The dating app paradox

>For me, I am a divorced dad in my 40s with kids. That causes a lot of women to swipe left and there isn't much I can do about it, unless I lie.

You can change your profile to leave this critical info out. This will probably net you far more dates. However, they'll probably be one-and-done dates because most women will be annoyed that you hid this info from them until meeting, so I don't recommend it (besides the concept that honesty is the best policy).

But I don't think this is something you should blame on dating apps at all. Your situation is what it is. If someone doesn't want to date a person with kids, that's their preference and that just makes them an unsuitable partner for you.

However, it might be possible to get a few more matches by having a great profile/photos, so that some women on the edge might be swayed to swipe right despite the kids.

>Bottom line is it comes down to a number game with OLD.

I absolutely agree. The more dates you go on, the more time you spend on it all, the more likely you'll find someone who wants a relationship with you (and you with them). Sitting around and posting on HN about how no one wants to date you is not a recipe for dating success, but that seems to be the approach many men here have.

No, why? Why should someone be paid to stay at home with their kids?

Homeschooling has no quality control whatsoever--parents can just teach whatever the hell they want, which usually involves a lot of religious BS and skipping over all the science stuff. On top of that, they only teach their own kids. One of the reasons kids go to school is because one teacher can handle a class of 15-30 kids. If we all paid for one parent to stay at home with 1 or 2 kids, how the hell is society going to pay for that? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Raising children full-time is a luxury. It has to be paid for by one family member (usually the husband) working enough to pay for the entire family expenses, or keeping this term short enough that savings can be used until the kid is old enough that the parent can go back to work. There simply isn't enough money to tax people, then pay a portion of that back to those same people so they can stay at home.

A whole bunch of reasons:

(1) was it homosexuality or bisexuality? It is questionable whether the distinction between the two even makes sense in an ancient Greek context

(2) it was socially acceptable for a grown man to have relations with a teenage boy, but a grown man having such a relationship with his social equal (another free adult male) was (generally speaking) viewed much more negatively; by contrast, in the contemporary West, the former is increasingly viewed as taboo, the latter as increasingly acceptable, which is moving in the complete opposite direction to the ancient Greek attitude

(3) the term "homosexuality" encompasses both male-male and female-female relationships, but ancient Greeks didn't treat them as equivalent: in many city-states, the former was much more socially acceptable than the latter (Sparta was a noticeable exception, possibly due to its more egalitarian gender relations). Many cite Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium as one of the few ancient forerunners of the modern homosexual-vs-heterosexual distinction, yet it treats female-female and male-male relations as two separate categories, rather than merging them into a single category of "homosexual"

(4) contemporary Western ideas tend to emphasise heterosexual and homosexual relations as interchangeable and equivalent; ancient Greek views did not. Many ancient Greek men had both a wife and an adolescent male lover, but we have no evidence any of them ever thought of marrying the latter. They wouldn't view the two as coequal members of a common category, as much contemporary Western thought does

(5) the idea of sexual orientations ("homosexual", "heterosexual", etc) as categories of persons was largely unknown in the pre-modern world. As I mentioned, Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium is sometimes viewed as a precursor of that modern idea, but (a) the Symposium is arguably not representative of the mainstream of ancient Greek thought on this topic, (b) given it is a speech by a comedian in a text rich with irony, it is unclear how seriously Plato actually wanted us to take it (c) in the details it doesn't agree with modern concepts either (missing any concept of bisexuality, and treating male-male and female-female relations as two separate categories on the same level as male-female ones)

> or why you're putting scare-quotes around it

To emphasise its status as a word (and the specific concept/cultural construct that word represents), which emerged in the context of a particular culture and historical period, and hence whose applicability to very different cultures in very different historical periods is open to question

> Anything involving sexual relations between men is anathema to Christian conservatives.

I don't see how the views of contemporary Christian conservatives has any inherent relevance to the question of how applicable the word "homosexuality" is to ancient Greece

Right we prefer our women unhealthy and underweight. Look at this point I don't know what else to tell you. There's clearly an experience gap we can't cross if you're equating disordered eating with watching what you eat. I wish you could see from a woman's perspective how horribly women treat their bodies to be thin -- it's not healthy.

By your own measure I'm incredibly successful. I'm not stupid and know how much better skinny women are treated in all aspects of life. I am of a socially acceptable weight for a woman in 2024 which means I get lightheaded if I don't eat for a few hours or stand up too fast, I'm always cold, I'm always tired, I can never eat to full, and sitting on hard chairs for too long hurts. So when I say grow I mean finding women at actually healthy weights attractive. There have been times in human history where it's happened.

In countries with solidary pension systems you can surely bind retirement benefits to number of children.

The issue being, they try to avoid paying more than the bare minimum anyway and if you pay less, that means dead old homeless people on the street. Would be a great advertisement to having children, thoug.

In my coutry, most people under 45 (who could actually bear children) doubt they will see any retirement ever. Of course that affects their desire for procreation as well.