>

Loneliness is a growing problem in Western society. This is especially true among young adults, and it is about the same for men and women.
Loneliness is connected to a significant increase in sleep disorders, weight problems, drug abuse, neurological disorders, etc. These are problems that makes it difficult to get an education or maintain a job. 
Therefore, I don't think this is an individual problem, but a problem for society as a whole. It affects all of us. In 10-20 years, the economy will feel the effect of all those people who were young now, but couldn't get an education due to their depression.
I believe we will all benefit from spending a little tax money to help those people, even if it's as simple as offering courses in setting up an attractive dating profile. I don't know how best to fight loneliness in society, but I do believe it is important to all of us.
/u/WaterDemonPhoenix (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

There are two ways to approach doing something about the fact that women get more dates than men, and there are increasing numbers of men struggling to find relationships.

Inequality/fairness-centered. "It's unfair that women have more than men." "We need to make things more fair." In extreme forms, this could even involve looking for someone to blame for this perceived injustice - "alpha males", or evolutionary psychology, or feminists. 
Utilitarian perspective. "People, particularly men, are lonelier now than in the past. This is sad. Can we work to address the problem?" This approach involves noticing when life has gotten worse for some portion of society and wanting to fix that.

Perspective #1 might lead someone to try to reduce womens' choice, or shame them, in order to help men. I won't try to convince you to adopt perspective #1.
But perspective #2 is something any feminist should support. We should all want to help people, men or women. Right now, for example, many women face sexual harassment and violence, toxic gender roles, etc. We should help them by making our society more feminist. Likewise, many men face toxic ideas about masculinity (e.g., boys grow up being shamed for crying or talking about their feelings or not having enough sex or being queer or experiencing sexual violence). We should help them, too!
And similarly, if an increasing number of men are lonely, we should seek to understand why and how we can address that loneliness. Not by shaming or harming women, of course! Both men and women are human beings who deserve our care. >

You said we should help them, but what is the actual proposed solution though? So many men are lonely, those we can help them by teaching them how to be more social and form more bonds etc if they are willing.
But the ones that say that are lonely because they can't get dates, they're lonely for one type of company only. What can be done about those? If no one wants to get in a relationship with such a person? What can be done? >

We should try to understand why there is this epidemic of romantic loneliness. A bunch of men can't get dates; why not? What we discover will influence our solution. 
Suppose we discover that 20% of men are growing up to be Nazi sympathizers, and very few women want to date Nazi sympathizers. Then our solution should certainly not be to force women to date Nazi sympathizers. Rather, we should work on finding ways to deradicalize Nazi sympathizers. After all, this will be good not just for the men (who will get dates once we reintegrate them with society) but for society (which will have fewer Nazi sympathizers). Likewise, we should find ways to educate boys so that they are less likely to become Nazi sympathizers.
Less extreme version: Suppose we discover that as women become higher wage earners, they are raising their standards for what kind of men they want to partner with. It used to be they'd put up with husbands who made them do all the housework, because they needed a husband to survive. But now many of them will only take men who are willing to do roughly half the housework. In this case, our solution should not be to force women to accept an unequal share of the housework. Rather, we should work on developing contribution to housework as a value in men, and we should teach men how to perform traditionally "feminine" household tasks.
Suppose instead we discover that men are becoming shyer and are simply not asking women out (and that women tend not to ask men out, because of traditional gender roles). Then we have options. We could teach and encourage girls/women that they can break free of these traditional gender roles if they wish, which is a good thing for society and has a side effect of getting more women to ask out men. Or we could develop greater social confidence in boys and men. >

