ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2018
- Speaker
Jordan Peterson
what is “polyamory”?
The word polyamory is based on the Greek and Latin for “many loves” (literally, poly many + amor love). A polyamorous person is someone who has or is open to having more than one romantic relationship at a time, with the knowledge and consent of all their partners.
A polyamorous relationship is a romantic relationship where the people in the relationship agree that it’s okay for everyone to be open to or have other romantic partners. Polyamory is the idea or practice of being polyamorous or having polyamorous relationships.
Jordan Peterson Links:
Website: jordanbpeterson.com/
Patreon: / jordanbpeterson
Self Authoring Program: selfauthoring.com/
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 치키타 직캠 4K 'LIKE THAT' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.6.13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h99J4vWm7Ew/mqdefault.jpg)
It destroyed my marriage. I know this by experience. Biggest mistake of my life. Totally destroyed me..
Same. Going through it right now. She wants poly, and I don't.
Why?
I'm sorry to hear that. But probably you both weren't prepared for that. Polyamory is not easy, and it is certainly NOT the way to fix existing problems. I'd probably reconsider if polyamory was the cause of your destroyed marriage, or if it was actually something that was already there...
Eitherway, hope you all the best and things to get better soon.
@@DiegoTelizExisting issues, sure, but something like poly could break a relationship that might've been fixable. Just like long distance or something similar could.
Shure buddy, it totally was poly love, nothing to do with the kind of people you both were . . . . .
Notice that he is one of the wisest thinkers out there and he still waited some time before answering the question.
If only everyone could think before they talk.
@@avivastudios2311 The problem is he thought about it and still gave the wrong answer, Oh, and sex is or at least can be casual if two people want it to be. I have had a load of great casual sex. And had no desire for any deep meaningful relationship with the other person involved, I just wanted to get rid of a load, and nothing matterted but that at the time. Even our cousins have casual sex if they can keep the alpha male busy with something else fgor a while, so it's in our genes so to speak.
@@jerrylong6238 I find it so sad that we just use people for sex and then forget about them.
Is it really just our genes?
@@avivastudios2311 your implying both people want to be in a relationship, and both can be used if they both consent to it. I dont think it is sad to have sex with someone if that want to do with another person for plessure, consently.
@@topgunmaster666 That's an opinion and we can agree to disagree. However, we do have information/data about the consequences of too much casual sex. One of them being that it it becomes harder to pair bond.
3:37 I knew that meme since high school, but didn't expect Peterson to recite it, of all things 😂...
Polyamory=/=Polygamy=/=orgies
Lmao
Yep
I can't find anyone to be willing to commit to date and put in basic effort without any addictions to porn or sex let alone find the potential father of my children
One thing, what about disease is another thing is somebody can’t respect you and you’re just one of their many pieces of property then what good is it disgraceful
I think that polygamy and polyamory both share a fundamental problem. That having multiple partners isn't necessary or even desirable. When your partner wants to engage in polyamory what that are effectively communicating is that "you aren't enough for me" and instead of telling your partner what you want you go search for it elsewhere.
Edit: Deleted what was said cause I don’t wanna argue. No, Poly relationships are not that simple. Yes, some people use it as an excuse to simply sleep or date other people without cheating. Actually, that is more an open relationship. Poly relationships should be where all parties actually love each other equally. So it may not be for you, but realize that there are some people that genuinely can function in a poly relationship. If you really want to understand a poly relationship, do research. Or try your best to.
Exactly. It's greed and lust really
@@skeleton1_goose8 a lover and friends are not the same, to be more exact, a lover is actually the people who you love the most among them and keep them special from the others.
Edit: Deleted, cause I don’t want to start more arguments. Again, if you wanna understand poly relationships (because like everything, it isn’t that simple) do research.
@@skeleton1_goose8 Well the difference in opinion might lie in the definition of 'love' here. How do you define love as? A feeling? A set of activities? A motivation? A set of criteria that is fulfilled with a partner, or the certain traits of that partner? Is it a desire for self benefit or the benefit of others or both? The whole argument between polygamy or polyamory or whatever and monogamy is caused by the muddled and vague definition of 'love'
Beautiful thank you
I recommed a conversation with Ester Perel on this topic.
Link?
I think being in a true polyamorous situation requires a great amount of emotional fortitude and maturity. I'm on the fence if I condone it, however, I have truly enjoyed the company of many women. I kept it respectful and intimate; but most women truly want more... it's deficult to be fair to all and to oneself. JP has a good video on Marriage when the appeal of sex diminishes... struggling with someone I love dearly but I still desire variation in intimacy... lack of maturity, perhaps. At 62 what can one do??
I wonder if Dr. Peterson ever revisits or sees any of the comments or points made on his videos and considers them further within the context of his processing. While I am a fan of his work and philosophy on many points, I do strongly disagree with this statement, as it absolutely is focused through a lens of polygamy, not polyamory, which are 2 VERY different, and unrelated concepts on 2 opposing spectrums. The only common thread is the prefix "poly"....however that does NOT make them the same, or even related in terms of ethos. I would challenge Dr. Peterson to speak with and interview some established polyamorous humans, and to do some further research into the defining principles of polyamory/ENM. As much as I admire the guy, he got this one all the way wrong....wrong definitions, wrong ethos. He was asked a question about polyamory, and gave an answer about polygamy, and I can't help but call him out on that.
