Remember that "mental health" is inseparable from "society", in that the categories of "mental illness" are constructed based on some idea of "normal within society" (to those who doubt this: how else could we go so quickly from "homosexuality is a disease" to "homosexuality is perfectly normal"? The values of society changed and the DSM changed to reflect that. This is simply the nature of "mental illness", there is no recourse to a more [although not completely] universal notion of biological health like with physical illness. Plenty of philosophers and psychologists like Thomas Szasz and Michel Foucault, himself a gay man, have written about this at length).

If society's "normal" (which tends to include a "healthy sex life" or at least a supportive social community) becomes impossible for many to achieve, the question for many is no longer "maybe something is wrong with me?" and becomes "maybe society is the problem?"

No, it's more like "this society doesn't really work for me, to hell with it!" Basically, the most dangerous people are those with nothing to gain by remaining lawful and nothing to lose by becoming criminals.

> Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We should probably handle that.

Other than generalized chemical castration I don't see how you could eliminate the "problem" of most of the male population unfulfilled sex drive. For all its problems and unfairness, patriarchal society provides an answer to that problem, if an ugly one.

> Other than generalized chemical castration I don't see how you could eliminate the "problem" of most of the male population unfulfilled sex drive.

Traditional solution of the past was to lure them in the army and let them die in some foreign country.

At the risk of sounding cold... anything that causes the mortality rate of men in this high risk category to rise significantly would likely reduce the overall problem. For example, making the choice of suicide readily available for young men that face poo life prospects, and the choice of ending your own life for the better of society a virtue, perhaps even heroic.

Whether enough people would see such a thing as acceptable for it to become policy is an entirely different issue.

Why would anyone want to raise a son in a society like that?

I don't imagine that it would be drastically different then raising a son today and here; the odds would still be excellent for a son to grow up an be successful.

Mind if I ask what you had in mind to make you think that such a situation would dissuade someone from raising a son?

Same reason there's a social financial safety net, no? Just boiled down to the most crude phrasing.

A bit different than using some of America's extremely, extremely extravagant wealth for the poorest in the nation compared to forcing people to hitch up and support a kid for ~18 years just in case a man gets angry.

No, this is literally why European nations have vast social safety nets with giant wealth transfers: social peace.

Oh got it, you're one of those people who's unable to reason about the way things work without becoming overcome with emotion and desperately cramming the conversation into a simple-minded framework of "who's to blame so we can get mad at them".

I'm not really interested in that kind of conversation, thanks though!

It's because I don't believe you have any actual evidence, and even if you did, you'd end up arguing that a lack of relationships could explain someone becoming a danger to society. That alone is difficult to argue since they could have issues parallel that could have caused it.

No one's making a threat. But any sociologist will tell you that if you put people in an awful situation, you'll sometimes drive awful behavior.