Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

Then please explain what he meant. What is his definition of 'enforced monogamy' ? What are the common elements and the differences between 'enforced monogamy' and regular monogamy according to his , in verbatim, definition of course ?

 

What a disgusting and uncalled for comment. And the fact that She-D liked it tells me everything I need to know about her too.

You can't pretend to be some kind of noble peacekeeper one second, and then turn around and say this the next.

 

Ikr, is like, first step of trying to build a logical chart, get the premises right....

Again, it's not obvious to me that it's the case when people engage in the behaviours they do nowadays, where they change their partners almost as often as they change their underwear, like, you don't cheat someone if you don't even get into a serious relationship with them to begin with, that's the loophole, and when polyamorous and polygamy is becoming more accepted in comparison with like...20 years ago.

And again, to point out the flawed premises, not only the premise of enforced monogamy = monogamy is flawed, but I, personally, think that the premise of enforced monogamy = solution to the existance of incels, is flawed and false, at least that's how I see it at first glance.

 

Then what is the change JP advocates for and which may concretise his solution of 'enforced monogamy' ? Using his own words, in verbatim of course. Anything that isn't already in place under the current norm of regular monogamy ?

 

Another one of these? I observed that TakingTheSteps and She-Dernatinus have the same type of personality and both love to argue with one another and other people with different opinions on the internet. Just please take care of yourselves, both of you. It's not worth getting riled up on the internet. Also, can either one of you guys stop using alternate accounts to instigate fights? Not going to waste my time reading 6 pages of arguments.

 

she posted her picture and what is really unsettling is that she looks a lot like me, to the point if we stood next to one another I'll be asked if I was related to her.

 

I haven't seen him elaborate on it, so I cannot quote anything, but I suspect that it may something to do with a moral reprehension on continuous short term sporadic "relationships" if you can even call them that, framing them just as morally reprehensible as adultery is for example, in contraposition with giving high value to compromise and looking out for a stable long term relationship.

But that's entirely my assumption, I haven't see him elaborate on that, so I don't know, and even then, I would not agree is a solution to the said problem, if we take the assumption that there is a problem to begin with, that is also not entirely obvious to me there is one.

 

Everything he gave up as definition of 'enforced monogamy' simply puts it in juxtaposition to polygamy, which means it is on the same level of regular monogamy, according to him at least.

 

It is the culture, that enforces it! It is the general perception of acceptable behavior in the eyes of the people, and let me explain what this means precisely by using an example from my own life: I had a girlfriend at 21, we were together for 6 months, I broke up, one month later got another girlfriend, together for 4 months, broke up, single for a year, multiple affairs in that time. My peer group considered this to be acceptable and desirable behavior, which is in line with what most people in western Europe today would do.
Where exactly do our cultures reward monogamy? Our laws, yes, but not our cultures, which means I don't feel any pressure to stick to one girl, which means I pick all the flowers, while some poor bastards get left lonely and alone without a partner, because high value guys like me are the primary target, why not, I'm not in a relationship, so I am available. Leaves them frustrated, because I always leave, leaves the guys frustrated, because they don't get a chance. THAT'S what he was talking about.

Statistically speaking, we have more people in my country than ever before, but we only have 2/3 of the marriages of the 1960s. This is what matters, not what is legally possible, but what is factually happening in the real world.

Here is something on this by Jordan Peterson:
Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Maybe just listen to what he actually says?

 

It's not HIS definition, it is the definition that is generally accepted in the scientific literature, it's a term that comes from anthropology, why do you not understand this?!

 

Thank you. I don't understand why this is so difficult for some people to get. Enforced monogamy just means living in a culture where it is not socially acceptable to be unfaithful, polygamous, or polyamorous. It's not hard at all to see that our culture is going in the complete opposite direction of enforced monogamy.

And by the way, I had literally never even heard of this term "enforced monogamy" until I watched that video of Peterson talking about it with Joe Rogan. So idk why it's so hard for people to understand. It made perfect sense to me just from that one video.

 

Locked this thread until it has been processed for moderation.