To his credit, the answer he GAVE about polygamy was fundamentally correct, but it's not what he was asked about.
What's the difference?
Precisely
He's even wrong on the part about polygamy. He describes closed, patriarchal polygamous relationships. So it's not even a answer to that.
"leaking to mind ... Good old Freud!" Loool Peterson be like 🤪🤪
This a personal opinion from a famous intelligent person proving that intelligent people often appear to mistake there opinion for truth he is also not describing polyamory at all !
he's speaking of polygamy not polyamory. he's said these exact words in the past specifically in a speech about polygamy. then he began speaking of free-love and dissolved into hedonism. so I've yet to hear Peterson explicitly speak about polyamory.
@@impurekeeper7857 polygamy and polyamory can blend but they can also not even touch. They are not one in the same.
@@impurekeeper7857 violence? That is part of the jealousy and ownership equation. Ownership is part of the polygamy equation its part of what defines polygamy. Ownership is not inherently part of the polyamory equation.
@@impurekeeper7857 Jealousy is a healthy emotion. But it is also easily mismanaged. This is true regardless if your monogamous. I agree with you on a lot of what you have just stated. Though you have begun to speak about hedonism and free-love. Not polyamory.
@@impurekeeper7857 and no. Pretending jealousy isn't there is no way to manage it.
@@toyjacktheoslockart9472 Having a systematic organized polyamorous "relationship" falls under the same reasoning of arguing against non-monogamy. I understand that sharing a supposed partner with others and being in a "throuple" (or whatever equivalent term according to the number of people in the group) are different, but they have just as destructive outcomes. In fact, a "throuple" (+) makes things even more destructive because if three+ people were all having sex with each other (together or pairing off), nobody would end up being fully attached to anyone and yet you are trying to feign a dynamic in which you are. That makes it even worse, not better, which I thought was implied so I didn't think I had to specifically point polyamory out amongst the general category of non-monogamy it falls into.
TLDR: Whatever type of food it is, you can't have it an eat it too.
Also ftr I didn't say pretending jealousy isn't there is a good way to manage it. I said the opposite, actually. The way I worded that sentence was grammatically tricky so I went back and edited it to make it more clear.
He's using the logical fallcy of Moving The Goalpost as an approximately manipulative tactic. His premise to argue from and to is according to the framing "polyamory" like explained in the caption. Though what he describes in the first minutes is polygyny (a man having multiple female partners) and then polygamy (people "sleeping around"), not polyamory. One could argue, you can equal these terms but that's not true, due to the love of polyamory changing the "casualty" aspects Peterson claims of sex. Therefore, he changes the context (moving the goalpost) of the subject he wants to argue about, therefore discussing inconsistently. Besides, speaking of circumstances not necessarily implied in polyamory itself is also distorting the circumstances to argue from, e.g. "think about the children." (who are not a "must-have" for a romantic relationship).
If I can meet them one good man that has no one that wants one person know that might be different and we can respect each other but until then I won’t have no trust. I’ve been through enough in my life oh, abusive, ex husband I will never put myself through that again if I thought there was one nice guy out here yes but they’re probably under a rock somewhere. Thank you you hit it right on the nail high gray. Besides, if someone can’t respect you what good are they? That means they can’t respect yourself you deserve the best.
He completely ignores women who want to be with multiple men.
Tho what he says could be applied to women too..
I think that's because they're a minority
We call them sluts
This is generally quite rare.
you are too dumb. there is the same moral class for the women too...
I disagree. His opinion is coming from a very narrow perception of what intimate relationships can be. Whether he is conscious of it or not. He is basing his opinion on this subject,, on the subliminal conditioning that we have all gone through. As it relates to religion, social expectations, cultural traditions, movies, and TV shows. He is unaware of it obviously. Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s a highly intelligent man. But he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to ethical non-monogamy and polyamory. Although he stands up very well when he’s speaking about many other social issues. He is out of his out of his specialty on this particular subject. He has completely missed the mark when it comes to the reasons why people are ethical non-monogamous/polyamorous. Or why polyamory/ethical non-monogamy would be healthy for our society. It should be obvious to even the most amateur observer that monogamy is it natural to the human species. Just look at the divorce rates that are based on infidelity. How many relationships have people been and where they’re being cheated on. If people were ethical and honest about their sexual desires, upfront,, they might be less infidelity. How many people get married because of the pressure of their religion, families, culture,, only to marry someone that cheats on him, is actually gay, has very little factual experience, or had the opportunity to explore their sexuality. Only to be in marriages that are sexless. Sometimes for decades. Cheating happens when people break agreements. So I highly suggest that people do not enter intimate relationships without being crystal clear about their sexual desires. Polyamory/ethical non-monogamy is a way to customize your intimate relationship. Anyway you choose. Even legal marriage is a made up ideology concept. Just because people choose to love multiple people,, does it make them flooding anyway. If anything, it makes them understand if they are able to have the freedom to love as many people as they choose. Or engage in sexual activity as consenting adults,, as much as they choose. What consensual adults do sexually,, is no business of anyone else’s. I’m not saying that being polyamorous/ethically nonmonogamous is easy. It takes one working on their own jealousy, issues, control issues, possessiveness issues, ownership issues, abandonment issues,. But this is the kind of work that we should all be doing on ourselves. Regardless to what relationship styles we choose to live by. You could have deep, loving, romantic, and committed intimate relationship with multiple people simultaneously. Of course I suggest quality over quantity. Scheduling can be a nightmare. So only do with your bandwidth can handle. The more quality love in one’s life,, the better.