That makes sense, it's a good answer imo. In my part of the world (middle eastern country), more and more young women are starting to refuse or delay marriage. Those that do marry, more are starting to refuse to have children. The reason is that they're simply not getting anything out of it. They can get companionship from friends, but the rest of what marriage is supposed to fulfill is not worth it. 
If they marry, they have two choices:
1. Work outside of the home and contribute to expenses but also do all of the work in the home and do all of the childcare
2. Work inside the home only and forgo your career but be trapped in the marriage and be unable to leave if anything happens. They have seen how that worked out for their mothers so they're not willing to do the same.
A lot of men are complaining that they cannot get married, but will refuse to even discuss these issues. 
My point is identifying the cause is easy for us, but this suggestion will be shot down every time. Have you ever talked with an incel and tried to make constructive suggestions? You will get denial or hostility every single time. 
Some one who is willing to adapt to fit what is desired is not going to not be able to find a partner out of nearly 4 billion people of the opposite gender. >

Ever have someone tell you, “I don’t want a solution to my problems - I just want to vent”? When men say “women have an easier time finding someone to have sex with,” I don’t think it’s code to advocate for societal change. It’s just something that is. And for some men, that can be really frustrating.
So I think your basic premise is wrong. I don’t think anyone is advocating for a whole upheaval of social norms or making promiscuity illegal. I think when people say that, they’re not looking for solutions - they just want to vent. >

There's a few people. Trad wives. Christian men. I can't say every man or even woman complaining about single men existing are the Christian type, but there's definitely enough to cause concern for me.
The Christian men who are low key think women less than if they have a lot of sex. The women who slut shame. The incels who feel owed etc. 
I will say !delta it is possible that the ones complaining are just that, complaining. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jradio610 (3∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

As a man, I think women have an easier time finding people to fuck them. 
In terms of relationships, in this day and age, both sexes are pretty down bad in the gutter. >

I mean sure maybe. But that's not really central to my view. I don't care who has it easier and who doesn't. Nothing should be changed. We shouldn't have to encourage women to stay monogamous because poor men will be single. As long as there is no Lying, no one has to be monogamous. >

We should encourage people to do what they want. We’re over correcting in the west and telling people they shouldn’t have families and be committed. Stay at home moms are shamed most by other women. There’s always going to be a bias swaying one way. >

I don't see evidence of that. But even so. That's not really part of my view. 
so what if women decide to be sluts/promiscuous. Don't associate with them if you don't like them. Problem solved >

Didn’t you read my comment, I just said we should encourage people to do what brings them happiness. Whether that means focussing on your career and being single or having a happy family and being at home, or anything in between. 
Usually a society has a narrative that sways one way or the other and we should try to be unbiased. >

OK...? If that's what you said then it doesn't really run counter to my post. Which is. Everyone should do what they want. If you are single and unhappy, it doesn't mean everyone else should give up what makes them happy just to make you happy. 
If you got nothing to say I'm not sure how this changes my view >

You think that "nothing should be done" about it.
The person who responded to you is saying that things are this way because something is being done about it to make it that way, and if we truly let people be to do what they wanted they would act differently.
That directly addresses your issue. You should accept or reject whether you agree with that on the strength of the argument, not just dismiss it as being irrelevant to your view. >

Can confirm this logical redditor accurately conveyed  my point 👍. >

There's 2 things that need to change.
1) People need to start being honest about the "dating market". There is still a lot of falsehoods that are mainstream. This is why ideologies like Red Pill have become popular. They at least attempt a more honest scientific approach. It's also why the Black Pill has become so popular. When people say horseshit all your life about dating, something that resonates for a change becomes very attractive. Even when it's horseshit in many ways as well. 
2) There needs to be a much stronger push to get people to socialize again. It is likely where most of the problems stem from. We've gotten really comfortable in our socially secluded lives with an abundance of entertainment. >

Are we supposed to force them to socialise? If someone says that they're lonely or want to be in a relationship but won't socialise, what are we supposed to do? You can't help people against their will.
In the spirit of being honest about dating, there are people who simply are not able to get into a relationship. No one wants to be in one with them. Nothing can be done about that. >

