So how do you practically do that? Is there a state run harem for the young men you mention to get a partner? Maybe I just lack imagination but money to spend on outside activities seemed like an OK approach. What do you have in mind?
You don’t need to be that creative to think of ways to do this without getting into “owed sex” trap.
First thing I could think of in sixty seconds: State money can sponsor singles nights with a few free drinks for every person attending courtesy of the government. Pays for responsible security and all the appropriate safety and security.
That’s just a minute thinking, I’m sure a few hours or days work could do much better. And it’s infinitely better than just giving them money directly which will likely not drive the sort of interpersonal behaviour changes they hope to sponsor since money can go directly into the things these people are already doing with their time.
Churches, especially culty ones, have been arranging social events for young adults for ages. It’s easier to expand by getting your membership to have children with each other than by recruiting.
Just because their motives are self centered doesn’t mean that they haven’t dialed in aspects of human nature that can be leveraged for a greater cause.
while weird at first, I am reminded on the agencies focused on matching people with jobs. It's a bit similar I think! Reminds me a bit of the movie "the lobster"
It's also not all that different from dating apps. We currently rely on an external third party to show us our matches, we just assume they're providing us with a complete picture of who is around so it feels less "invasive". Creating similar, but maybe more structured isn't all that far fetched.
Threats another great idea that would be better at achieving their desired goals than just giving them individually money… heavy subsidies for relationship matchmaking services (with appropriate performance metrics and tracking of results) specifically excluding dating sites in order to foster face to face interactions.
It’s got a bias a little bit off the “isolated and not engaging” demographic they are aiming at since people who engage the services of these people tend to be trying to engage… but by heavily subsidising it they may be able to expand the audience for the services and get more of target demographic to make use of the subsidised services.
It's not just money - in the article it says "The measure also offers education, job and health support," and "It also includes an allowance for cultural experiences for teenagers."
This is the key question. "Get them partners" implies passivity on the part of the person who's being "got" a partner, and what about the person who's being "got"? This approach feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of human desire, and essentially a call for something akin to arranged marriages. I absolutely recognise the problem, but this seems like a terrible solution.
Well, the first step would be to get both men and women disconnected from virtual stimuli like porn and social media. Satisfying ones sexual and emotional needs through the screen doesn't seem like a good thing if the goal is to make young men and women get together.
It appears your idea is bias towards and directed more at men. You can't put the "porn genie" into the bottle, as VPN exists. And if they want to go beyond the screen, in South Korea, paying for sex is easy to do and find.
In regards to women, such stimuli is more diffuse, and even harder to disconnect. Women take in TV dramas, "light" sex fantasy books, sexually suggestive social media (that stays below a certain threshold), have a wider array of social networks and interactions, have easier access to sex toys (even innocent looking items), easier access to hidden or one off sexual encounters...
It's arguably not a matter that young men and women can't get together. It's more a matter of expectations, female hypergamy, materialism, social bullying, etc... Those young men are seeking to avoid being uncomfortable and social interactions they don't like or do well in. The overall mindset needs to change, to allow those men to interact with a greater choice of women and to do so more comfortably. Until then, they will just continue to socially withdrawal, VPN porn, or pay for play (including hidden as "massages" and "haircuts").
Smoking wasn't banned. It went away through awareness campaigns, higher taxes and banning it in restaurants. Things like that. Smokers didn't go to jail for smoking. Selling cigarettes wasn't banned.
So you want to ban porn sites and outlaw Hackernews or what concrete examples do you have in mind for "disconnecting from virtual stimuli like porn and social media"
Throw $100K cash every 5 years to a woman who stays married to her partner. Or possibly increase it every 5 years she's married to the same partner. Throw in an extra $100K every 5 years per child until child is 20.
Suddenly, you'll see a lot of women wanting to get married, stay married and have children.
Most problems can be solved with money. Most whining is because old men don't want to spend money to solve the problem.
I do agree that incentivizing marriage, would likely do more. Though not sure in what way would be best. Helping to make women more comfortable with staying home and raising children, might increase birth rates, but to what extent is unknown.
It might already be too late, unless something wildly drastic is done. Materialism has taken a strong hold in many societies, where significant numbers of people rather live a certain lifestyle than be burdened with raising kids.
Singapore's is pretty unsuccessful - back when it was called SDU, it was jokingly referenced as "Single, Desperate, and Ugly", and these were well educated women. I doubt hikikomori would place well.
So how do you practically do that? Is there a state run harem for the young men you mention to get a partner? Maybe I just lack imagination but money to spend on outside activities seemed like an OK approach. What do you have in mind?