Nah bro, you're the one who got JP wrong. He knows fully well about the limitation of old traditions and rituals from our archaic culture and religion, including religion. He argues that too much freedom is paralyzing and that the best way to live is to set some limitations to us, even some arbitrary ones. Where monogamy lies between arbitrary and deliberation is up to debate, although I think we can all agree it leans closer to the latter. Marriage is culture oppressing you, both man and woman, to be stuck with each other forever, like shackles. But JP is arguing that maybe that's not only necessary but also desirable.
Again, the main source of conflict and confusion here, I think, is our different definitions of love. JP thinks that humanity is abhorent and cringe-worthy yet has the potential for beauty and admiration beyond imagination, and that monogamous love and marriage is a tried an true way, biologically and historically speaking, of bringing out that potential with the least misery and problems and the quickest, doesn't mean it's easy though, even if you're hard working and honest. Like JP said, it's the BEST solution, not THE solution, he is speaking from pragmatism and not just some naive and perhaps archaic romanticism.
And to your argument, what do you mean 'love', Is it a motivation? A feeling? A set of activities? Across what timespan? What are the benefits and costs of those activities, to whom? A set of criteria that is fulfilled by your partner? Where did that criteria come from, and what does it fulfill?
Any skeptic, even an amateur, could argue that polygamous is simply motivated by chasing after freedom and the expansion of choice (freedom to have kiss and have sex with anyone, etc) that benefits only oneself, in other words, it's entirely egotistic. You kiss certain people that you deem fit because it makes you feel good, but what makes you so sure that EVERYONE in ALL PARTIES will receive the exact same degree of good-feeling? How will you make sure no feelings of envy, jealousy, and resentment will arise from that inequality (which will inevitably rise as a flower from a seed)? If there are no rules, no limits, and ultimate freedom, you have to regulate that even distribution yourself, and good luck with that. We made the arbitrary limitation of 1 partner for each person for a reason, because it's too hard to deal with so much freedom. This argument is under the basis not of 'love', that vague blanket of a word, but of pragmatism and lust, accounting also for the unconscious nature of man that will bring its own problems of its own accord.
TL;DR = You haven't defined love, across time spans and space, and have only refered to it as something fleeting and based on whim, which is not at all what JP thinks love is. Your source of conflict with him regarding this topic is in this difference of definition of love, or more rather your lacking of a clear definition of love across space and time.
@@makennapainter3200 yeah, what you said basically xD
U r dumb
If he would have been narrow minded u would have been Jordan Peterson that's my answer
He needs to think this through and come back with a more nuanced verdict. Polyamory doesn't involve only men with multiple partners for instance.
Exactly, and it's very difficult these days who want to be completely fulfilled in a relationship. The part obout depriving the other party of a wholesome relationship does resonate, however. Seldom are both parties 100% satisfied in casual flings; one usually desires more.
He is talking about polygamy when talking about one wife. There's nothing in the world wrong with polyamory as long as it's consenting adults. But Peterson is showing his Christianity by wanting everyone else to do as he says because his god can't be wrong. Marriage is just a Government controlled lifelong affair. If I can get more than one girl in bed with me more power to me. It's no one else's business. If he's a one-woman man, I'll take care of his other two. But if he thinks that's less meaningful for me, he has a right to his opinion.
sure, you totally ignored his arguments and inserted your own opinions of what he is supposedly thinking. Have a good one
@Werewolf you forget the women in this scenario have their own agency. If 4 women desire another man instead of you, it's not that man's fault. He is not "hoarding" women. It's because you suck in comparison and those women would rather be with someone they actually like. Hope that clears things up.
Black pilled and high IQ
Strange, he doesn't come across as black pilled, maybe red pilled?
4:30
Totally agree on each point. Plus, it's downright gross. Who wants to be sharing fluids with multiple people? It's just gross.
There's a thing called safe sex since you don't know how many people your partner has been with prior or during your relationship with them. People that are poly are usually more responsible than monogamous people when it comes to practicing safe sex.
@@jayjay1443 Condoms and regular testing is a good idea and communication with your partner is a key part of being Poly
@@jayjay1443 It's against the nature of the soul to share your human body, which houses your soul, with more than one person outside of marriage. It doesn't feel good. Deep down, people sense it's wrong. It's hedonistic.
@@holyspiritasmr3682 According to your narrow, very conservative Christian worldview, sure. The problem is we don't live in a theocracy and not everyone is a Christian or agrees with your beliefs. Most people don't think it's "gross", and even people who might, don't try to impose their views on everyone else. Also, you do realize how crappy a track record traditional "monogamous" marriage has, right? I place monogamous in quotes because a significant percentage of these people identify as monogamous, yet are covertly and deceptively nonmonogamous as they cheat on their spouses instead of being honest about natural human desires.