I mean I want to change your view that it’s easier for women to find someone interested in dating. I think that’s a mighty assumption to make. Single mothers? Women who are disabled? Women who are not peoples idea of beauty? Gay women? Plenty of men get dates/sex too. It’s about determination, respect, what are you looking for, attractiveness.
I’ve really only seen this “women have it easer, men have it so much harder” in incel forums. Not calling you that OP, just saying. Do some women have it easier? Yes. Comparative to who though? 
I heard something today that stuck with me “comparison is the death of joy”. If you compare your lot in life to another’s, you will miss out on all the joy waiting for you in your own life. So yeah that attractive influencer has men in her DMs constantly while you’re sitting on empty tinder message box for month. But not everyone is looking for super model Sandra. Sometimes people want Down to Earth Eddy/Edith. It’s easier to blame women (even if you think you’re not you kinda are). 
As for the rest of your argument, I am having a hard time understanding what you’re arguing for exactly. I think this argument is almost a facade for some not so friendly beliefs towards women. I don’t see any evidence where men don’t enjoy the sexual liberations that women do. In fact, it can be argued they are encouraged to enjoy them at a younger age while women are still stifled in that department until we get to the “why don’t you have a baby yet?”  stage of our lives. >

Personally. My central view is to counter the incel like community. Even if they aren't necessarily incels themselves. My view is, I don't care if men are lonely or that women are promiscuous. And I guess I want it changed or understand what the problem people have. Yes I'm very, in this regard, liberal I guess. Have as much sex. Don't shame others. Wanna be conservative? Stay conservative then. Leave the promiscuous people alone. Problem solved. 
I guess I just don't see the problem with men being single. so fucking what. >

Then I absolutely agree. I don’t think it’s a woman/man issue though. I think if you talk about “why do some men feel unacceptable to be single” (and this goes into some aspects of incel ideology where they feel owed sex/women for being nice guys) is that society puts a man worth from a young age on how many “scores” he has. This completely alienates asexual, demisexual or men who just don’t give a fuck about having a partner. Men are afforded more “leisure” in the promiscuity because a) people think men are sex driven more than woman b) it has roots in homophobia/toxic masculinity. That’s why Alfred at 17 still a virgin is seen as a screw up and Alice, a virgin at 17 is seen as a pure maiden who respects herself. Both are the different flavors of toxic masculinity/misogyny.  That’s why I say some of your comments came off as unnecessarily critical of women’s sexuality. There’s a boogeyman in the closet for sure but it isn’t women’s sexual liberation. It’s other men and how society has made these men feel like their worth is measured. >

OK then we agree? 
I don't see how I'm critical. I literally said to just leave women who fuck around alone. >

Yah we agree on the premise of your argument. I don’t agree with how you worded it in a way that is critical of women’s sexuality. >

since its out of scope of the CMv I don't care. I asked where I was critical and you couldn't answer 
I said leave then alone. How is that critical >

But it is. You said in your CMV, that women have an easier time dating and that’s a fact. I don’t believe they statement is true. >

I said even if. >

“I think this fact is no different than saying the sky is blue” your exact next sentence tho >

Statistically women have a large margin of men who would want to date them than the other way round there are lots of studies to show this case in point tinder etc... But I can cute u more studies if u want. >

The issue isn't that women can get dates easier than men, the issue is a growing non-insignificant number of men can't get anywhere full stop. We are talking like 10-20% of young men here. 
That's a massive problem like it could destabilize all of society problem, it could lead to a civil war problem, it could lead to legalizing rape problem. Historically when a critical mass of men have zero reproductive prospects horrible things happen. 
Like if those 20% of men decided to just get together arm themselves and grab and rape women they'd be a stronger military force than my countries (Canada) military and police forces put together >

It's not about the number.. it's about the the capabilities. The Canadian army has more than guns and rifles I'm assuming.
I think the bigger issue is going to be building prisons fast enough to house all of these people. >


It's not about the number.. it's about the the capabilities. The Canadian army has more than guns and rifles I'm assuming.

If the 20% of disenfranchised men decided to arm themselves they'd have more guns and soldiers than the US military and police forces combined. Not to mention the overlap between them and the police/military forces.

I think the bigger issue is going to be building prisons fast enough to house all of these people.

