The people who have spent the past 12 years giddily turning against their principles, giving up any agency to a fat incompetent softboy conman who only exists because he's got daddies money?
The same people who gleefully asked for the most soft-bellied tech ceo's to rule over them like kings?
These are the people that think they can be the "dominate like bear" while they offer their gaping holes to anyone who says the right things about immigrants? Who can't even stand up for th
Re: (Score:2)
One, this is going to probably flip flop in about 50-ish years, it correlates very strongly with race since black and hispanic birth rates are much higher than white populations so demographic shifts will affect that.
Two this assumes the children of conservatives stay conservative which in many times is not the case particualrly as you have spent the last decade bankrupting your entire ideology for that softboy rich kid.
Three we are going to see a bump in immigration to the US as the Republican's have made [gallup.com]
Re:Pay people better (Score:4, Insightful)
The initial instinct is correct. Parent is off his rocker. Simple formula is to make having 2.1 kids on average easy and pleasant.
IMHO that means
-free childcare from 4 months to Kindergarten
-free public schools K-12 that are good nationwide
-Very low cost education incl state colleges and training + apprenticeships for trades
-Affordable health care
-Available work that pays the bills, keeps up with inflation, puts a roof over your head
There are solutions to each of these none of which require unseemly new -ism's nor Eisenhower era 90% tax brackets. But it does require taming the corporate and political interests that have effectively sabotaged childcare, education, healthcare, retirement and wages. We see it again and again decade after decade, and somehow don't have the stones to fix it. Oh, and the foreign wars. Those have proved to be absolute wastes of treasure. Back to watching the intro to Idiocracy again
Re: (Score:2)
Except Europe doesn't actually have all of these. Some of them yes, but not all. It's still super-expensive to raise one child (let alone two+) in Western Europe. Same as it is in first world Asia like Japan, Korea, etc
This data shows a huge drop in U.S. fertility rates going into the Great Depression leading into WWII. Why? To quote "It's the economy stupid." That and perhaps a certain level of optimism/pessimism for the future.
https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about Singapore not the USA. Firing an employee that has worked for you for more than 3 months and has a medical certification of being pregnant is virtually impossible without showing severe misconduct while working. They also have legally protected maternity leave along with pooled paternity leave shared between the parents.
That said the CLM point is still valid. There's no legal protection to being promoted and extended leave from work along with parental distractions generally cause ... le
Re:Pay people better (Score:4, Interesting)
Or we could rework out economies to not require an ever growing population.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could do something really crazy and ask women why they don't like to be treated as birthing vessels?
Re: (Score:2)
That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is if I say that if storks brought everyone a baby through their window wrapped in a blanket that would also fix the birthrate because both of them have about the same chance of happening and my solution again does not involve subjugation of half the population.
You also don't get to act indignant like there aren't alternatives out there, there are, you know there are but most of those don't also force the world to provide you with sex as some sort of public service.
Re: (Score:2)
The future sexbots are really going to work out well. All the people that don't want to have children can get one and the people that want children will of course go have children. It should really sort folks out nicely.
If we wanted to encourage having children, it was most certainly have to come with a raft of benefits to really convince some. Really though, children are a huge commitment that, when done properly, requires you basically remake your life around what is best for a stable family unit for the
Re: (Score:2)
against what nature tells them
What do you do for a living? What is the machine you are typing this on? Where do you live? Did you forage and hunt your last meal with your bare hands? I am sure with a couple details I can paint your life as against what nature tells you. This is a less than meaningless statement and you only apply it to your political ends.
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
Specifically he has repeatedly told us both literally and in paraphrase that he doesn't care about other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Nihilists? Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you realize (because you are stupid) how much this makes my case and undermines any type of pro-natalist argument.
But hey, don't wait on me stopping you from punching yourself in your own dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you once again for being my arguments biggest supporter.
This just tells us all the pro-natalist people don;t care about population decline, it's just masked racism.
This is what your 12-year political project has done to you, turned you into whimpering little children who cannot think for themselves.
I'm sure you'll have another dumbfuck talking point as soon as you get back from X.
Re: (Score:2)
Educating girls and allowing women to pursue careers is a huge hit on birth rates in most nations. Luckily a world of 8 billion human beings doesn't need a high birth rate. And a future with automation and AI won't have much use for cheap human labor, which is really where population growth is economically important.
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
- The first is to keep going the way we are right doing right now. The endgame (climate and ressources collapse notwithstanding) is a very small group of unfathomably rich people who, if they want to avoid the guillotine, will need to live within very high walls, with very mean guards holding very big guns on top of them.
- The second is to reorganize society so that everyone benefits from automat
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
It's ok, we don't need 8 billion people. 4 billion or so was fine.