@@holyspiritasmr3682 Also, can you define what a soul is? Can you demonstrate that it even exists? Demonstrate human consciousness absent a living brain. I'll wait. I can promise you,I am not going to live my life based on the absurd concept of sin or your claims about the nature of our alleged soul and where it's housed. I'm an atheist, and I'm going to live my one and only short life in a way that fulfills me and the people I care about.
Human beings cannot love each other equally in multiple relationships because it can never be on a deep emotional level.
Polyamory believes that it promotes trust as all partners are agreeing, but this is just an excuse to have sex with multiple people and feel exempt from criticism.
You can only truly love one person completely. It's exhausting to love more than one individual on a deep emotional level and I don't think it can ever be sustainable. You can't truly and genuinely give your whole self to more than one person. In my opinion. There's a big difference between loving your friend and loving people you're intimate with. We can all love each other on different levels but you can't love multiple people equally on an intimate and profoundly deep emotional level. We just don't have that kind of energy long term.
With the way gender roles are inverting (unfortunately) I'd like to hear more about the scenerio where a woman is sharing multiple men.
Dont try and get strangers to talk to you about your kink without them realizing it, just go read literortica like everybody else
@@comradezach8516 it's not a personal interest of mine, but it's relevant to the conversation since that's what I see being pushed in some circles. In my view it's unhealthy and a recipe for resentment and disaster. I think that people (women specifically) are being lied to and polyamory is viewed as fashionable at the moment. Having a complete understanding of why it's not good is a what my comment was about.
To answer my own question though, I don't think polyamory or women sharing multiple men is the standard baseline for humans. When looking at data from dating apps it becomes clear that without "enforced monogamy" as JBP would say, that the sexual market place trends towards polygamy because of women's hypergamous imperatives (?).
@@kylewlewis I almost feel sorry for you but wow this is fucking gross. You should go to therapy.
@@kylewlewis honestly this just feels like a self report that nobody wants to date or have sex with you 🤣 yeah I'm sure it's all women with the problem, not you.
@@comradezach8516 Haha interesting take. Enjoy your trolling
I met a girl 7 months ago we have been just lately seating to even flirt, haven’t had any psycal contact of any kind other than me squeezing her cheeks. I am on vacation and my old life and old chicks are after me. I was undecided to thru with that or not but now I know what to do ty
I am really afraid that your perspective will ultimately end in imposing monogamy by law and it may even lead to prohibiting divorce. Not by you, but by people who you feed with your ideas and beliefs. This will lead to a society with less personal freedom.
Don't you think monogamy should be and remain within the realm of free personal choice?
It already is imposed by law
Smooth brain
He is describing Polygamy and not Polyamory.
I think he's speaking to polygamy. Very different from Polyamory.
I was thinking about this, but I’m not entirely sure he is. On dating apps you have the Pareto principle in action - 80% of the women tend to fancy the top 20% of the men. In a polygamous society, where there are no barriers, or stigma, around polyamory, it could be argued the Pareto principle would appear. The barriers of monogamy would be removed, so why wouldn’t it? This would then engender similar, although not identical, problems that polygyny gives rise to - 80% of the men competing for 20% of the women. Removing the monogamous barriers is unlikely to change attraction, but to allow access to those men found most attractive by women. And a similar sex-ratio in a polygynous society may be likely to occur in polygamous societies. I have no evidence to back this up and it is just a theory.
how? I see no difference
@@SK-ib5hi well for starters, they both have roots in two entirely different foundational principles.
Polygamy is rooted in patriarchy.
Polyamory is rooted in feminism.
That's just one of many differences that make these two relationship types not the same.
By his logic, women owe shitty, undesirable men their love and commitment simply because the men will "get up to no good" otherwise. I don't want a man who is some sort of problem when he's single. We don't owe those men shit.
Funny how Peterson is a free market capitalist in every sense except when it applies to relationships. What a clown.
@@BlackandPoly So? Just cause they come from different places, I still don't see how their end position is any different because of so. It's just people who want to add more people to their previously monogamous relationship, no? How could the motivations be different/divided?
The Quran Al-Nisaa’ 4:1
وَءَاتُوا۟ ٱلْيَتَمَىٰٓ أَمْوَلَهُمْ ۖ وَلَا تَتَبَدَّلُوا۟ ٱلْخَبِيثَ بِٱلطَّيِّبِ ۖ وَلَا تَأْكُلُوٓا۟ أَمْوَلَهُمْ إِلَىٰٓ أَمْوَلِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ حُوبًۭا كَبِيرًۭا
Muhammad Asad:
O MANKIND! Be conscious of your Sustainer, who has created you out of one living entity, and out of it created its mate, and out of the two spread abroad a multitude of men and women. And remain conscious of God, in whose name you demand [your rights] from one another, and of these ties of kinship. Verily, God is ever watchful over you
The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab:
O humanity! Be mindful of your Lord Who created you from a single soul, and from it He created its mate, and through both He spread countless men and women. And be mindful of Allah-in Whose Name you appeal to one another-and ˹honour˺ family ties. Surely Allah is ever Watchful over you.