You think imprisoning 10% more of the population is a good solution? >

If they take up arms and are terrorising the rest of the population? Yes.
This doesn't become legal or ok just because there's a lot of them.
ETA: While the 10% of men that are armed and terrorising are busy doing this, is the rest of population just going to chill? Also I think that you're really over estimating the number of people who are willing to fight the army for no return. That many people are not willing to fight when they're hungry and cold, I doubt that they will all take up arms because they can't find a girlfriend. >

You consistently fail to understand what I'm saying and it's getting exhausting. Your premises are so wrong it's infuriating. 
They aren't just going to line up on one side and the military on the other and shoot each other, they won't even be directly engaging in the military, the military is going to be called on them during some sort of protest/riot where they burn everything down. Think BLM only with targets, arms and organization. 
Also again like I said before, the overlap between these men and men in the military is going to be huge, it might just end up being a military coup. 
These people are borderline suicidal they don't have anything to lose that's why you can't just oppress them into submission. >

That would be interesting to watch. The I Can't Get a Girlfriend Riots of 2047. Or maybe it will be called The I Cannot Lose My Virginity Riots of 2047. >

Do you also think the incidents of incels who shoot up elementary schools are interesting to watch? >

No, but everyone agrees that these people are awful. This is very different than "10% of the disenfranchised male population" as you put it organising and behaving like this because they cannot get a girlfriend. Terrible, but yes interesting for sure since it hasn't happened before. I'm sure that you can see the difference. We've seen incels causing violence in ones or pairs, we haven't seen a horde of them >


No, but everyone agrees that these people are awful. This is very different than "10% of the disenfranchised male population"

Sigh, this notion that people are fundamentally good or fundamentally evil needs to stop, if you were in Nazi Germany you'd be a Nazi, if you had blonde hair and blue eyes and were the right age you'd probably a SS soldier. 
It's really not that hard to turn ordinary people into monsters, you think by demonizing those who do anything but wallow in despair will keep the majority at bay but in reality it'll just turn more of them into monsters.

as you put it organising and behaving like this because they cannot get a girlfriend. Terrible, but yes interesting for sure since it hasn't happened before.

It has happened before, tons of times throughout history. Basic bitch murder you and rape your wife/daughters while burning everything to the ground, it's not an uncommon story and I'm not talking about invaders or pillagers either I'm talking about members of the community. It's not an uncommon story when too  many men become disenfranchised. Things will be different this time of course because the world is different but it's the same pattern.
The fact that you'd prefer to have a bloodbath (that you could very well lose) instead of just helping these people before they become monsters is deeply disturbing to me. >

Who said I'd rather have a bloodbath? And who the hell actually types out "Sigh"? 
I don't want you to kill anyone, but how are we supposed to help you if no one wants to have a relationship with you? Seriously? What do you suggest? We can help people with teaching them how to socialise and form bonds better, and how to approach people better, but there will still be people who cannot get a relationship. What is your suggested solution to this, since we don't want incel riots? >

