Similar to how In high school you need 40 hrs of community service to graduate
Edit: ok not ‘enforced’ but there should be some sort of government incentive
Unless, of course, using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction (which is probably the case), in which case going out more could be better than using Tinder for some people.
I am very convinced this would be the case.
I remember reading about a study a while ago about relative attractiveness in heterosexual couples (i.e. how the attractiveness of the man compares to that of the woman). The finding was that there was a strong correlation in relative attractiveness in couples who started dating shortly after meeting, and less of a correlation in couples who knew each other for a long time before dating. Both groups of couples reported similar overall relationship satisfaction.
It makes sense if you think about it: if you get together right after meeting, you probably didn't have much to go on besides the superficial. Things like personality take longer to understand. Tinder is like a distillation of the superficial.
As for the extroverted person , maybe they only go to bars to pickup people for quick lays, they don’t contribute to community like helping build a house or work on community plots of land or help paint a mural etc , it could balance it out
If you want to encourage face to face events then you need to transform urban spaces to be more walkable and create more public spaces people actually want to hang out at. If I go outside I could walk around for hours and the only people I would see are out there for fitness and do not wish to be disturbed by random chats.
Forcing people to do things is never as effective as making people want to do them in the first place.
Can you imagine how your friends would feel if you stole from their wallet to plan a party and told them you would steal some more if they didn't come?
Is their a particular reason you aren't suggesting organizing more events say in your locality and encouraging rather than forcing people to join?
Laws are fundamentally enforced by ya know force. Taxes are enforced by taking your money by force, taking your freedom by force if you disagree strenuously enough, and taking your life if you fail to submit to losing your freedom.
You can't legally force someone to associate with others because we put that in the constitution centuries ago. It's also codified in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Your idea pisses on rights fundamental enough and universal enough that the entire free world agrees they are a good idea.
If it didn't you would still have to deal with people with social anxiety, people with other obligations including unplanned ones.
Would we have to go to the doctor (if we can afford to go to one) to avoid having our medical or mental safety taken from us? Perhaps go to a government office to plead our case for an exemption or excuse for not going to a party within the right time frame.
But the harshest criticism and the must fundamental is that this solution is a solution to a wholly imaginary problem. It's not substantially harder to interact with the feminine half of the species than it ever was.
In fact its always sucked if you didn't have much social status. Its worse to be low status than it is to be ugly or stupid or both.
This isn't new or shocking. If you want a mate find an individual with shared interests and use that to springboard into dating -> relationship -> partnership. If you don't like where you are at improve your position rather than asking society to fix imaginary problems with the dating and mating game.
Opting out would mean I was paying for other peoples parties when I can barely at this point cover medical expenses.
This remains a terrible idea.