Safi Kaskas:
People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you out of a single soul, and out of it created its mate, and out of the two spread countless men and women. Remain mindful of God, in whose name you make requests of one another and beware of severing ties of kinship. God is always watching over you.
The Study Quran:
O mankind! Reverence your Lord, Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate, and from the two has spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Reverence God, through Whom you demand your rights of one another, and family relations. Truly God is a Watcher over you.
The Study Quran Commentary:
That God created human beings from a single soul is also mentioned in 6:98; 7:189; 31:28; 39:6; the creation of its mate therefrom is also mentioned in 7:189; 39:6. Elsewhere, God’s having made for human beings “mates from among themselves” or “in pairs” is considered a Divine gift for which humanity should be grateful and in awe (16:72; 30:21; 35:11; 42:11; 78:8). The present verse indicates a progression in human creation from singularity (a single soul, reflecting the singularity of God), to duality (its mate), to multiplicity (a multitude of men and women). The single soul is widely understood to refer to Adam, and its mate to Eve (Ḥawwāʾ). Although soul (nafs) is grammatically feminine and mate (zawj) is grammatically masculine, this does not necessarily make the correlation to Adam and Eve, respectively, problematic for most commentators (Q, R, Ṭ, Ṭs). The interweaving of masculine and feminine references suggests a reciprocity of the masculine and feminine in human relations and marriage, which is also implied in other verses (cf. 2:187; 30:21).
Commentators typically understand this verse as a reference to the story of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib as found in Genesis 2:21-23 (IK, Q, Ṭ, Z), although some modern commentators are skeptical of this association, feeling it relies too heavily on the Biblical tradition. The story of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib is referenced in the canonical Ḥadīth, but the Quran nowhere explicitly recounts Eve’s creation. And from it (minhā) created its mate may simply mean that the mate (Eve) was created of the same nature as the original single soul (Adam), since to be “of/from another” (min anfus) can mean to be of the same type or character (R; cf. 3:164; 9:128; 16:72). The fifth Shiite Imam, Muhammad al-Bāqir (d. ca. 114/732), reportedly said that Eve was created from the same superior clay as Adam (Ṭs). The statement regarding humanity’s common origin from a single soul and its mate could also be meant to engender brotherly and sisterly love between all human beings and to discourage boasting about one’s ancestral legacy, as all human beings are ultimately of common parentage (IK, R, Ṭ, Ṭs).
Reverence God, through Whom you demand your rights of one another, and family relations may be related to the pre-Islamic Arab practice of swearing upon “God and family relations.” However, most favor the view that this passage instructs men to reverence God through obedience to His commands and to reverence family relations by maintaining good relations with family members. Family relations translates arḥām; the singular is raḥim, the primary meaning of which is “womb,” derived from the same root as raḥmah, meaning “mercy,” and the Divine Name al-Raḥmān, “the Compassionate.” A ḥadīth states, “The Compassionate (Al-Raḥmān) created the womb (al-raḥim), and whoever maintains ties to it, God will maintain ties to him, and whoever cuts himself off from it, God cuts Himself off from him.” Elsewhere, the imperative to worship God is paired with commands to be good to family (4:36; 17:23; 47:22; R). The first part of this verse indicates the kinship of all human beings, as they are created from the same soul and mate, while the latter part commands reverence for one’s relatives. Taken together, they suggest a Divine imperative to recognize one’s responsibility to all human beings as one’s “brothers and sisters.”
Al-Nisaa’ 4:2
وَءَاتُوا۟ ٱلْيَتَمَىٰٓ أَمْوَلَهُمْ ۖ وَلَا تَتَبَدَّلُوا۟ ٱلْخَبِيثَ بِٱلطَّيِّبِ ۖ وَلَا تَأْكُلُوٓا۟ أَمْوَلَهُمْ إِلَىٰٓ أَمْوَلِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ حُوبًۭا كَبِيرًۭا
Muhammad Asad:
Hence, render unto the orphans their possessions, and do not substitute bad things [of your own] for the good things [that belong to them], and do not consume their possessions together with your own: this, verily, is a great crime
The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab:
Give orphans their wealth ˹when they reach maturity˺, and do not exchange your worthless possessions for their valuables, nor cheat them by mixing their wealth with your own. For this would indeed be a great sin.
Safi Kaskas:
Give orphans their property, so do not replace [their] good things with bad, and do not intentionally mix their property into your own to consume it [for yourself]. This is a great sin.
The Study Quran:
Give orphans their property, and exchange not the bad for the good, nor consume their property with your own. Truly that would be a great sin.
Al-Nisaa’ 4:3
Safi Kaskas
If you fear that you will not be fair to the orphans, then you may marry two, three, or four, from among the orphans' mothers, if they seem good to you. However, if you fear that you may not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then marry only one or from those whom your right hands held in trust. This will make it more likely that you do not deviate from the right course.