Re: (Score:2)
8 billion is fine, too.
The only big difference is: in catastrophes, now more people are involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Population collapse is not a real problem because more than half of us are doing bullshit make-work that doesn't need to even fucking exist except to support the two-winged bird of the MIC x The Poverty Industry. The benefits for a massive glut of old people are trivially paid for if you just don't do everything in the worst fucking way.
AFAICT we will not solve these problems, because doing so requires making things better. Instead we will mostly focus on ourselves all the way down the drain. But having 8 b
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
Let me know which words confused you and I won't explain, but I will laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not aware of any instance where it has been tried. What has been tried in some cases is throwing a bone to the would-be parents. I am not aware of any society which has paid parents enough to afford good daycare, full health insurance for kids, and long term support like paying for kids' college. And for example daycare needs to be 7 am to 7 pm the full 7 days a week so parents could have a life while raising a kid. If all that is fully subsidized by the state then birth rates will go up. But the diffe
Re: (Score:2)
I guess there is not going to be a lot of young people in the future and it's going to be rough on everyone until we reach equilibrium again. What interesting times we live in.
No way we'll ever afford your idea, so that means we'll be getting use to a shrinking population. Teacher shortages will get worse, as why join a shrinking industry that's typically underpaid and isn't always a guaranteed job in every school district from year to year. Schools will close in some areas as not enough students to run eff
Re: (Score:2)
In most of the western world day care, kinder garden, primary school, secondary school: is free.
Unless you have special wishes and do not like to take logical place.
Re: (Score:2)
And for example daycare needs to be 7 am to 7 pm the full 7 days a week so parents could have a life while raising a kid.
Won't that mean, parents could have a life while not having to raise a kid?
Re: (Score:2)
At some point you must have sympathy with these women yes? Throughout history they have been required to marry, lets face it, fat, ugly, bald old men. Now women have the choice - 80% of men just don't seem worthwhile for them. 80% if not more of all men are ugly and what's worse, most men have the delusion that they are the exception.
Perhaps this period of society will be a new evolutionary bottleneck for mankind; but unfortunately it isn't intelligence being selected for this time.
Re: (Score:2)
People produced more children in the past, in the hope of getting out of their financial woes. They sent off their kids as child labor, to add a little more to the family income. More kids = more income. So there was an incentive to produce more kids.
Now kids cannot legally work until they are 16+. And parents are required to provide for them, care for them, educate them... So more kids = more expenditure = sure way to get into poverty. Kids are a liability.
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
Yes, what we need is more underequipped people having more kids they didn't want and can't care for.
Typical cuckservative clown shit
Re: Pay people better (Score:2)
Medieval peasants worked fewer hours than the average office worker today. You could just look it up
"I am Indian and am looking for a Chinese partner" (Score:2)
Not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
People want to have sex. They want children. A low birthrate means there are systematic issues that are stopping it from happening.
Most of the world has a significant cost factor. Raising a child is very expensive. Frankly, I think that the government should pay for minimum pre-natal care as well as basic birth costs. It is in our government's best interests for the children to be born as healthy as possible.
But I do not know if that is the main problem in Singapore. Asia is a radically different culture from ours.
In Korea the problem is a culture of work over family. but that might be the same in Singapore.
Re:Not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most people writing nonsense like you simply do not grasp the way other people think.
My EX GF in Thailand, is a sibling of 14 kids. Three died in childhood. She is the youngest. If Ginness book would have been around her birth time, her mother would be noted. She gave birth at age 66 or so. My EX is ten years younger than her youngest brother. Six siblings died in young adulthood, and now 4 are left.
(Mostly) EVERYONE in that family has only ONE child. Some have two, because they divorced and remarried and got a second.
No sane person wants more than one or two kids. It is a complete no brainer for a Thai that, 3 is maximum and 1 is optimum.
I have NO CHILDREN, because my childhood was absolutely ABUSE miserable. And I was afraid I make my kids miserable, too. Because: ABUSE is TRANSMITTED!
Modern Thai in general do not have more than one kid. And that has nothing to do with "cost" but how we call it today: life work balance.
If I have a 8 year old kid, traveling the world is easy. If a second one pops up, I am blocked 6 years to have my own life. Most people do not pick that option.
In most countries pre natal care: is cost free!
Re: (Score:2)
1) I have no children.
2) I was very specific about Asia being a very different culture.
3) I have seen several studies that indicate most abusers come from entitled families and were not themselves abused as a child.
4) You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to call other's opinion's "nonsense"
Re: (Score:2)
I am entitled to call "nonsense", to what ever I consider to be nonsense.
