Is it mean for a "loser" to ask a person out or hit on them?

[thebeardslastcall]

If a person is poor, homeless, unemployed, 30+, and their odds of becoming successful enough to be a stable provider are tenuous at best, is it wrong or mean for them to engage with or hit-on women?

 

What do you think the minimum bar of success is before someone can morally involve themselves with another person when a child is a possible outcome of the potential relationship? What does it take to earn a child, versus merely having one regardless of any potential burden on society?

 

I was pondering the fate of men and women these days and how some reserve themselves or failed to have any children leading to genetic death and others carelessly pursue relationships regardless of their intent or ability to support the children they create and how the lives of the woman and potential children should be considered. Stefan has argued for the lives of the unborn, but how far does that logic of life promotion go?

Curious to hear other people's thoughts and how they judge people who've failed to be successful or not yet found success and their decision to pursue or not pursue relationships with the opposite sex. Should a woman respect a man who doesn't pursue her due to his current deficiencies or just view him as a loser for not even trying and letting her decide, for better or worse?

[Drew.]

Why would it be immoral? It would be voluntary to date the person. It is not necessarily voluntary to be hit on, but I think if you go out in public you have the expectation of interacting with other people, for better or for worse. You're using a lot of "shoulds," and this is definitely in the realm of aesthetics until a child is brought into the equation. So, perhaps it would be mean or unpleasant to be hit on.

 

As for children, to have a child and then not take steps to ensure the child is provided for is immoral. The child is forced into life and incapable of providing for his or herself. The child is the consequence of the parent's actions, much like how a drunk driver is responsible for whoever he or she may harm behind the wheel. To fail to provide is negligent, and I think the child should be rescued in a situation such as that, although that might incentivize people to act irresponsibly, as they will have the consequences of their mistakes whisked away. So, perhaps garnishing wages would help curb that.

[Toys4]

If a person is poor, homeless, unemployed, 30+, and their odds of becoming successful enough to be a stable provider are tenuous at best, is it wrong or mean for them to engage with or hit-on women?

 

What do you think the minimum bar of success is before someone can morally involve themselves with another person when a child is a possible outcome of the potential relationship? What does it take to earn a child, versus merely having one regardless of any potential burden on society?

 

I was pondering the fate of men and women these days and how some reserve themselves or failed to have any children leading to genetic death and others carelessly pursue relationships regardless of their intent or ability to support the children they create and how the lives of the woman and potential children should be considered. Stefan has argued for the lives of the unborn, but how far does that logic of life promotion go?

 

Curious to hear other people's thoughts and how they judge people who've failed to be successful or not yet found success and their decision to pursue or not pursue relationships with the opposite sex. Should a woman respect a man who doesn't pursue her due to his current deficiencies or just view him as a loser for not even trying and letting her decide, for better or worse?

 

 

Mean? I wouldn't say mean.

 

 

I think the only things I can ask are, how much value in their own happiness do they have? Do they think that the hard work that they would have to put in to be a better provider is worth it so that they are able to have what they want in life?

 

Should a woman respect a man who doesn't pursue her due to his current deficiencies or just view him as a loser for not even trying and letting her decide, for better or worse?

 

 

Why should she? Why should someone that doesn't attempt at life be respected? What's respectable about that?

[KeepOnGoing]

If a man can't take care of himself how is he going to take care of a child? People should fix themselves before they get involved in parenthood. Btw. There is a reason why this person is poor, homeless etc. without solving his passed issues there is no way for him to get out from his position. He can date and do whatever he wants but to force his lifestyle on someone else (who has no option to leave) is evil. Btw. Why not to focus on getting out from this situation first? How successful that person should be? Successful enough to feel good about it and to be accepted by potential future partner. Of course it varies among people.

[thebeardslastcall]

Thanks for the feedback. I agree a person should be able to able to take care of themselves before having a child. As a relationship that can turn intimate is the precursor to having a child, I was trying to find the point at which a relationship turns from unproductive, leeching, or one-sided, where the homeless person could drag down the life of the other person, into a relationship that can be mutually beneficial and potentially help lift the person out of poverty towards having a good, healthy, and productive life that can lead to the ability to support a happy relationship and eventually a child. This is the difference between a harmful relationship which enables failure and may create an broken family, and one that has the minimum requirements to lead upwards. Where instead of one person inhibiting the other from happiness or providing only shallow satisfaction, the person can be said to have sufficiently solved their past issues to be able to kindly enter into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. I guess this partially has to do with judging for yourself when you may have crossed this threshold versus just tossing yourself at people to let them decide without pre-screening yourself, as that may be overly judgemental on oneself or as suggested, giving up on life in part, by not trying for a partner and happiness, aside from not working hard enough for self-sufficiency on one's own.

[ClearConscience]

If a person is poor, homeless, unemployed, 30+, and their odds of becoming successful enough to be a stable provider are tenuous at best, is it wrong or mean for them to engage with or hit-on women?

 

What do you think the minimum bar of success is before someone can morally involve themselves with another person when a child is a possible outcome of the potential relationship? What does it take to earn a child, versus merely having one regardless of any potential burden on society?

 

I was pondering the fate of men and women these days and how some reserve themselves or failed to have any children leading to genetic death and others carelessly pursue relationships regardless of their intent or ability to support the children they create and how the lives of the woman and potential children should be considered. Stefan has argued for the lives of the unborn, but how far does that logic of life promotion go?

 

Curious to hear other people's thoughts and how they judge people who've failed to be successful or not yet found success and their decision to pursue or not pursue relationships with the opposite sex. Should a woman respect a man who doesn't pursue her due to his current deficiencies or just view him as a loser for not even trying and letting her decide, for better or worse?

No, because there are plenty of women who are losers too.  I don't like the judgment that's implicit in the question, but if you define what a "loser" is for men, then that same definition applies to many, many women.  And believe it or not, a "loser" male who meets the right "loser" female, can enhance one another in such profound ways that both become winners.  You don't have to be intelligent to succeed in life.  You simply have to produce.  Being productive is about being focused, working for something, or someone, and about sacrifice more than anything else.  The combination of two "losers" can create a serious force to be reckoned with.  No person is lost.  People are a product of their environments more than you would believe.