The Study Quran
If you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, or four; but if you fear that you will not deal justly, then only one, or those whom your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that you will not commit injustice
Al-Nisaa’ 4:129
Muhammad Asad
And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it; and so, do not allow yourselves to incline towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her in a state, as it were, of having and not having a husband. But if you put things to rights and are conscious of Him - behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace
The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab:
You will never be able to maintain ˹emotional˺ justice between your wives-no matter how keen you are. So do not totally incline towards one leaving the other in suspense. And if you do what is right and are mindful ˹of Allah˺, surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Safi Kaskas:
You will never be able to treat your wives with equal fairness, regardless of how much you desire to do so. Do not allow yourself to incline more towards one and exclude the other, potentially leaving her dangling [between marriage and divorce) If you make amends and remain mindful of God, He's most forgiving and Merciful-to-all.
Dr. Kamal Omar:
And it is certain you will not be capable that you may establish perfect equality amongst women (in your wedlock) even if you ardently desired. So do not incline (with) full inclination (to one of them, and) as a result, you leave her (i.e. the other) as a discarded one. And if you reform and correct (your behaviour with your wives) and pay obedience (to The Book), then surely Allah is Oft-Forgiving, continuously Merciful
Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali:
And you will never be able to do justice between (your) wives, (Literally: women) even if you are (so) eager; yet do not incline away completely (Literally: incline away all inclining) (from one), so that you leave her (behind) as if she were suspended. And in case you (do) righteousness and are pious (to Allah), then surely Allah has been Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful
The Study Quran:
You will not be able to deal fairly between women, even if it is your ardent desire, but do not turn away from one altogether, so that you leave her as if suspended. If you come to an accord and are reverent, truly God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The Study Quran Commentary:
...The Quran elsewhere demands that a woman be released in full after divorce or widowhood, freeing her to pursue marriage elsewhere without restriction (see 2:229-31; 4:19 and commentary). In connection with this verse, some commentators cite a ḥadīth that says, “Whosoever has two wives, and inclines toward one of them and away from the other, will come on the Day of Resurrection leaning to one side” (IK, Ṭ, Z). The verse ends by reiterating the importance of an accord made with an attitude of reverence, indicating that it will engender God’s forgiveness for such human shortcomings.
I can't believe people really think this could actually be a good idea
He's so off on this one, doesn't understand the concept of polyamory
hi my name is sonia, i m from sept-iles quebec, relationships are very fucked up here, women tries to fix up there husband s with maitresses, it s gross, example jess lab and hugo sauliner bergeron, it s more than fucked up
jess i want my bank card, desjardins if u still have a joint account with hugo, financial i have money to bring everybody down.
i will say: lmao
monogamy makes men violent. not polyamory.
OK buddy
Tell that to the guy that killed the child of one of the other guys that are all in a "relationship" with the same girl.
I’ll just say I’ve been married 25 years. The first 15 were monogamous last Non. All I can say is we have a fantastic group of Lifestyle friends. All long term married, great families, professionals in their careers. We do vanilla things together and on occasion do Lifestyle things. We also travel together and it’s great. No one is poly and no one has compromised there home. But I have to say that 1. No one cheats to my knowledge, 2. There is NO shortage of professional, family oriented, successful people in the Lifestyle and 3. Our marriage is considerably better because of communication, honesty, and because it allows for the fact that yes you want to have that person you grow old with and yes you want great kids and a career. But the excitement of new people and new adventures sexual or otherwise keeps you young and makes life worth living
I'm not polyamorous, but it is my understanding that polyamory is not merely about SEX. It is about having multiple LOVE partners, people with which you have real, loving relationships (along with sex, if desired). People with which you are willing to have conscious, mutual intimacy with. Intimacy does not equal sexuality. It means being vulnerable, open, and close with someone in a very deep and real way. At least, that was how polyamory was explained to me. Perhaps it is different in practice than in theory, as many things are 😉
Oh, and he only addresses MEN with multiple love partners. But what about women with multiple love partners? And what if all the men AND women in these polyamorous relationships have multiple love partners?
That without sex is friendship.
@@Arlene_witha_y Yes, but if you add sex into the equation WITHOUT friendship and love, that's just casual sex without any depth, which is what he seemed to refer to I think...
And any one person with multiple lovers must realize that those lovers also have multiple lovers, so that no one person is getting all the benefits.
love? good one lmao
He is talking about polygamy and NOT polyamory. And I'm for sure against polygamy where women are not allowed to have other partners too, which is not morally OK, and then his arguments are right.
But I'm polyamorous and it's the opposite about violence and toxic jealousy, there is less of it in polyamory versus monogamy. So he doesn't know what he is talking about... If you wanna know what's polyamory's about, go listen to people who lives it for the sake of understanding, as I listen to monogamous people to get what their thinking is.
Before having convictions against something, you need to know your subject and it's not by listening to people who thinks exactly like you that you can do that. Please listen to all kinds of ideas before making your own mind, don't just follow one guy...
All of these problems he's speaking about only happen in countries that treat women as less than equal or within religions that treat women as less than equal.
he has 3 brain cells
In other words: Monogamy is sexual socialism 😊.