Your post and comments give off a strong vibe of "Why should I give a shit about anyone who isn't me?" 
I think your first issue is that you are misunderstanding what other people are actually advocating for. There isn't a significant group of people anywhere who wants to criminalize promiscuity or slut shame women. There are some incels in the dark corners of the internet, but nobody actually takes them seriously because the other 99% of us know they're insane. You don't have to worry about a future where women are forbidden from sleeping with who they choose - it simply isn't going to happen. 
I say this because your second issue is your lack of empathy for those who are hurt by the current state of affairs. Of course it's hard to be empathetic when you're feeling defensive, and you clearly feel attacked by an imagined mob of people trying to slut shame women, but let it go for a moment and try to see this from the other side. 
Imagine you were, throughout your entire life, completely unable to find a single person, male or female, willing to give you any emotional intimacy, let alone sex. You've been indoctrinated by society into feeling worthless because of this. You're chronically lonely and depressed. You keep going, you try to contribute to the world around you, you try to get or keep a job, you try to be friendly and helpful to others. Despite this, the instant people realize you're struggling with relationships they are quick to brand you as some dirty, creepy neckbeard loser. So you suffer silently and plod along with no friends, no hope, no support, trying not to become increasingly bitter at the world around you for not giving a single shit about your well-being. 
If this person was you, you wouldn't be able to flippantly say "So what? Not my problem." You wouldn't be so dismissive and critical of people who are trying to find a solution. And there are plenty of things that we can do if people care enough to do it: 
(1) We can help teach boys and men to support each other more emotionally so that they won't always seek it from women. In the long term, this relieves some burden from women because they don't have to be the gatekeepers of emotional intimacy anymore. In the short term, it is necessary for women to participate in making this change, since they have the emotional experience and resources. 
(2) We can advocate for men in the heavily female-dominated fields of psychology and social work, just as we already advocate for women in STEM. It is well known that men receive far less support from mental health providers than women. People who don't know anything about mens' struggles like to blame men and assume it's all about "toxic masculinity" and "male ego" making them not seek help. But the reality is that mental health is currently a "by women, for women" enterprise. When most of the research is done by women, most of the therapists are women, and they're catering to a mostly-female customer base, of course the system will not be good at empathizing with men and understanding their troubles enough to help effectively. 
(3) We can support boys and men in education, where they are falling far behind. Women outnumber men in terms of college graduation by a ratio of around 4:3. There is research showing that teachers (who are mostly female, especially in the younger grades) systemically discriminate against male students. When society (mostly women) tells you your entire worth as a person is contingent on career success, and then you are systemically shut out of most opportunities that could lead to a decent career, of course you will be discouraged. 
(4) We can actually listen to these people's concerns and care, instead of jumping to questionable conclusions about their motives and demonizing them for having feelings. 99% of the people who get told,"You aren't entitled to sex" already KNOW they aren't entitled to sex; telling them that is just being a condescending asshole. Again, people act like men choose to not talk about their feelings or problems because of "toxic masculinity" or whatever. But actually it's that when they do talk, they get shouted down, people stop respecting them, they get told they're pathetic, or they're accused of being misogynists or incels. A woman says "I'm lonely" and her friends rush to support and comfort her. A man says "I'm lonely" and women come out of the woodwork just to remind him for the 10,000th time how he isn't entitled to shit and it's not their problem. 
Sorry that was long. TL;DR men need basic compassion and empathy. It's not that hard to give if you actually care. >

Well as an autistic woman who basically has no friends. I understand this still. No one is owed friendship. So I find the whole push for be friends with autistic people stupid. I don't want to be friends with other autistic people. Nor do others have to be friends with me. 
However,
!delta you are the few to actually propose solutions, even if I might not agree with some of your points. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jiyaski (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. 

Aren't they both already "liberated"? >

Not really. For both genders. there is still double standards. I do think incels take it to far and act like there's a significant amount of women who are shallow and only want men who are six feet. However. It is much socially acceptable for women to say "I want a tall handsome man, who make me swoon" then it is for a man to say "I want a thin beautiful woman who is so hot". 
And no, this is not me saying women don't face double standards. that's why I say I like the liberation of women. I like that societies in the west at least are moving towards not slut shaming women. However. There is also a rise in those who do want to slut shame women, all because men can't get what they want >


It is much socially acceptable for women to say "I want a tall handsome man, who make me swoon" then it is for a man to say "I want a thin beautiful woman who is so hot".

I don't know where you live, because where I am it's pretty well understood that hot people are attractive and desirable. People stating that fact is socially acceptable. There's a whole industry selling you images of hotness and means to get hot yourself. 
The worst you'll get for making that type of statement is being called superficial, which wouldn't be inaccurate in itself. >

I think he means that men will be villified more so than 
Women if they state that they like an attribute that a women can't control whereas women can say I want men who are this height etc... You can see it everywhere. >

Is this incel mentality you describe of jealous undersexed men really a common problem?  Outside of niche incel groups?