For example: 3) I have seen several studies that indicate most abusers come from entitled families and were not themselves abused as a child.
That is nonsense. I suggest to google a bit around. Basically every abuser (does not necessarily mean sexual) was abused as child.
Re: Not enough (Score:2)
Lots of people aren't sane. For example, some people think they know what everyone else is thinking and feeling.
Re: (Score:2)
They want children.
Speak for your fucking self. The world is full of people who have no systemic issues preventing having babies. Some of us just aren't even remotely interested. Also not wanting children has nothing to do with sex unless you're in a place where birth control is unavailable.
Re: (Score:2)
People want children, but most don't want 3+ children. Most wealthy families don't have 3+, they have 1-2 like everyone else. If every couple only has 1-2, you are still looking at population decline.
Singapore pilots dating service (Score:2)
I would have thought the pilots on Singapore Air would have the pick of the flight attendants.
Re: (Score:2)
The flight attendants do like the pilots do: they have BF/GF in every port. Lots less complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Cool! (Score:3)
Now I only need a cool state job, and I can date 100ds of sexy Asian girls!
I am hot already!!
Bitchy uppity women (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Birthrates also fall when you have a bunch of bitchy uppity women whom men don't want to deal with their BS, expense of the woman due to her "expectations" and the expense of a child.
Clearly the incel rep of Slashdot has entered the chat.
Re:Bitchy uppity women (Score:5, Informative)
What you describe is the inevitable result of women being empowered through having their own careers and being able to own property independently. Used to be that they needed a man and the clock was ticking, so they had to settle. Now a relationship is something they can take or leave, so they have higher standards and expectations.
Men who don't understand that tend to think of women as bitches and uppity.
Re:Bitchy uppity women (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of women who are not like that, in fact they are the vast majority I believe, I hope you end up finding them. You may have to look in different places or with a different mindset. A first step would be to not waste your time with anyone who feels entitled to you buying them food or drinks. Start on a basis of equality and independence, and you won't have to deal with entitlement. Of course the people you meet this way will have no patience for any form of entitlement coming from you either, fair is fair.
Re:Bitchy uppity women (Score:4)
Involuntarily celibate. I feel for you, guy,
Going to add onto this one. Lots of men have put in effort in life and still ended up alone. Many men at this point that have found long-term relationships were just lucky, nothing more. Yeah, that's kinda scary to think about. If you did find someone, enjoy where you are, as it could be taken away tomorrow.
Re: Bitchy uppity women (Score:2)
That's true of all people whose mates have choices. It's not just the poor little men.
Re:Bitchy uppity women (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is also to compete with/belittle other women. It's why they scream "slut!" at each other.
Excess love is no excuse? (Score:2)
Too early in the discussion to hope for Funny, but usually there are some shallow comments marked as Insightful for reasons that escape my analytic vision... But I'm going for Interesting this time around, which may produce Funny as a side effect.
But I have to start by digging back to the Fermi Paradox? Maybe there are no "long-lived" evolved species out there to talk with us because all such species encounter a fundamental reproductive crisis when their technology reaches some critical threshold--and we're
Re: Excess love is no excuse? (Score:2)
There's no way a by-choice reproductive crisis is the Fermi answer. Once society contracted far enough you'd get back to a place where they could get the women subjugated and keep them that way.
I have 5 kids (Score:3)
Play with the math: assume 10 women.
2 won't find a suitable mate and won't have children,
1 (and a bit) won't be able to have a child.
2 will have only 1 child
2 will have 2.
that's 6 children among 7 women. So the last 3 women need to 5.667 kids each for your 10 women to have 23 children between them. Try other numbers. You realistically can't get to 23 children to 10 women without at least one family of 5 children
Our society makes it hard for people to start families at all. If you want more than 2 children you better start in your early 20s and you better be after tax rich. In Canada they eliminate all family support if you make to much. I've twice been screwed with an effective marginal taxation rate over 100% because, I assume, the government doesn't even consider anyone will have more than 2 children. Vacations and family outings are expensive. Hotel bookings often force you to pay adult rates for some of the children. Even if we fix housing, the s#@t opportunities for young people and the insane redirection of consumption from the working young to the retired elderly, we still won't get to the replacement level.
Re: I have 5 kids (Score:2)
No problem, there's a bunch of religious people out there with like eight kids in their family. You can identify them at a glance because all their kids have biblical names and there's a shitload of them.
Up next: (Score:2)
government-issued girlfriends!
I Know Happy People who Met Online, but... (Score:2)
Ultimate love (Score:2)
You can't get any more anal than that.
open only to public officers (Score:2)
Maybe they also want to date someone who isn't an officer themselves? This sounds like inbreeding, let officers only date officers.