Wow. 👏👏👏
It’s basically relationship gluttony
It seems like he looks at women as a commodity 😂 And to some of his conclusions it seems like he has to jump through several hoops and have preset opinions about things 🤔
You can talk about social consequences without commoditizing people. Women are fairly adaptable to availability of mates. He is careful not to speak from the female perspective, but I can say that he's right about the depth of the relationship. Most women I know would be more satisfied with a full relationship with someone over a piece of someone they saw as some sort of transient ideal.
“It depends. If I am to speak ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now.” - Woodrow Wilson
You can take his entire argument and change the word “men” with “women” and “women” with “men,” and it won’t change the argument he is presenting. So what you are saying is we all are a commodity. Not sure why you think this jake.
I don’t think Jordan has done what he does best. Research. Do some and then speak on polyamory. I don’t believe at its truth it is misaligned with his values.
I'm pro polygany not hording wives and concubines. Especially in that world wide disperportion of males to female's. Being in the world totality there are more women then men. Also as utility in that some men have an abundance of wealth which can be distributed in a familial way. I also consider race relations in my assessments. Yet ultimately I consider the society at large and from a biblical world view. That being that we are at the end of days. Though progany is still a factor. Some of the grounds are less applicable. Unless one is thinking beyond the Apocalypse into the 1000 years reign of Christ.
go back to your prorno sites....
Shockingly ridiculous. The word "wrong" should NEVER be associated with consensual non-monogamy. He might as well be preaching directly from the bible. Maybe Peterson should consult one of the many sex-positive therapists out there - not to have his 'opinion' changed, but to pry his archaic mind open. Jesus!!!
For all those who disagree with me, check yourself at the gate before replying. The sign above this gate says 'No Shaming Zone'. There are many ways to live one's sexual (intimate) life. You do you, I'll do me. How about that?
polyamory is for inclusivity and monogay is for exclusion. There you have your answer. Jordan although have a lot to say about other things, he's clueless to polyamory and its beauty.
I have experienced polyamory in all its shapes and forms. Its mostly painful. I lost my marriage practicing polyamory. I see it first hand in the poly communities, very unhappy people. Relationships being destroyed.
There's a reason our hundred-year old culture made the hassle of creating the institution of marriage, AKA the act of culture oppressing and limiting you, both man or woman, to be stuck with only one intimate partner and no more. It's because it's the best chance we got at having kind of intimate relationship. Those who think polyamory/polyamory is good are young and immature people who haven't seen the consequences bite back or are too stupid/blind to see that it already has and that it can be linked back to polygamy or polyamory or what-fucking-ever.
Sorry i find this biased, same argument applied to pay gap, one could argue that economic inequalities contribute to more violent societies.
Yeah, Not polyamory, very much seems to be talking exclusively of polygamy.
Also only talks about it in heteronormative terms which misses many dimensions of the topic...
Doesn’t seem to understand the word casual In the context.
Plus he seems to think that we don’t already have a swarm of violent men who feel they are owed a woman or two...
I really can’t agree with any of his arguments here
Poly & love ftw =D
Almost every car has a seat belt and we made cars safer and people still die in car accidents..those things doesn´t seem to work, so let´s get rid of them - that´s how your arguemnt about "swarm of violent men" sounds to me..tho I agree, there already is a swarm of violent men..tho the question is why is that and could polyamory and other stuff make it worse..bcs it could, idk
Polyamory and Polygamy are so close that I think it doesn´t matter what he talks about specifically..he talks about non-monogamous realationships and the problems that could arise..it´s funny how you distance yourself from what he says, bcs you say: "well, he talks about polygamy, so it doesn´t include me" sure
@@stuart2777 your seat belt thing makes no sense to me. He stated “polyamory is bad, it makes men violent” ...well the extreme prevalence of violent men in our almost exclusively monogamous world would potentially hint that polyamory is not a driving force of violence.
We are familiar with what makes men violent in these contexts and polyamory would not in and of itself In any foreseeable way cause this to worsen.
On the other hand we have seen the link of overly strict adherence to “the deepening connection” of monogamy.
When we saw the decrease in domestic violence, female suicide and murder of women by their partners in the years following laws making it easier to seek divorce. (See link at bottom)
However, I do not just say monogamy is “wrong” in and of itself like some people, monogamy is fine for some.
But again, My main issue with this video is that he does not accurately address polyamory. Polyamory is the idea that everyone knows what “love” is for them and gets to express that with consent and choice. Polygamy is the idea that men are allowed to collect women like objects and women are allowed no choices at all beyond which harem to sign up to.
Polygamy has a history in religion and the exploitation of women and children that an honest person should not be able to just ignore.
These are tangibly different which any self respecting researcher would heed, for example his stupid math game at the beginning (“one man would end up with many, other men would end up with none”) is only mathematically given, under polygamy, not polyamory; where women and non binary people are free to make as many connections as the desire and consent to.
Yes, I support polyamory and not polygamy, the same way I hope you support consensual sex but no sexual assault. It’s all about consent.
And I find it horrifying that you can’t see the difference here, either you have some serious baggage, or you just haven’t actually researched these topics. I can’t blame you, Jordan certainly didn’t either.
Thanks for your comment.
(www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence)
@@lewisfitzsimmons1271 Have you seen the rate of polyandry to polygyny? Polyandry is extremely rare. Women are much less likely to want multiple partners, so you will see an imbalance in sex-ratio between males and females in polyamorous societies. Although there are far greater problems with polygyny, polyamory doesn’t come out of it looking like the ideal. There is a different psychology between the sexes: men are much more visual re attraction and women more attracted to status and stability. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: status and stability are traits involved in the success of rearing and protecting offspring. It’s probably not fashionable to say all of this in the current climate, but the hard numbers tend to speak for themselves. It’s worth taking a look at some of the anthropological studies on this. Anyway, that’s my 2 pence worth. Have a good day!
@@martyspandex you seem to be taking for granted many many many variables in your conclusion, that women’s sexual partner interest would be the same in some “different” “polyamorous society”, I find it unlikely that you can be so confident in that assumption.
Also, assuming we are not talking under the ‘stipulation of marriage’ (where it is regularly illegal - maybe one of those factors you ignored?) then I do not care if polyandry is nonexistent, homosexual people have polyamorous relationships and they definitely exist, so even if we don’t count polyandry (the prevalence of which I would also challenge you on) I would still argue that Peterson is misconstruing the subject. Ignoring wide swaths of people living polyamory while claiming that he isn’t and naming his video “Peterson on Polyamory”
If he wanted to do a video on “polygyny” and just discuss that? Then fuckin fine, go for it, but that wasn’t the question here and it’s not the video he put up, is it?
Also, you say “polyamory” doesn’t come out of it looking the ideal”. Yes. Obviously, if you looked at my previous comments you couldn’t have missed that I say numerous times that poly is not the ideal, and that monogamy is the ideal for some, there is no such thing as the “ideal” arrangement of bodies in a loving relationship and that is never something I claimed.
Also, it’s got nothing to do with whether what you’re saying is “fashionable” it’s just out of date and too narrow. You reference evolutionary psychology as if we are just any other animal, ignoring any field or theory that deals with variables from within the last 10,000 years.
(Was the “fashionable” comment meant to show you are against political correctness or something? =S)
I don’t know if the last part of your comment was meant to sound as insulting as it came across, I’m gonna choose to believe it was sincere, but either way, seeing as I am a long term polyamorous individual who works professionally in evolutionary biology, maybe don’t assume that me or whoever you are engaging with over the internet hasn’t familiarised themselves with the research in this area.
Because I most certainly have, and so i am firmly aware that “hard numbers” never really “speak for themselves” and while I appreciate what you are saying, it just feels like you have missed immense regions important to human sexual and romantic bonding.
Anyway, thanks for your comment, cheers.
@@lewisfitzsimmons1271 Not sure why my whole message isn't sending...
He's clearly a narcissist. He's the type that doesn't mind women sharing him, and they all don't know about one another, as long as the women that are sharing him don't have anything else going on. Because if you're not Poly then you're sneakin' and freakin'
what are you even talking about lol
Nice projection. Where'd you get it from? Your dad? Or perhaps the lacking of a dad?
lol the king of incels
How sad to think that love is something to be limited
Al-Nisaa’ 4:129
Muhammad Asad
And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it; and so, do not allow yourselves to incline towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her in a state, as it were, of having and not having a husband. But if you put things to rights and are conscious of Him - behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace
The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab:
You will never be able to maintain ˹emotional˺ justice between your wives-no matter how keen you are. So do not totally incline towards one leaving the other in suspense. And if you do what is right and are mindful ˹of Allah˺, surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Safi Kaskas:
You will never be able to treat your wives with equal fairness, regardless of how much you desire to do so. Do not allow yourself to incline more towards one and exclude the other, potentially leaving her dangling [between marriage and divorce) If you make amends and remain mindful of God, He's most forgiving and Merciful-to-all.
Dr. Kamal Omar:
And it is certain you will not be capable that you may establish perfect equality amongst women (in your wedlock) even if you ardently desired. So do not incline (with) full inclination (to one of them, and) as a result, you leave her (i.e. the other) as a discarded one. And if you reform and correct (your behaviour with your wives) and pay obedience (to The Book), then surely Allah is Oft-Forgiving, continuously Merciful
Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali:
And you will never be able to do justice between (your) wives, (Literally: women) even if you are (so) eager; yet do not incline away completely (Literally: incline away all inclining) (from one), so that you leave her (behind) as if she were suspended. And in case you (do) righteousness and are pious (to Allah), then surely Allah has been Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful
The Study Quran:
You will not be able to deal fairly between women, even if it is your ardent desire, but do not turn away from one altogether, so that you leave her as if suspended. If you come to an accord and are reverent, truly God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The Study Quran Commentary:
...The Quran elsewhere demands that a woman be released in full after divorce or widowhood, freeing her to pursue marriage elsewhere without restriction (see 2:229-31; 4:19 and commentary). In connection with this verse, some commentators cite a ḥadīth that says, “Whosoever has two wives, and inclines toward one of them and away from the other, will come on the Day of Resurrection leaning to one side” (IK, Ṭ, Z). The verse ends by reiterating the importance of an accord made with an attitude of reverence, indicating that it will engender God’s forgiveness for such human shortcomings.